LOL...you asked, so here is my take:
1) Spriggs - It is my opinion that Spriggs would have had to have
known of the condition of the patents. Did he have a duty to say
something? Well, in my opinion, yes, he did have a duty, and
that duty was breached. Anyone who knew Arcon didn't hold the
patents had an obligation to make that fact known. Where I think
people are missing the boat is that they are not making the
separation between Midland and Arcon. It is difficult, I know,
because for so long they (Fisher & Co) wanted us to think of the
two companies as one, but since the acquisition was never
finalized, they never were "one", so they must be addressed
distinctly.
2) Did the Midland Board have an obligation to correct Fisher's
PR? To me, it is perfectly believable that the Arcon people
"snowed" the Midland people. In other words, it seems reasonable
that the Midland people would have had no way of knowing that he
was defrauding until it was done. How were they to know that it
was false? He was telling them the same stuff he was telling all
of us. You cannot hold someone responsible for not telling
something they were not expected to know in the first place.
Once Gary went to the Board with evidence that Fisher was not on
the up and up, they acted immediately. The only problem was,
Fisher had already fled. So, the Board went to Spriggs, told him
to put up audited assets, or shut up, and for whatever reason, he
couldn't. So, the deal was rescinded, action against Fisher
initiated, and here we all are.
In that perspective, I agree 100% with Gary's assesment that the Board of Midland acted appropriately. Fisher, Spriggs, and the rest of the Arcon people, however, are quite a different story.
:-)
Binder |
