|
John: better clean that floor...by the way, i agree with you more than you know...I just don't feel the need to put my two cents in on every issue. To summarize on the major issues, (1) I disagree that Sid is to blame for Ledoux's original capitulation. (2) I do not know enough about what Sid is doing now with regard to Ledoux to assign blame, but if he is doing little or nothing (and essentially taking a "wait and see" approach), then I do not approve of that. (3) If Ledoux refuses to stand behind its certified results, then I absolutely think litigation is called for by Naxos (and individual shareholders, assuming we can bring a claim (which I doubt)). I bought additional shares in reliance on their certified results. I know a lot of other shareholders did too. (4) I do not agree that we could have hired a top-notch CEO based on the information we had from Ledoux (before the capitulation). In fact, you were telling me, in private messages, that we needed verification, even when I was saying that Ledoux's reputation was enough to rely on. Was I wrong on that issue? I guess so. But if you were right, and we did need verification from other labs before we had "proof," then it follows, therefore, that a legitimate CEO candidate also would have wanted to see verification ("proof") from other labs before coming on board. |
