James,
I certainly understand that families own business, and sometimes multiple businesses. My family is no different in that aspect. What makes this situation different from most families businesses is that most families do not put out news releases announcing "deals" between their companies and then ask then invite the general public to invest their money in them based on these "deals", without ever mentioning the common ownership.
You may not have a problem with that, but I sure do, and I'll bet others do too.
Taken from the "Yahoo" site:
Floyd Wilkenson, CEO of Eutro, aquires a new client, Freedom Medical Holding Group, whose owner is Floyd Wilkenson--himself. Floyd of Freedom requires the expertise of Floyd of Eutro because Floyd of Freedom wants to IPO his company and lacks the expertise. But since they are the same Floyd, then Floyd of Freedom must have the required expertise and doesn't really need Eutro's help. It would seem to be an unnecessary expense. One of the two companies appears irelevant. Further, Floyd of Freedom operates a holding company, much as the one owned by Floyd of Eutro. Floyd of Freedom aquires a promising new company, Liberty Diagnostics, which is owned by Floyd Wilkenson. Himself. Floyd of Freedom pays for this aquisition with cash, stock, or some other tangibles. But, since he owns both, he pays himself. Now, Floyd of Freedom needs to pay Floyd of Eutro for IPO expertise that he already possesses, but doesn't possess or he wouldn't be stupid enough to hire Eutro. He pays for this in Freedom stock. Is this not wasteful? Wouldn't it make more sense to dispense with Freedom Medical and an extra layer of management (not to mention office space) and just have Eutro aquire Liberty directly? Same goes for Bio/Cypro. Floyd is buying from himself or selling to himself. How is Eutro (and Eutro shareholders) gaining anything tangible from what are really in-house aquisitions? Imagine Coca-Cola announcing to its shareholders that it just raised the shares authorization in order to pay for a new aquisition: Coca-Cola bottling. Where is the value-added in what appears to be a shell-game?
What I see are wasteful layers of management and some expensive and unnecessary "aquisitions".
AND:
"...and Floyd of Freedom are the same Floyd, how can Eutro management be honest when they say they don't know the IPO status of Freedom Medical Holding Group? Especially since the registered agents/transfer agents who handle all these companies are closely involved in various Eutro affiliates? And, since all these Floyds knew that, when Freedom's IPO was supposedly imminent, Freedom had really been dissolved by the State of Florida, weren't they IPO'ing a non-existent company? This occured in October, when a few prominent SI posters gave glowing reports on the IPO status of Freedom Medical--information they claimed came from Eutro management itself. The fact that Freedom was dissolved at this critical time suggests that:
1) Eutro misrepresented the facts, which is illegal
2) The posters in question deliberately posted
false information, which I believe is hyping.
Hyping is illegal.
3) There are a bunch of incompetent boobs in
control of my investment. That scares me." |
