Dan,
good to see you are still around. As I urged several months ago, we must all vote no in order to save this company. The company must be allowed to generate profits, and cash. It needs time for this. They are close to break even on a cash basis. They are projected to go positive eventually, but this is irrelevant since they have no credibility with anyone in terms of their so called profit stream. The product just appears to be too difficult to make.
The point is that they face bankruptcy either way, and so they have nothing to lose, if they can't make money. The best tactic is delay and wait for a better operational picture t oemerge, in which case, they can swap the existing preferred for better financing (under threat of putting the company in bankruptcy, and limiting the amount received by the pfd holders).
They need the negotiating leverage of a no vote in order to get the best negotiatied deal.
I did the math a long time ago. Now that we know that an abstention is a NO, we can say that some 38/58 is the old shareholders (the 58 could be wrong, but do your own math). Anyway, because of the above described provision, and assuming approvals from the pfd holders, then there is still a possibility some old holders will vote yes (and only a few {somewhere between 10% and 20% of all holders, back of the envelope} are needed to tip the balance). |
