ferrot, you make a good point. When the Marshalls filed their Ch. 11 petition, they were not trying to "get it all", simply because they wouldn't "get it all".
The Company would be restructured, with neither past or present management eligible for any position. The shares would possibly remain with some value, depending on the arrangement, and the technology would be developed.
The Marshalls, as major shareholders, would also benefit of course, but they wouldn't have anything more than they would have had they not filed the Ch. 11. So their filing, drastic as it was, was aimed toward maintaining the status quo of MZEI in what they felt (rightly or wrongly) was a healthier form.
It's true that now the Marshalls seem to be considering a Ch. 7 liquidation bid, but that's only because current (=former, since the trustee now "leads" the company) management chose the Ch. 7 route, making a Ch. 11 a long shot at best.
Was there a hint a while back? In March's 10K the following paragraph appears:
"Risks Related to our Financing Arrangements
We may be unable to repay our convertible promissory Notes when they mature. On January 31, 2018, we issued the Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $305,000. The Notes accrue interest (payable at maturity with the principal) at a rate of 8% per annum, six months from the issue date. There is no assurance that we will be able to repay the Notes when they mature. If we fail to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes when due, the interest rate increases to a default rate of 24% per annum until paid, plus a 40% penalty is added to the outstanding balance of the Note and other penalties as set forth in the Note. In such event, or in other event of default as defined in the Notes, we will likely be required to seek protection under applicable bankruptcy laws." (emphasis added)
Hmmm... I understand that in every SEC filing there has to be a warning that things may not work out. That was always present in each filing over the years.
But in the Marshall years, the text would read: "... we may have to cease operations." No mention of bankruptcy. Is this merely an indication that the 10K was issued by a more sophisticated team, who was more familiar with what actually may happen? Maybe.
Or could it be a Freudian slip, an inadvertent betrayal of the ultimate agenda?
I honestly don't know. But the flow of events, as you pointed out, does make you wonder.
AI
