I think it is clear that management need an ASM, if for nothing else than to pass the AS which will definitely be needed in the short term. The only question then, is why are they not setting the date for the ASM and the AS, rather than the temporary band-aid using the pref series C?
I think (as do many) that at the moment they fear a rejection by the retail investors who are not happy with the share price and the lack of info which LP could provide if she chose without violating the embargo as most small bios do.
I believe this is a very good indicator for the longs. The management could not hope to hold off the overdue ASM for a long term. In which case, there is no benefit to pushing off the ASM as sooner or later they will have to face the music and set (or be forced to set) the ASM in any case. They gain nothing by irritating the investors in the meantime. This tells me that the management strongly believe that they will have the goods in the near term, and will be able to call the ASM with good news and not fear the vote on the AS.
I also believe that, while their main objective, they want to keep all information from the shorts and catch them with their pants down. So they play this game of delaying the ASM and no information, to anyone, irritating as this may be to the long investors. Then it all comes like a torrent of news when their ducks are all in a row - which will be soon - or they would not be delaying the ASM needlessly.
For what it worth, I spoke with Les some days ago about the C, but one of the things I got by reading between the lines, is that they are now involved with the pesky business of the editing for the reviewers. So if I got that right, the article has already been submitted and now in the editing process.
