Can't imagine a bunch of guys who understand biotech voting for this merger. Thanks for clarification on the termination fee.
Considering the post-announcement #$%$ out of FHCO, the needed 2/3 FHCO shareholder approval is unlikely. Looks like Steiner & Co. will then get to walk away with $2.5mm breakup fee. What a waste of FHCO resources.
Mitchell Steiner was co-founder/CEO of GTXI until he departed GTXI on April 4, 2014. GTXI pps was "down & to the right" for several years before he jumped ship to start Aspen Park.
Mistakes happen, but for a company this small, one has to wonder how the man who continues to wear just about every hat at Solitron (Shevach Saraf) could have missed catching this glaring mistake preemptively. If he missed something this out of the norm, it's not unreasonable to wonder what else may have been overlooked over the years. Concerned.
Just a thought.
Got my hands on the proxy.
Littlefield has a loss carryforward (NOL) of close to $16mm that doesn't start expiring until 2017. That is an asset that should be preserved and hopefully maximized through a prudently structured business combination. ("Prudent" meaning not running afoul of IRS Section 382).The poison pill that shareholders are being asked to vote on is seeking to prevent an inadvertent premature loss of all or part of the NOL, though the 5% shareholder limit seems extreme. Poison pills usually have higher trigger limits like 15%. Either way, it would be nice if Mr. Recks & Mr. Gillman manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this lottery ticket that is LTFD. If you haven't received your proxy then you may want to contact the company in Waco.
The bull case for IEHC has been made (accurately) by a number of online financial writers during the past year. That said, I wonder why none of these write ups mention director (since 1992) Allen Gottlieb, who was one of a group taken to court by the SEC in 1998 (See SEC litigation release 15705) for an alleged investment scheme. In early 2003 the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Mr. Gottlieb had violated antifraud provisions of the SEC Act of 1933 (SEC Lit. Release 17960), and ordered him to pay something close to $3 million. Mr. Gottlieb appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
UncleB'- I commend you for being all over this (sad) story for ages, and sharing that consistent view with the world through this site. Your comments helped keep my foot from stepping on this rancid turd. I wish Sham Gad & Co the best of luck & skill to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but don't think there's enough hare on this critter (pun intended) to make it work. Who's going to finance an attempted turn around? Likely only one of those concerns who are into death spiral convertibles that invariably suck the last few breaths out of a dying carcass.
Nest Labs is busy getting out the word on their new smoke detector called Nest Protect. Cost is @$130 per unit, which I think is around 3x the retail price for an IoPhic. While Nest Protect looks cool, and can communicate with mobile device(s) like similar Nest Lab products, I doubt it can prevent nuisance alarms like the IoPhic. If Nest Labs would like to secure a patented nuisance alarm prevention technology, I know of a microcap company trading at a cheap valuation that they may want to look at...;-)
Scaling into this, in part in hope that the egregious SGA/Gross Profit ratio will be cut down to size once/if the likes of Peter Gottlieb & Co. (North Star Investment) decides to replace their passive hat with an activist one. Unconscionable that SGA keeps hoovering up all GP (and then some).
In addition to the 10-K read the Annual Report and Shareholder Letter filed with the K. This "old" manufacturing company is unusual in its willingness to constantly seek new and innovative uses for it's niche business (dampers). Completed expansion means TAYD is now prepared to handle future growth that it obviously expects is coming. This diamond in the rough is about to be unearthed. Long term long and always buying the dips.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
After the market close on August 26 Sham Gad released a public letter that gives a little insight into his thoughts on SED. Search "Paragon Chairman 2012" and you will find the letter.
After reading June Q from OTCmarkets (couldn't find on SEC), I'm shaking my head, especially in light of SMID's PR (mentioned in post above). Loss per share was actually more like 6c/share due to the unrealized hit on the USVAX bond fund that almost $2mm in cash was sunk into earlier this year. Note that USVAX has continued to sell off since the end of June...
3 mo. sales fell 7.5% y/y, yet CoGS ROSE by a similar percentage. Thus, gross margin dumped to 17.1% from 28.8% a year ago.This doesn't jibe with talk of of strong (supposed high margin) wall sales in 1st half.
With drop in GM one would think an effort was made to rein in SG&A. Nope. Rose over 22% from a year ago.
Want to believe in this one for the haul but the results of June quarter seeding doubt.
Still not seeing SMID's June Q on SEC, but there it is on OTCmarkets. Disappointed to see SMID on OTC's "Limited Information" Tier (Yield Sign), one step from STOP Sign. Would hope Rodney's people would at the least seek "Current Information" segment within OTC Pink. Even better would be making sure SMID is up to the OTCQB tier, which essentially replaced the old OTCBB.
As of 10:30 am EST I don't see SMID June 10-Q on SEC site, yet Edgar Online apparently has it and yesterday's PR through businesswire tries to paint a wonderful future despite the Q2 loss. Rodney is bragging about recent great Slenderwall sales and 30% of the competition going bankrupt during the Great Recession (while SMID flourished), so why the loss in Q2? Not liking the smell test here.
Thought SED had fixed interest rates on their credit lines. Wells Fargo line is variable but think there is a swap that fixes their interest rate exposure. There's another line (or at least there used to be) that is/was fixed. So while the risks for this company are numerous, don't think higher interest rates -at least for now- are one of them.
The transfer agent said only around 3% outstanding shares were offered for tender as of June 4. Isn't that a clear enough message to Avista & Telular that holders aren't interested in giving away WRLS at this discount price of $12.61/share?? Why would extending the offer at the same price change a thing? It won't. If Avista (or anyone else, for that matter) want to own Telular they have to raise their price significantly to entice shareholders to sell to them.