RE:RE:RE:RE:Do we have a legitimate complait?Fiduciary obligations to preferred sharehodlers are normally limited to the terms of the preferred contract. In particular, when there is a conflict between the interests of common vs preferred shareholders over an issue not addressed in the preferred contract, US courts have favored the rights of the common (I assume the same applies in Canada, but I don't have an example to prove it).
I think Stetson preferred would have a valid claim only if there were evidence that the company had failed to diligently prosecute the case or intentionally delayed receipt of an agreed payment until after 12/31. I don't think there's any evidence of either.