Your post, and the G&M article reveal some interesting information.
First, the MMC has some very capable people at the helm. Their obvious interest in - and commitment to - Dimethaid's potential gives heart to investors who favour management change. After years of disappointment and frustration, it's good to see the value of the investment affirmed - or, reaffirmed - by players such as these.
"If the proxy challenge is successful, he (Dan Chicoine) plans to resign from his current position as vice-president of finance and corporate development for Magna International Inc.'s Cosma Group.
Other proposed nominees for the dissident slate of directors are:
Jeffrey Chisholm, a former vice chairman, personal and commercial client group, for Bank of Montreal.
David Copeland, a former chief financial officer of Magna.
Anthony Dobranowski, vice-chairman of Tesma International Inc., a member of the Magna group of companies.
Joe Heffernan, chairman of Rothmans Inc. and Clairvest Group Inc.
Jacques Messier, a former CEO of generic drug maker Novopharm Ltd.
Klaus von Lindeiner, a German business executive and nominee of Friedrich Kuhne, who sold Oxo Chemie AG to Dimethaid several years ago and holds an estimated 8-per-cent stake in Dimethaid."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second, there's a discrepancy between the management's story, and the MMC's.
"The dissidents counter that they were given two days to raise money and had obtained conditional financing commitments, subject to due diligence. "We couldn't commit to anything because we didn't have access to the company's records," Mr. Chicoine said."
After years of hearing doublespeak from Markham, after many statements that turned out not to mean what we thought they meant, many investors have no confidence in management's statements, here. Dan Chicoine's statement rings true: it indicates traditional Markham tactics.
The details about the MMC's financing will appear eventually. It would be interesting to know what the terms were. Perhaps the financing offered by the MMC was a better deal for investors than RK's. Perhaps the the financiers were prepared to hold their shares, instead of shorting them immediately. If so, why wouldn't RK allow the MMC to give the company a better deal?
Apparently, because the MMC financiers needed to know certain things about the status quo at Dimethaid before they could proceeed. According to the article, Dimethaid management refused to allow access to the information, and compounded the refusal by giving the MMC a short 2 days to come up with the money.
In other words, Dimethaid management said Nothing is negotiable. We want x million dollars, we want it now, and no, we won't answer any questions. Shut up and give us the money
Then, they turned around and issued a press release saying the MMC was asked "to offer evidence that it could raise sufficient capital for the company. As of the deadline, the group was unable to demonstrate such ability."
We'll see about that. Based on management's past record, IMO there's little reason to believe in their statements, or their motives. YMMV.
Jim |
