Robert,
<<How would that be fair to someone who owned only QDSS?>>
You need to read the "Risk Factors" in the Proxy Statement dated June 16. Lots of things which appear "unfair" are itemized there, beginning on page ten. Indeed, in bold letters, they state: "You will remain stockholders of one company, and, therefore, financial effects on one group could adversely affect the other." Indeed, they say, "The assets we attribute to one group could be subject to the liabilities of the other group, whether such liabiliteis arise from lawsuits, contracts or indebtedness that we attribute to the other group." And more in that vein, including (again in bold, p. 11), "Stock ownership could cause directors and officers to favor one group over the other", the two groups could conceivably compete against each other, and the QHDD group could end up either having to do something against its interests or being blocked from doing something in its interest, since it has half the voting rights of QDSS (or QDSS could possibly be vetoed about something that is in its interest). So the two gropus had better get along.
There is more to the tracking stock proposal than initially meets the eye. It seems apparent to me that QDSS is being groomed to be a star, while QHDD is being thrown the dregs.
That said, it is still a good idea, from the point of view of holders of QNTM stock. The sum of the two will far greater than the price of QNTM by itself, however. It may be less of a good idea a couple of years down the road, and one or the other could be sold or spun off in one form or another, and, indeed, almost certainly will be, IMO. |
