Has anyone following the BBSI Proxy Battle researched Mr. Gillman?
It appears that he worked for McKinsey & Company in the early 1990s. Somewhere around that time it appears the Rajat Gupta was a a managing director at the firm. Mr. Gupta was arrested by the FBI in late 2011 related to insider trading charges. Another notable alum from Mckinsey & Company - Jeffrey Skilling. Yes, the former Enron President currently serving time in Federal Prison.
I wonder if the Sheretz family knew this before they engaged Mr. Gilman in trying to wipe out the entire board of a company that has $90 MM in cash and no debt and that appears to be running like a well oiled machine?
Their justification for board removal seems like a hostile takeover attempt on the cheap. Will they suck the cash out BBSI if they seize control of the board?
Look at Boston Avenue Capital's Past - Concerned Osteotech Shareholders (resulted in a buyout of the company by Medtronic).
It appears that a number of his investments have ended up trading over the counter as well (e.g., SLGD, MRVC).
Well, I suppose then that you feel the players helping to try and facilitate this deal should buy a little stock then as well? Why isn't Boston Capital reporting a 5% position yet?
Big difference between the banks and BBSI. BBSI is solidly profitable with lots of cash and no debt. The banks were engaging in dangerous activities that put their shareholders and the country in grave danger. No comparison there.
Still not seeing the reason to remove the Board.
And I suppose you had the same theory on Boards when the banks all went abust a couple years ago. Most boards dont have to deal with a major stockholder. they can divide and conquer. It was much easier to get a crony on the board than to get him off.This board out to buy a little stock!!!!
Attempting to remove an entire Board (minus the CEO) of a publicly-traded company via proxy by alleging a breach of fiduciary duties based upon one shareholders opinion is a hostile attempt to seize control in my opinion. Look at where the money appears to be coming from in the SEC filings. Do these folks own any significant numbers of shares (i..e, outside of the Sherertz Estate)? They don't appear to if the SEC filings are a current reflection of their holdings.
How many publicly-traded companies in this financial condition are better off after removing an entire Board? Seems to me it would send a message of instability to the marketplace. This company does not appear to be unstable at all. Quite the contrary. We'll see soon enough what all of the shareholders think.
You originally said that the Board had nothing to do with the operations. Nobody said in this forum that they run the company. Clearly the CEO and the staff run the company. The Board is ultimately responsible to the shareholders for the companies performance and to oversee the actions of the Executive personnel.
You've confused the point with Kim. If this is what Bill wanted than why didn't he act years ago when he first fell ill? Bill had plenty of opportunities to make changes to the Board and Executive staff. But he didn't. They've all been in place for a long time.
Bill was a take charge guy (the rudder as you say). If this is what he truly wanted (i.e., to get rid of the entire Board minus the CEO) than he would have done it years ago in my opinion.
Accusing the Board of breaching their fiduciary responsibility is a pretty low blow considering the performance of this company after a turbulent year and for the way they navigated a nasty recession. No debt. Lots of cash. Growing market share.
Given the players involved this looks like a hostile takeover on the cheap as noted above. Why do a hostile in the open market when you can buy the Board and then do what you want with the company afterwords?
No more ignorant than thinking a board that meets a few hours a month runs the company. The CEO and staff run the company. They may run stuff by the board, but that is about it.
Also, to turn your argument around, Kim is now doing just what you said she hadn't done. Changing things. I imagine she had little say- like the board- when Bill was at the helm... As I said, it was HIS company. Not sure he married her for her brains.
Even a rudderless duck can follow the current.... for a while...
The Board had nothing to do with the operation? Now that's an ignorant statement. I believe that he nominated the entire Board and current Executive Management personnel to their respective positions. They have all been in place for an extended period of time.
He was ill at least once for an extended period prior to his death last year and I believe he was away from the operations during that time. If he or Kim felt the way that you describe, than why did he do nothing before his death when he was battling serious illnesses?
To say that one person runs a company of this size is really ignorant. Bill was a great leader and he picked a great team when he was alive in my opinion to run the operations.