% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

阿卡迪亞 Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • justinfosteristheman justinfosteristheman Feb 23, 2012 4:34 PM Flag

    anotherboat, wxangles

    Actually, what I said was we are not BK yet. So, whatever the CEO thinks we still own a piece of the current company as it stands. What I was saying is until BK, how do we know this is not going to work out in the end? Maybe trying to force their hand earlier then they want to have it forced. That could be the case. Or make public ALL of the contract and what was agreed to outside of just the cash if in fact there is additional info. That I would support. But as it sits, just because the CEO said some very negative things does not mean squat. The issue Anotherboat is having is implying there was insider trading of some sort I believe with Vicus dumping shares prior to the news. And of course the massive connection and possable major conflict of interest both Goodhall and Richardson have in negotiating the sale of possably the companies most valuable asset. I am just saying none of that will change, it is a documented fact as anotherboat said. However, pushing into BK would just make the case stronger and solidify the damage or tort(adona understands this) that was possably caused against the shareholders of this company through Richardsons conflict of interest negotiating the APA with Walgreens then going to work for them.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The company is restructuring, there is risk involved with their financing. Given a focus on in home care and the future increasing demand, KADR will rebound after this exaggerated scare.

    • Yes ofcourse if a lawsuit would force them to make possible secret deals public, then I am in favor to!

      Justin I didn't completly understand your last sentence.
      You probably already noticed english isn't my first language, sorry.

      Anyways thanks for the reply!

      • 1 Reply to saibotol
      • Try to make last sentance more simple-Richardson(CEO) had worked for and was now being offered employment by the company(walgreens) who Arcadia was selling its more then likely biggest asset to. He had something to benefit by making walgreens happy by selling Dailymedrx to them for cheap and they possably rewarded him with a job. However, legally, he is bound to look out for our best interests not Walgreens or anyone elses in business transactions. The offer of employment to run the pharmacy at Walgreens, IMHO, looks very very bad. And I think that is what anotherboat was pointing out as part of the issue here.

        Here is one point though that I have thought about though...if this was not going to work out in the end, and they knew this, why in the world would that have made it so obvious that Richardson was going to WAG and the Pharmacy looked like it was being bought for almost nothing? Unless they are just unbelievably stupid and naive, which I am sure they are not considering WAG is a 70-80b a year company, then in some ways the way they have publically gone about this leads me to believe that it will work out in the end for whoever is holding the shares when the bell tolls in April. Does that make sense to anyone? Plus, does anyone realize they could have purchased Dailymedrx and had the Arcadia BK or sease operations and then down the road hired Richardson and none of us would have beeen the wiser? If in fact they are trying to screw the shareholders here in the end, then wow they have been about as sloppy as any moron could be and just asking to get sued based on all the public info they have released blatently showing bias. They could have covered their tracks WAY WAY better. So the question is, why havent they? Maybe because in the end there will not be a need to. JMHO. But seriously, does this logic make sense to the rest of you?