Eurocontrol Technics Group Inc V.EUO
Sector: Energy | Sub-Sector: Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
Alternate Symbol(s): EUCTF
shawshank
image: stockhouse.com
User Actions Ignore This User • View Profile
Send Message • View Bullboard History
5 minutes ago 7 Reads
Post# 24500081
Rate this post
image: stockhouse.com
v
image: stockhouse.com
image: stockhouse.com
image: stockhouse.com
Let the record show some took a stand while others sat still
RomanQueen. When you say SICPA this is what I think of when SICPA is mentioned and why I want SICPA as yestrerdays news and why the SemiC XwinSys go4wd que has to be put front and center-sooner the better and ASAP ahead of a "suppossed" early 2016 product commercial release.
Case in point: SICPA paid Rowlands $16million upfront for GFI in an agreed upon in principle in Dec 2014 MOU. Yet they were willing to pay TWICE that amount for our main revenue driver-in a bribe?
BR had the deal with SICPA in his hip pocket all of 2015 yet guided $18-20million for YE-and did not deliver...not even close-one new contract announcement since spring 2015 for what was suppossed to be a "back loaded" year. He negotiated himself a personal services contract-that to this day I maintain IMO is a conflict of interest going forward.
If they (SICPA) were willing to pay that amount for a mere investigated bribe? what was in the personal services contract to BR to agree to a sale? its a legitimate question?
I want disclosure from the CEO of my investment if they are working for the company I just sold the one big revenue driver of the business model- thru a personal services contract to that some company that one of the subsiduaries I invested in whereby I was told as were all common shareholders we would expect $18-20million in top line and income inline with the then $6million top line figure Rowlands is also quoted in print format guiding one and all...that disclosure as to the terms and conditions of the personal services contract the CEO of my investment signed with the company who aquired our technology for a sum of money HALF of what they were willing"allegedly" to put out there in a bribe to the tune of $32million-IMO for issues of transparency-disclosure and my own concerns about conflict of interest- should be made public.
And why anybody should have ANY issue with ANY shareholder raising that question is beyond reason or rational to reconcile. SS
Read more at stockhouse.com
"these posts are not of a licensed investment advisor or analyst nor does he give out buy, sell or hold advice to anyone"
