Sure, we not only have to worry about who will be managing the new company, but who will have controlling interests in it. -- I hope Par gets out of both.
I am confused by all these machinations, and can only assume that the very reason for their complexity is to confuse the little guy. Why did the Credit Suisse agreement have about 100 different conversion clauses to it, depending on various trailing prices, if Osicom wanted to buy back the pfd. or not, maximum percentage of stock that they could own, the time of day, phase of moon, etc.?
Why couldn't they just make it convertible at ONE fixed price, say $8/share? Since no one knows what the stock's price will be on a given date, how do they make up such deals? Can anyone explain the assumptions that went into each clause?
Likewise, why give the current shareholders rights, instead of shares? I see I'm not the only one complaining; many on SI and Yahoo feel the way I do.
If they want to increase shareholder value, there is one very simple way: Par Chadha must go. Now! That's one press release that wouldn't be ignored by Wall Street. |
