In Bracy's letter filed yesterday, he said he disagreed with the company's characterization of the events which led to his resignation.
Looking over last Friday's filing, the company's letter is dispassionate. The only statements that IMO could have bothered Bracy were:
"Mr. Bracy did not attend the meeting." (on Aug 5), and "During the meeting the Board voted to reduce the number of Board members from 8 to 5. Mr. Bracy voted against the reduction."
In his follow-up, Mr. Bracy counters that he wasn't able to attend via conference call because he was in China and received insufficient notice to set up the call.
This hardly seem sufficient, IMO, to warrant the scathing letter Bracy then wrote, which was filed yesterday. All he had to do was clarify why he wasn't able to attend the Aug 5 meeting.
Since he had earlier expressed a desire to remain on the board while highlighting his valuable skills, his 180 degree turn in the final letter speaks volumes to me as to his pettiness and vindictiveness.
Finally, regarding the valuable skills he says he brought to the company, I guess tact wasn't one of them.
Since Bracy's letter is again a topic of discussion, I found this post of mine from Aug, 2012, and bumped it.
As I pointed out at the time, just month before he resigned, he was very interested in remaining on the BOD:
"I have served on the L&L Board for nearly three years, and I continue to believe we can grow this company profitably, and set a high standard in southern China for safety, environmental management and business practices.
"While the past year or so has been particularly challenging for all of us, I believe this next year will be one where we have the chance to continue to grow, strengthen our team and create the kind of success we all hope for.
"My background in clean energy and communications, as well as my role in US-China energy cooperation, should be valuable skills as we move ahead.
"I am interested in continuing my role on the Board (though I would like to reduce the number of committees on which I sit--currently Audit, Compensation, Nominations and Governance and Clean Energy). I think we need to do some realigning of committee members to better spread the workload and take advantage of each Board member's skills and background.
Funny, I emailed Bracy when the Geo hit piece first broke... I got his email from the chain of correspondence in the resignation letter and ensuing response. To my amazement I received a response, but nothing was said worth passing along at the time, something to the effect that I no longer follow LLEN and have no opinion.
I think what happened to Dennis is that he found out after he wrote this letter that the CEO what not interested in anything he had to say. It was a personal affront to him and he had never experienced that before the response to this letter and other communications he tried to have with LEE.
So he was upset and wrote a letter as to why.
How much weight you put on it, is up to you. But it seems that most here have dismissed it and I did not.
Since Bracy, the board was realigned, and another officer has left without comment.
Separately each case raises questions, but together they have more weight.
Using as a example of LLENs credibility the fact that others have not left can be explained as I have demonstrated. Even the CFO, who is on his last job, and Kabani who does not wish to draw attention to it's self or LLEN at this stage of the game, are equally explained away.
The primary reason for great caution is that so many of these things started in the same ways to be exposed. But we are not there yet and the reason we are not there as I have tried in vain to explain is that evidence of securities violations lies with the Chinese LTDs. It is very difficult to prove these accusations from the accusers side, as well as defend against them from the company side because getting data out of China is a near impossibility and why the Cross Border working Group was formed to address some years ago. To this date they have had very limited success which is why the SEC judge acted as he did with the auditors.
BTW....Just for general information about this case, Alfred Little only gave a opinion on the data someone else had dug up in the SAIC files of the Chinese subsidiary.
The "someone else" was non other than Geo.
Yes, those letters are all public.
AS I explained, in my opinion, Bracy's letter is a obvious red flag because BOD members of a company run in the LLEN is run, has common indicators with many other Past and present fraud accusations and their subsequent SEC charges that usually follow long after the first accusations are made.
Normally the BOD members, with the exception of the Chairman or the CEO do not have a clue as to the activities that brought the company to it's knees.
Just because I have PUDA on my data base, I will use it to show you a example, but keep in mind that none of these proven fraudulent activities on the China side have much in common except that it was never disclosed.
"TAIYUAN, China, March 1, 2012 /PRNewswire-Asia-FirstCall/ -- On March 1, 2012, Lawrence Wizel and C. Mark Tang resigned from the Board of Directors and all the board committees that they served on of Puda Coal, Inc."
And from court pleadings.....there is this:
depositions, Messrs. Wizel and Tang testified under oath that they had no knowledge of Ming
Zhao’s unauthorized transfers until publication of the April 8, 2011 Alfred Little Report:5
Wizel Tran. 73:2-5
Q: So as of December 17, 2010, you had not received any reports of possible fraud
relating to Puda Coal, Inc.?
Wizel Tran. 130:20-131:3
Q: What was your reaction upon learning of the Alfred Little Report?
A: Shock, disgust. Just, you know, hard to accept.
Q: Had you seen anything prior to that date [April 8, 2011] that caused you to question
that Putai owned 90 percent of Shanxi Coal?
A: No, I had not.
Tang Tran. 78:8-24
Q: Prior to April 2011, did you ever learn that Zhao Ming had accepted a large equity
and debt investment from CITIC?
* * *
Q: Prior to April 2011, did you ever learn that Zhao Ming had sold 90 percent of Shanxi
Coal to CITIC?
* * *
A: You said 90 percent?
Q: I said -- I’m sorry -- 49 percent.
A: Oh, no.
Kinda doubt Bracy will get another board of director appointment with any other public company for quite some time...if ever.
On July 2 2012 he indicates via email he wants to remain a director and said positive statements regarding the company. As soon as he finds out the BOD is being reduced and he will not be included in the the nominations for directors he appears vindictive. Tell me, what other CEO of any other public company would trust him now?
Also, I would love to know what got redacted by advice of councel (I assume by LLEN's attorney) in his statement.