PitBull,
One of the problems, as demonstrated in the message exMAfa posted from the committee, is that the committee continues to tell people that things are going well. That seems to be all that the participants are hearing, so those apparent few people who do consistently make the required payments every month continue to do so based on their trust that the committee is telling the truth. However, the term "going well" is subjective. The committee seems to hope that by sending out something, anything, that hard questions won't be asked.
However, as pointed out earlier their seems to be either (a) a huge funding discrepancy; ( b ) a huge discrepancy in the the number of people who intend to be plaintiffs as opposed to the number of people who were named as plaintiffs in the original complaint; or ( c) both. It is disturbing that the committee seems to be sequestered when these issues finally come to light.
Ignoring the issues does not make them go away.
As has been pointed out earlier, if 130 people (there were, IIRC, 133 people listed as plaintiffs on the complaint) are making regular, timely payments, as of June there should be over $50,000 raised so far? The committee just reported that they reached $25,000 which is about half of where funding should be. It was interesting to me that the committee spun the $25,000 milestone as a positive thing. They do not mention to the plaintiffs that the effort is severely underfunded.
Remember those Enron employees? They were told things were going well before the bottom fell out and they continued to invest money without asking questions. They put their trust in people who turned out not to be trustworthy based on their hope that those in control were being truthful!
One of the clear responsibilities of the committee, and the chair of the committee in particular, is to keep the plaintiffs apprised of significant case developments in an unbiased manner. When the attorney was called into court to explain the discrepancy in the number of plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit as compared to the number of signed retainer agreements received, nothing was mentioned -- not even a positive spin! Just that the case is at a standstill.
The begging questions here are:
1. Once and for all, how many signed retainers are in the hands of the committee and/or attorney?
2. If there is a significantly less number of signed retainers than there are originally listed plaintiffs, does the attorney still want to take the case, and if so, will monthly payments be going up and by how much?
3. Where is the funding discrepancy? Are some people simply behind in their payments and, if so, what is being done to get people current? or are people dropping out of the suit?
It seems to me that a small number of plaintiffs are making their payments blindly, with their trust in the committee. The committee, however, is doing a disservice to people by using the "going well" line when that might not true. I hardly think being funded at 50% is a good thing... if the active, paying participants knew this, it might cause some of them to reconsider their involvement! I suspect that is why nothing is said!