...and now we know why the sales tanked in the second fiscal quarter, why the company had no leverage in negotiations for takeover-transactions, and what basis the executives will use for rejecting the claim that they misbehaved:
...the Company’s difficulty in securing product supply from its manufacturers, which resulted in a significant decline in sales in the quarter ended December 31, 2016 and the time required to locate and on-board alternative suppliers acceptable to the Company...
What is fascinating to me is that nothing of this was announced when the 10Q of the first fiscal quarter was released, a quarter which had record earnings. Certainly, roughly halfway into the second fiscal quarter, the company must have been aware that no product was being furnished to them from their manufacturers.
Incidentally, there is no need for anybody to go seeking votes against the transaction, as mere failure to vote is reckoned the same as a no vote. Incidentally, the proxy materials indicate that there now are 94 million outstanding shares, so the 36 million or whatever shares held by "the big three" are a lesser proportion of the total than ever before.
If there's anything else I find interesting, I'll be back. Otherwise, stay tuned for the results of the lawsuit settlement conference in a couple of days, because that's the last hope before this gets nasty. Remember that only shareholders as of February 16 are part of the voting scenario.
