Geze, Rudy, you answered your own objection-:) >looking at every piece of crap company that makes the news and ask if it's a fit with Cistron< I think that's the fit that Walter saw-:)
With its corporate headcount in the single digits, CIST doesn't have the capability to manage another company with which it might merge. As I see it, Cistron can: 1) make a success of its business by further licensing its patents. 2) sell the company 3) liquidate the company.
As long as they work on becoming a success, they'll be paying a CEO. For those who don't think this alternative is worthwhile, please realistically consider the other alternatives. Such consideration answers the question of who wants Grausz' shares: investors might want his voting clout to push for sale/liquidation. Having filed bankruptcy, Grausz is probably restricted from disposing his shares, but should still be able to vote them.
As to being profitable on earnings from cash-and-equivalents, the company could be more so if they liquidated and had a bank trust department invest the money and send shareholders a dividend on earnings. This would require no employees, equipment, nor premises. My preference would not be to do so, but to simply send a liquidation dividend, following disposal of the patent rights and other assets.
|
