@Figaruch, Ramad concurs your sentiment. I posted on March 22 that it is unheard of some officer who has accomplished zero to receive shares of more than 5% of the float without a lockup or to be vested in period of time.He is following in the same footsteps as all the previous CEO's.Ramads research questioned why does echo need a chief financial officer being paid $200,000 when echo had limited funds. Echo just spits out money like turning on a faucet. Hollander, to get $400,000 after being terminated. The goldbergs getting $75,000 each plus shares.Can you blame anyone why its so hard to raise funds. Knowing over $500,000 has to be paid to terminated management.That is not good management of shareholders money. I bet no one called or emailed Alan why all of his shares and options were vested immediately when he has been a seller of Echo shares.
If he accomplishes raising funds it might be good for the shareholders. That
being stated Alans job might not be secure whoever he might be talking to raise money and he grabbed what he could which Ramad believes could be contested as exuberant compensation without bringing any value to Echo.
The 2 scenarios as stated previously a merger whereby Alan would still receive a nice amount of shares due to his rediculous current grant of shares and options. If echo remains an entity and he has to resign he will be well compensated for doing nothing as all the other previous executives at Echo.
If MTIA does fund Echo, Ramad believes it was not due to Alan. MTIA since Nov.2016 expressed displeasure with echo management and the directors prior to any suit and very likely would not fund Echo while they were part of echo.
The Goldbergs and Hollander had no choice to resign or most likely face a shareholders suit that they were not acting in the best interest of the shareholders if that was part of the terms to raise funds or possible merger.
Echo management refused to inform shareholders via former press release as to why MTIA backed out of the raise of $5M. Only rumors because they were part of suit by the Bessers. Another black eye to Alan by disregarding shareholders concerns.
It was clear their was no firm committment and what were the terms and conditions. Any good management who have 2 bid's on the table better be dam sure that they get a firm committment from the one they choose to do the funding with a penalty clause of at least 10% in cash if they walk away. Echo management as well as their legal advisors perhaps can be made responsible if echo can not continue operations. Shareholders could be rest assured if echo can not raise the funds that the agreement mentioned above with MTIA will be critical.
One last thing, now that DXCM received approval from Medicare Echo is so far behind the 8 ball to get any revenue in the U.S. if they succeed. It will take at a minimum at least 18 months to get FDA approval and probably much longer to get Medicare approval. That leaves only the China market. Every one knows who is in control. Bottom line MTIA controls Echo's survival.
Alan, has many weapons to offer MTIA. To name a few, renegotiate the royalty agreement instead of 30% to Echo decrease it to 25%. Offer them majority members of the board. Give them a smsll royalty for world wide sales, MTIA choose the CEO of Echo, let MTIA make the budget for Echo's expenses and salary compensation. Executive should be awarded only for meeting milestones. Let MTIA decide if they want to farm out what Echo has accomplished in the components of the new CGM to get a working prototype instead of
hiring incompetant technicians. You probably save money without technicians and be faster in getting a finished product. The shareholders has to hope Alan has offered them all of the above to entice MtIA to go forward with the funding with a new slate. If MTIA did not except those terms they are no longer interested or believe the CGM will not
work or they think they are better off owning the assets via the note going into default and developing it themselves.
