At the July 15, 2002 meeting of the Company's Board of Directors, the Board resolved to recommend to the stockholders of the Company for approval at the next meeting called for any purpose, that costs incurred by Warren B. Kanders, Burtt R. Erlich and Nicholas Sokolow in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the 2002 annual meeting, be reimbursed by the Company. These costs are approximately $500,000.
<< The technology can be replicated for a fraction of the price people refer to here on the board >>
What number did you have in mind?
Shareholders will do fine if the technology is sold for zero. We just need somebody to take responsibility for the salaries, leases, etc...
Actually we don't even need that. Shareholders can still do OK if the company is liquidated.
Yes, it is clear that Clarus is for sale. Even the employees have been told this. I question who may buy them, and for how much. The technology can be replicated for a fraction of the price people refer to here on the board, and the customer base is almost extinct. Most of the names thrown around on this board do not even use Clarus products any longer. Institutional buying means almost nothing except for a stock on the rise because of the volume. As I am sure you are aware, institutions buy and sell based on optics with very little inteligence.
Anyway, all this is neither here nor there. Good luck.
I remember the statement that Barclay's wouldn't be buying Clarus if it weren't a great company, that companies like Barclay's don't make mistakes.
These are investor's, they are gambling.
You believe they are correct. You have been
wrong every time. That should scare them off
Bottom line. Clarus is worth ~6.5 in cash.
If a sale does not occur really quickly then you can expect these guy to move out real soon.
What about your opinion that
The new board members wouldn't
have spent that money on getting
on the board if they couldn't get
it back by increasing share holder
You going to admit that they found
another way to do it ?????
Please look at the latest report on nasdaq.com regarding institutional ownership in CLRS.
I agree with you as to this dog not hunting. That has been clear for some time.
The question as to whether it will be a penny stock is subject to debate.
Perhaps you have not read any of the numerous SEC filings during the proxy contest and thereafter, but it ought to be quite clear that CLRS is for sale and that the BOD ( the new one that is ) and management are trying to sell this " dog that won't hunt ".
The above link from nasdaq.com shows some interesting numbers. Over 1 million shares in new ownership. And look at DB picking up another 492k shares. Now I wonder why would these guys do this during and after the proxy contest. We have the following choices.
A. It will be a penny stock, as burger and cynical seem to opine, and these big guys are desperately looking for some tax writeoffs by buying high and selling low. ( Not likely )
B. These II's are so impressed with the CLRS software offering and think that strong sales are just ahead. ( Not likely either )
C. These II's fancy themselves as hot shot golfers and enjoy their time on the greens with SJ and his merry men. ( Maybe, but not likely )
D. The II's have read the proxy fight filings and observed who won, and concluded that this thing can be sold make them some money in a relatively short period. ( I have reason to believe that the last choice D is what they are after, and if so rest assured they are going to be quite interested in a sale )
As always, JMHO.
THAT SHOULD GET A RISE FROM THE SHILLS
I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT ADMITS WHEN HE GETS
IT WRONG AS WELL.
TEX et. al. just crawl off and hide until
they think everyone has forgotten.
By the way the 186K they spent, think they
figured a way to get it back.
Ha Ha Ha,
NOTE THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT GIVING THEIR
STOCK BACK. GUESS THEY EXPECT IT FOR FREE.
I sign in after a couple of months and the same people are here whining. As I said months ago, this dog don't hunt, and it will be a penny stock. What is the matter with you people?
I remember the only response was about my spelling. I laugh at that, you?
Cynical, you are the only one that has shown any inteligence, backed up with good historic data.