Something doesn't add up. Maybe one of the insiders just didn't show up. Maybe he/she opposed it, but then realized that he/she didn't have enough vote to change the outcome, but enough to stop having a quorum and, therefore, enough to block the vote.
The press release seemed to say that the voting was otherwise positive. But that might have been the remaining principal shareholder voting his shares yes and others voting no.
“We believe that the Suda transaction and the subsequent liquidation and dissolution of the Company provide stockholders with the best opportunity to potentially monetize their investment in the Company and will allow the Company to distribute the maximum amount of cash or other assets to the Company’s stockholders. In the event the proposals are not approved by the Company’s stockholders, we will likely be forced to file for bankruptcy.”
How does a liquidation get shareholders anything????? If there is enough money to pay creditors in full, then, yes, there is enough money to pay shareholders something (whatever that is), but that is doubtful.
I will note that the law firm from which the meeting was adjourned is a substantial firm. I don't know who they represent, or who is paying them, but its a few dollars that they are paying.
I am a hitk shareholder, so this is not much to me. But I do wish you nvdl shareholders the best of luck.
I have another thought for all of you who have complained in the past. If they file bankruptcy, the assets of the company may go up for "auction". In fact, you could all get a group up and, effectively bid on the company .
If the company uses Chapter 11, you could propose a plan; if Chapter 7, make an offer to the trustee; if a secured creditor takes efforts to liquidate bid to them.
If my speculations are right, it will be a chapter 11, and the principal will try to preserve his income for a while - get involve immediately and ask the court to cut his salary.
And form an equity committee, then you will have more of a voice. The Court doesn't read these posts.
I was thinking a little more about this. I have speculated that this is a company that was formed by a small circle of persons, and that they were successful in coming up with a novel delivery system, were able to get some investors, and some additional interest. All this kept these original group employed or, perhaps better said, compensated for their initial efforts. Unfortunately, they ran out of money and their licenses simply didn't realize enough, so that the remaining cash flow only can support one, and the rest left.
The present deal would keep the remaining person compensated, and nothing else. The former principals, who have left, have an ax to grind, and are getting nothing. They would rather see the remaining person get nothing if they are getting nothing. They would rather see it go into bankruptcy.
How do they benefit giving the company away when they paid a lot higher for shares that they own?
Are there "side" deals with SUDA or free SUDA shares or consulting deals with SUDA that will happen in the future? "In the future" as opposed to right now as to not raise any suspicions?
toppey, you have always said "they ran NVDL into the ground" so what was the purpose of doing that and who gains or benefits from doing that?