Mobley talks a good game but performance was mediocre. He likes to repeat that the "potential" is there but the results were clearly lagging.
Not buying, not selling- the jury is still deliberating.
They spend their entire day just repeating themselves. Are they so delusional to believe that their posts are read by the computers that control institutional trading?
CLF will go up and down for reasons that retail investors just can't comprehend. Ask yourself why BTU and X went higher after terrible earnings were reported?
Texas law is inapplicable. Under Federal law, interest accrual will be nominal since I believe it is based on 1 year maturity Treasury yields.
The average time for an appeal to be disposed of is around 1 year. With that said, there are no finite limitations for a ruling to be issued after the conclusion of oral argument.
Further delays could occur in the event that the parties seek additional time to brief the appeal or become involved in the mediation process. For example, in the 3rd Circuit, the appeal process is stayed if the parties are involved in mediation.
Yes, I would opine that Nick transformed the company. The basis for this position is based on my long tenure as a AIRT shareholder.
Prior to Nick's intervention, the company was "run" by Walter Clark. Walter's approach to growth was non-existent. The vast amount of deicer/equipment contracts were only marginally profitable. For example, the tow motor contract with the Air Force was a disaster. Although I owned 5% of the stock and had a larger stake then his, he refused to allow me to raise issues to be presented at the annual meeting. His Board of
Directors was a joke. He had no game plan.
Nick had a plan, although it is now being questioned. He cut compensation of the officers (including himself), sold off unnecessary assets (the King Air) and invested in a company he felt had potential (ISIG). He also made a prudent decision to buy back Walters stock at $11/share. You may not agree with Nick, but the fact is the stock is still trading at a level far above anything that Walter could have produced.
I agree with your comments. I believe that I was very fortunate that SB has a giant ego - see my posts in December ("manna from heaven"). Although I am still very loyal to AIRT, I was perplexed why the institutional holders were not selling when it was trading in the $21-$26 range.
I will not consider buying back some AIRT stock until (1) the next quarters results are announced and (2) the smoke clears on SB intentions relative to his AIRT stake. As to BH, he has kept me guessing since he has neither bought or sold and stock recently. I would not put it past him just to dump his AIRT stake in the open market just to try to embarrass Nick. On the other hand he can hold the stock forever so not to draw any further attention.
Given Nick's modus operendi, I would not be surprised to see a proxy battle over control of ISIG. I must admit that I don't really see the opportunities for growth for ISIG given the last couple of unimpressive quarters. Nick's focuses primarily on the balance sheet and then comes up with a plan to transform the company. ISIG is a low tech company in a high tech market. So far, it hasn't performed.
Although I was a very long term investor in AIRT and was extremely appreciative of Nick's fine efforts to transform the company, keep in mind that AIRT has a very small float and jumped from $15 to $26 probably only as a result of SB's stock purchases. If SB is a long term investor the AIRT stock has decent prospects. If SB gets bored and wants to take his lumps quickly then I suspect that he will have to sell the stock back to AIRT, who would be the only buyer for that much stock, at a deep discount. Maybe that was part of Nick's grand plan as he just tripled AIRT's line of credit. If Nick is able to buy-back 400,000 shares on the cheap, he will have reduced the float to about 1.7 million shares and he will control the voting. That will give him tremendous latitude to do what he wants, without interference.
As to ISIG, I really do not understand the dynamics of the company that would give rise to optimism that it could sustain growth. It is just a boring little company with a decent balance sheet. After watching a couple of quarters of unimpressive earnings, I sold all of my ISIG shares and have no intention of getting back in.
I believe that SB called all investors "schmucks". As a matter of principle, I will take his advice and stay away from any company that he is affiliated with.
I was the big seller of AIRT when SB bought ($21- $25) in mid December. It now appears that his motivation in buying AIRT (and ISIG) was nothing more then a knee jerk reaction to Swenson's proxy battle.
Now what? The AIRT (and ISIG) stake is illiquid and he either holds for the long term or dumps the stock at a big loss.
I would not buy BH stock based on recent events. As an operating entity it is unimpressive. Its corporate governance is a joke. But for its stake in Cracker Barrel, I doubt it could survive.
The earnings release was a positive event but it really does not mater at this stage since the value of the company is primarily tied to the outcome of the appeal.
It is reassuring that BDX has a terrible track record in defending litigation claims. They come accross as arrogant.
I will be a buyer if the stock dips below $3.75. Otherwise, i am going to wait this one out .
The market reaction was expected given the expectation of a last minute settlement. At $4.40 the stock has become a good speculative play since we can assume that sometime within the next year:
1. there still might be a settlement since the "black cloud" will continue to hang over BDX ;
2. BDX's compliance with the injunction will continue to be an issue and Judge Davis still retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the injunction;
3. RVP's product sales may increase as a result of the injunction;
4. RVP may be a candidate for a merger (other then BDX);
5. RVP has applied for additional patents for new products; and
6. regardless of the ultimate outcome of the litigation the stock will rise after the appeal is heard and before the final decision.
If one assumes that we will again see a stock price of at least $5 by the end of the year then we can extrapolate (at a buy at $4.40) a 15% yearly return with little short term risk since the only real negative event would be an adverse final ruling by the 5th Circuit.
I never said it is a "slam dunk". Having practiced as a civil litigator for 35 years and having tried many comlex and protracted cases (jury & non-jury) for a large law firm, I can unequivocally opine that that after reading all of the publicly disseminated pleadings and Orders, that RVP is an odds on favorite to prevail on appeal.
Look at the identity of counsel for each side and you must agree that this was a no holds bar fight where the parties had the best counsel available and cost was no object. RVP purportedly spent $34m in legal fees and i would venture to speculate that BDX spent a lot more. At one point I counted 60 lawyers involved at one stage or another.
Under normal circumstances this case would have settled. Given the long tortured history of acrimony, I doubt that Shaw is willing to make any concessions and BDX is willing to roll the dice that it can beat RVP on some technical arguement that would justify a remand. In a war of attrition BDX has the upper hand but Shaw has proven his mettle.
RVP is trading in the range it should be factoring in the risks of the appeal. Its intrinsic value is probably in the $2.50 range so one can support an additional $100m+/- as the discounted present net market value of the final judgment.
Your posts evidence your legal knowledge and I suspect that you are somehow involved with BDX's legal team who feels that there has been an injustice served on BDX. I have lost a few cases that I should have won and won a few cases that I should lhave lost. As such anything is possible but the bottom line is that a jury's verdict affirmed by the trial Judge after comprehensive post trial motions will rarely be disturbed on appeal.
Google Tom Shaughnessy's Instabog on Seeking Alpha on 3/14/14 in reference to the Apple patent litigation. The 5th Circuit has affirmed Judge Davis 81% of the time and has remanded only 19% of the time. No jury verdict has ever been over turned. Judge Davis' track record is as good as it gets.
I believe that JMichael's position that we can see a 5th Circuit reversal is clearly a "hail Mary". Cut me a break.