It wasn't good.
Here is the lead sentence in the article:
"Barron’s shook stock markets around the world nearly 15 years ago with its “Burning Fast” cover, showing that many of America’s highflying, unprofitable Internet stocks were about to run out of cash."
Here is the only mention of Cyan:
"In the latest analysis, just five companies look like they will run of cash in a year’s time. And all of them are quite small, each valued at less than $360 million. Indeed, you may never have heard of these little cash burners: CafePress (PRSS), Cyan (CYNI), Silver Spring Networks (SSNI), E2open (EOPN), and Audience (ADNC)."
As of the date of that filing, RC owned 7,908,097 shares or 5.02%. Prior to the earliest date of purchase listed in that 13D which was 5/13/2011, they owned 3,632,758 or 2.31%.
Are you sure that RC was involved in the sale of Source Photonics? The sale took place in Oct. 2010. As far as I can tell, RC filed its first Schedule 13D in July 2011. That filing contains a list of shares purchased, date of purchase and purchase price. The earliest date of purchase was in May 2011. Now, admittedly, that 13D shows that RC owned shares prior to May 2011, but I've found no indication of when they originally purchased shares. Still, I've never seen information that shows that RC owned shares prior to the sale of Source Photonics.
None of this matters, of course.
By the way, are you surprised that Francisco Partners have not yet taken Source Photonics public or sold it?
I agree that MRV needs to be sold to a larger company. I'd guess that they've attempted to do so but could not get an acceptable price.
You were looking at the wrong 10-Q. The CT order relates to the 10-Q filed on July 24, not the most recent one.
No, not Rhizen, rather the CT Order involves the agreement with Ligand Pharmaceuticals to license Ligand's IRAK4 inhibitor program.
Shareholders have expressed quite a lack of confidence in the board of directors, with the exception of C. Richard Neely, Jr.
Director/Percentage of votes cast/Percentage of eligible votes
Jeffrey M. Armstrong / 52.6% / 38.3%
Kenneth R. Dabrowski / 52.6% / 38.3%
Philip J. DeCocco / 51.3% / 37.4%
W. Richard Marz / 52.6% / 38.3%
C. Richard Neely, Jr. / 88.9% / 64.8%
Robert S. Oswald / 51.4% / 37.5%
Terryll R. Smith / 51.5% / 37.6%
A portent of action by an activist institutional shareholder?
NOTE 11: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On January 26, 2010, the Company commenced an action against Taiwan Glass Industrial Corp. (“Taiwan Glass”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. By that action, the Company sought monetary damages ($5,816,000) against Taiwan Glass for breach of contract. The Company believes that Taiwan Glass has no legal basis for unilaterally refusing to accept and pay for equipment specially manufactured for them and shipped to them by the Company. Taiwan Glass has interposed an answer and counterclaims denying these allegations and is seeking unspecified monetary damages. On April 12, 2012, Taiwan Glass filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment in the amount of $3,564,000 (representing the portion of the purchase price that it had previously paid to the Company). By Memorandum and Order dated November 7, 2012, the Court denied the Taiwan Glass Motion in its entirety. On July 15, 2014 Taiwan Glass filed another motion seeking partial summary judgment in the amount of $3,564,000. By Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2014, the Court granted Taiwan Glass's motion for partial summary judgment and ordered the entry of judgment in favor of Taiwan Glass against the Company in the amount of $3,564,000 plus interest and dismissed the Company's breach of contract claim against Taiwan Glass. The Court has scheduled a conference for November 21, 2014. The Company is considering its options, including the appeal of the judgment.
This is dated, and is just the result of a very quick search.
goo DOT gl/QegHmv
"For some years, the IGC has not included an estimate of global flour production in its annual survey. Instead, it estimates food use of wheat, which for the 2009-10 season was put at 451,700,000 tonnes of wheat equivalent. Using 16.1 as the number of hundredweights produced in milling a tonne of wheat, that global food use relates to flour production of 7,272,370,000 cwts."
If that's a short hundredweight or 100 pounds (as opposed to a long hundredweight or 112 pounds) then using 2000 pounds per short ton, that give about 364 million tons.
In the last 10-Q which Occam filed, for the quarter ended 9/30/2010, they reported about $75 million of revenue for 9 months. So, that's roughly $100 million on an annual basis.
It's much worse than that. In addition to the $78.5 million due to MDA, there is this:
The above-mentioned MDA Notice constitutes an event of default that accelerates the Company’s obligations under the following debt agreements:
Loan and Security Agreement, dated January 26, 2012 ... an aggregate amount of approximately $127.8 million is immediately due and payable
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement, dated October 18, 2013 ... an aggregate amount of approximately $95.7 million is immediately due and payable.
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement, dated March 31, 2014, as amended on July 3, 2014 ... an aggregate amount of approximately $10.4 million is immediately due and payable.
That's $312.4 million in total.
But, Khosla did lend them another $1.1 million - I guess they need to pay the lawyers.
Calix closed at $18.44 on 2/22/2011 and at $19.10 on 2/23/2014. Occam closed at $9.16 on 2/22/2011. Press releases at the time put the value of the transaction at $171 million.
Here's the beginning of the press release.
PETALUMA, CA —February 23, 2011—Calix, Inc. (NYSE:CALX) today announced that it completed the acquisition of Occam Networks following approval by Occam stockholders on February 22, 2011. At the effective time of the merger, each outstanding share of Occam Networks common stock was converted into the right to receive (a) $3.8337 in cash plus (b) 0.2925 of a validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable share of Calix common stock. At the effective time of the merger, holders of these outstanding shares of Occam were entitled to receive an aggregate of approximately $83.3 million in cash and approximately 6.4 million shares of Calix common stock.In addition, at the effective time of the merger holders of certain outstanding options were entitled to receive an aggregate of approximately $10.8 million in cash, and Calix assumed certain options to purchase an aggregate of approximately 636,000 shares of Calix common stock and assumed certain restricted stock units for an aggregate of approximately 65,000 shares of Calix common stock.
Yes, that's where it is accounted for on the income statement. I said that it does not show up on the operating income statement, and perhaps should have worded that as "operating section of the income statement". It is in the "Other Income (Expense)" section.
The operating loss of the joint venture does not show up on the SZYM operating income statement. That's what "unconsolidated" means. The value of the JV to SZYM shows up only on the balance sheet as an asset, and is $41.896 million. In the cash flow statement you'll see how much they've contributed to the JV. There are items for capital contributions to unconsolidated joint venture among others. For the 9 months, that number is $30.550 million. They also contributed capital in the form of writing off receivables in the amount of $6.5 million. They have, of course, contributed more in past years.
Finally, you can see the status of the JV on pages 15 and 16 of the 10-Q. For the 9 months, the JV lost $23.822 million.
"EQC has been evaluating its options regarding a sustainable common dividend policy that allows the company to focus on its long-term strategy of increasing shareholder returns by improving the value of its portfolio. EQC does not expect to make any further common dividend payments in 2014. "