Hi brk - I am taking no side [except mine :)] here. However, if NJ left instead of H, I couldn't see how he could run the INSP side of INSP. I disagree your premise that S is there. Precisely it is b/c S didn't want to move to Seattle that has led to this situation. So, again, you are left with half of a disjoined whole.
But you are right, chances are H has signed something of a noncompeting clause in nature at the time of merger, but I cannot see how H can challenge J in [the orignal] INSP core biz anyway. And chances are a repeat of GNET from scratch has the moment in time.
On surface, J is the heavy here. It may even be true. I simply do not think this is the good-vs-evil thing. And my previous post simply points to the possibility that if J lost to H, then H could be protrayed as the heavy, until J started his new biz, and H ran INSP would sue the new biz etc etc. In the end, outside shareholders like us are getting the brunt of it. Since I would be losing value in my investment anyway, why would I want to be anyone's footsoldier unless I knew clearly what has transpired. And even if I knew clearly what has transpired, I might still be unclear who had the moral high ground. So, the best thing is to stay out of it :)
best, Bosco |
