No conference call.
I just read this, which I didn't notice: "The company will not be hosting a conference call due to the pending merger transaction."
That's a really bad reason. When you bunker down, that's never a good sign. They are going to regret that decision. I think I'm going to reach out to Weiss Law tomorrow.
Murky waters lie ahead. There is no reason why these things can't be discussed. There was a PR released to inform shareholders of this, which lacked many specifics. If you can't say something legally, say so, and the legality of that claim can be check out later. Is it truly grey area, or is it not wanting to inform? This is not Nasdaq behavior in my eyes. We have a former head of capital markets that's afraid to talk about capital markets? We have much larger mergers happening on Nasdaq that companies are not afraid to talk about to their shareholders.
I don't like people like our friend in this forum that can't keep his stories straight. Wants to talk so badly, but when pressed for an interview, doen't want to talk. What kind of behavior is that?
As long as Zac's options exericse at .21, I think that's a good alignmentof interests. Anybody that gets punched in the mouth needs a re-active kick in the mouth back. Alignment of interests. If anyone has anti-dillutive clauses, EVERY team member should have the same benefits. If I can't get answers from HLIX, I'll have to go where I need to go to get them.
This is a true statement mostly: "“We continue to deliver profitable operations and expand our combined software footprint, which is the largest in the industry, period." Well, "profitable" is debatable. But the things that follow are true, yet they are IRRELEVANT. What's relevant is SHAREHOLDER VALUE. Have you continued to deliver shareholder value? Have you ever delivered shareholder value? This is ultimately what matters.
Are the acquisitions accretive? Does a $40M impairment charge corroborate an accretive narrative? Where is that narrative? Pushed under the carpet? What does the past acquisitions say about the upcomign merger? What's in there? Why are questions not allowed? Why are they bunkering down? Why does Zac get $75,000 bonus, yet doesn't feel he has to answer for that and face shareholders? Who is he working for, if nto shareholers? And who is more important than shareholders? Why can't they ask questions and get answers? Why is this exchange rate fair for shareholders? We have no information to work with. These are valid questions that shareholders need to know.
Why can't this company get on a credible news source like CNBC, and get unscripted questions and straight answers? Do we have to got o Weiss Law to get questions and do we need to go to court to get orders to answer these questions? Without non-answers. Straighth talk.
