|Looks like its about time to re-invigorate the conversation here.|
Things have been drifting, very uncomfortably, for quite some time... increasing the risks that the clock, paired with the lack of proper effort, is being used as a tool to reduce (or transfer) value that by right should be attached to the shares... or to otherwise manage others risks in ways that might harm shareholders.
It is obvious... well beyond obvious... that MOST shareholders, if not all, have lost confidence in the existing management, and are ready to enable change. I think that's not a particularly divisive statement, at this point, given (as I'd predicted) no obvious difference in results now from postured (pretended?) "changes" being implemented in the management game of musical chairs, and thus no point left now in anyone choosing sides while buying into any of the "Scott versus Dan" meme... which seems it mostly operates as a distraction from what the focus should be. Tweedledum or Tweedledee ? No thanks. I prefer proven leadership... sustaining a proper focus... with proper effort being applied... and a transparent process enabling it.
The conflict that exists, to the degree it is real, rather than mutually beneficial for the presumed protagonists to sustain, is merely additional evidence of the need for changes... plural. They, plural, are the existing management who've provided no reason at all for shareholders to sustain any confidence in their ability to advance the project... and they have provided many, and a still increasing number, of reasons for expecting only the opposite from them.
That a management suspended in conflict has ground all progress to a halt... is not a reason to surrender to any change they float... without asking some hard questions.
It appears that the existing management have essentially abandoned their interest, or have postured the risk that they will (which is a threat to the listing)... and, they have taken action that could be interpreted as abandoning their responsibilities... putting shareholders at even greater risk. They appear to have shifted their efforts (and perhaps, some of our resources ?) to prosecuting other opportunities... and perhaps have taken action against the shareholders interest, intending to secure their own interests (the Otto leases, the NSR ?) thus perhaps irrevocably divorcing their interests from those of shareholders. They certainly have disengaged from making full proper efforts in advancing the projects... even to the point of their effort preventing rather than enabling progress.
In any case, that's resulted, now, in their apparently accepting that they'll have to hand the project off to others in order to enable any future progress to occur. That denouement entrains risks for shareholders which requires our being circumspect in addressing them... not simply accepting whatever it is that is floated.
All of the current rumor mongering says they're focused on 'fixing' the problems, for us (?), by introducing new leadership. That leaves many unanswered questions: First, IF that's really likely to happen, or is going to happen soon. And, then: How is it going to happen, if it is. The entire who, what, where, when, why and how... and to what end... of it... however that's being addressed... all still, in essence, boils down to a need for considering the nature of the risks that will attach, and who they'll attach to, and, of course, the nature of the TERMS that will apply... within that already existing context.
Shareholders are a part of that already existing context... and, obviously, we'll have an interest in the terms...
Shareholders, obviously, don't have any interest in trying to disrupt efforts that would enable positive change... but, neither do shareholders have any interest in facilitating any excesses or in surrendering to "takings"... rather than insisting on wholly proper efforts by fiduciaries.
There appears to be little to no interest I've seen (outside of management) in poisoning wells, or in acting precipitously in stirring pots that we can't see the insides of, or doing something just for the sake of doing it, without being able to determine the effects that those choices might have... leaving the options seemingly being either doing nothing, and hoping for the best, or opting to act, with a fairly high level of uncertainty attaching to any decision to act.
Not acting is a harder choice, given growing evidence that existing management carries risks... including self interest in drivers that require they may not be well and properly focused on the primary need for acting as proper fiduciaries. The problems associated with that... for shareholders... appear they are all functions of risks that are being generated for shareholders (and perhaps others) by the existing management... leaving a situation in which there has to be a growing concern that any deal being negotiated with a design to enable a transition to new leadership... is going to be a deal in which the terms are being driven by management's self interest in risk avoidance... and not by their properly prioritizing concern with their obligations as fiduciaries.
While shareholders are silent... that also leaves risks others will have to parse in relation to their silence.
I think that makes it worth exploring what shareholders might be able to do, while acting in their own self interest, that will tend to lower the risks... without surrendering to the risk of "takings"... without generating incorrect expectations about the nature of shareholders interest... and without risking "mucking things up".
Naturally, given recent history... its hard for shareholders to trust existing management are working to benefit shareholders rather than to benefit themselves at the shareholders expense. It's also not useful to blunder in to restructuring any ongoing negotiation, with that occurring in a way that requires management and shareholders will be competing with each other, lowering the bar in terms, while trying to shift the risks and costs at the others expense.
I still think its possible that shareholders might play a constructive role... helping to smooth the path for the transitions that must occur... while making it clearer than it seems it is now that they're not unaware of the problems, incapable of addressing them, or unaware of the risks others have generated for themselves, or that shareholders are uninterested in participating constructively... while quietly requiring that proper corrections will be applied where that is made necessary.
There's going to be a need for a shareholders meeting... and, that raises a couple of questions about optimizing the timing of and structuring the conduct of that effort, that must occur in any case, to ensure it best enables the most positive outcome (for shareholders)... which, perhaps, means there are questions about timing that effort that the shareholders can help to answer ?
With or without change pending... shareholders also have a clear interest in presenting a number of direct demands of current management as a part of requiring a meeting to occur.
There's a still unmet need for a full and proper accounting of the Nio-star assets, and other SRSR assets. We should demand that be provided, and that the company provide full transparency on how that accounting has been conducted, and who (and when) has been granted access to that information, which most shareholders have not seen, and how they have used it. I'm not expecting to demand money be spent generating any new accounting, but require that the already existing information, which only some few have seen, must be made available to all.
In parallel, we need a full accounting for any "promises" that have been made, that might be seen to obligate the company in ways that we've not agreed to allow.
There's a need for far greater transparency in decisions related to the transfers of leases and the NSR... where it appears there may have been non-arms length transactions done, or deals in which the self interest of insiders was allowed to outweigh a proper concern with fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders.
Existing management seem they have generated a number of significant new risks for themselves, recently... the existence of which are now problems for them, for shareholders, and for any future management.
I prefer those risks be obviated... both as risks to shareholders, and as obstacles posing risks to progress.
We're going to need to organize... will need to count up our shares... and will need to hire an attorney...
And, then, perhaps we need to vote on a change of management first... before negotiating any deals ?