The investor case -- I mean, it depends on how much of an investor you were, and what the relevant rules are. But if anybody could become an investor in the company, then it's obviously not a real barrier... giving it to every investor would be like giving it to everyone, which they obviously wouldn't want to do.

The shut-down case: well, maybe you feel they don't have a reason not to tell you internal info for a dead company, but the general hesitation would still be there, and I don't see what they would gain from it either. Hardly seems like evidence for hiding information.

> My question to you is: why would you ever trust a claim without evidence (especially when the people making that claim stand to personally profit from it)?

"Ever"? I mean, it's a case-by-case thing. I might do it if the evidence isn't available to me, and the opposite might imply believing there's a large-scale conspiracy to lie. Or I might not. The lack of someone telling an outsider internal information is not really strong evidence either way.

I think everything you're saying is reasonable, but I think we just have to agree to disagree since there is no evidence either way.