Thanks for posting it Andy. The release better demostrates my case why Cotter should take this company private and end the charade of calling this a publicly owned company. While his terms and conditions for the sale of the properties "might" ultimately generate a greater return, if he were truly interested in managing the business for the good of all shareholders and not the "controlling" shareholders the deal would have already been done. This is the best example he could have cited as demonstrating why he is better at managing for his account rather than the investors in the company.
You were not at the annual meeting but I was. Assuming what mgmt said about the offer was true:
You would agree to lock up the properties with an exclusive granted to this bidder without a non-refundable deposit?
You would agree to a co-participation option that only kicked in after the buyer earns a substantial preferential compounded IRR when there have been or are buyers who will include the co-participation option from the first dollar?
David - you are entitled to whatever view you want and there may be other instances that support your view this company should not be public if it were to continue to be run as it is. However, to argue the info in this annual meeting press release proves your point - you know not what you speak about WHATSOEVER.
There are other bidders and the prices offered for cinema 123 have been increasing over several months. This recent offer is not the first price bump that I have heard of for the parcel.