dndodd it's not the steering committee.
IMO, it's the fact that the Loan still exists. Then add to that the provisions with the ridiculous collateral, and inability to pay it off early. No early payoff terms, with 100% of the company assets as collateral? Or.. how about the payoff may be executed at the end of the 4th milestone, at the earliest?
I read, negotiate, and execute contracts every day. This loan and development agreement contains unique conditions in many ways, and extreme in others. By extreme I mean, unnecessary terms, conditions and provisions for just a loan, and development agreement.
The collateral for all the company assets didn't even need to be in the terms. That's why there are instruments for performance called "Performance Bonds."
But, just to make a point.... per another so called investor that likes to insinuate that MDT has all the IP they want - then why did they require all of the assets as collateral? TMDI didn't offer them. There's no benefit to TMDI to do so. So I would conclude that MDT does find value in the entire IP portfolio. No?
I'll agree the "observer" was really a whopper. And to hear someone else say it's b/c of TMDI's management history is laughable. The Steering Committee and an Auditor could do the job perfectly. The BOD does remote meetings anyway. So the Auditor wouldn't even need to be on site either. The "observer," is another condition beyond reason for this type of partnership.
Thank you for your thoughts. I really appreciate objective thinking, and supported arguments. It's nice to hear when a few other investors are in agreement with the same conclusions as I have. Many on this Board see it. Doesn't mean I'm right. But doesn't mean I'm wrong either. JMO.
Good job to the rest of you active members that presented the MDT M&A lawyers involvement recently. Thank you.
Don't invest or sell anything based on my speculation, regardless of the possibility of any logical conclusion(s).
Good luck to all. Regards,BK.
