Now all of the sudden you're interested in "the implications of governance" of this company? When I was sounding the alarm about Glenn being both CEO and COB, you dismissed my concerns and thought it was a good idea that he held both positions. I argued that Glenn couldn't be trusted and needed a babysitter. So who looks smarter now given what's transpired -- me or you? (And please don't lie to me and tell me it's you.)
We've got a rogue CEO who has hijacked the company and eliminated all threats to his authority. There is no oversight, no accountability, no obstacles. He can do whatever he wants. There is no one left to stand in his way. He doesn't have to answer to anyone.
Remember when I brought up the need for a 'poison pill'? Well, that might have come in handy right about now. A hostile takeover by Glenn and his secret associates is not out of the realm of possibilities. Who knows what's in the works? But one thing seems likely -- shareholders are once again going to get scr*wed.
So maybe you should practice what you preach for once. You're always urging shareholders to contact management with their concerns. I've done that many times, and I either get no response or a form letter. So maybe you should call or email Glenn and express your governance concerns.
Given that you now have no formal ties to management, it's time that you stop defending them. You're a common shareholder just like me with no access to insider information. So why don't you start acting like a common shareholder? Instead of defending management, you should be pressuring management to act in the best interest of shareholders. You should be an advocate for shareholders. You should be preparing the class action suit.
It's time to choose sides, Indy. You're either with us or against us. And if you're against us, I suggest that you sell your shares and leave this board forever.
