I'm confused as to the rationale that would allow a vote at this stage.

With talk of voter manipulation, assertions of misappropriation of funds, one founder apparently prepared to bring a lawsuit against the other (i.e. Imed vs Ton Bi), and some investors prepared to bring this in front of European boards... I don't see (ethically/logically/etc...) how this could be left to a vote. Any sort of vote that extends this further will very likely succeed in expanding the size of the mess.

It's also worth noting that Imed has apparently published a copy of what appears to be a legal request for a prosecutor to take action against whom I presume to be Yanni. The legal request apparently alleges property theft, identity theft, and fraudulent bank accounts. Given that these are not minor allegations... decision about a vote should not hinge upon Yanni's involvement or lack thereof until such a time where he's cleared legally. My estimate is that investors would prefer not to wait for the duration of time this would take.

With the scale & pace at which government is being invited into this I could see it expanding to the point of legally ensnaring everyone (including escrows). It's been my impression that investors aren't liking the idea of having liquidity tied up in this for years while the only progress being made is to the financial benefit of lawyers. It's not even a matter of regret investing where absurd demands are being made by the investors either. Most appear happy to take their 60% haircut and move on.

That... and if a vote would win any kind of legitimate (e.g not manipulated) majority... then the founders should not be concerned by the idea of a refund. Any legitimate majority in their favor would happily reinvest after a refund proper.