Hello everyone:
I've been driving all day, and missed this turn of events and the resultant dialogue.
David, I bite my lip and don't comment on almost all of your historical or current mis-statements, but you clearly don't understand the time and effort that goes into these filings -- or at least the time and effort that we put into them during my tenure.
You also owe it to yourself to do a little research into the change of auditor issue.
It's fine if you want to blame me for all that ills VTSI. Hopefully, that will make you feel better about the status of your investment.
But "shortcuts?" "The IRS issue?" Gee, David, you really should do some homework, and try to be just a wee bit fair.
For Bylo and the others, from my perspective, even 16 months after my ouster, there's still nothing inherently wrong with Dutchess' financing. However, with Dutchess (or any other convertible debenture), the company is betting on performance, market emergence, growth, AND AN INCREASING SHARE PRICE to "stay ahead" of the conversions if the cash flow doesn't sufficiently materialize.
The entire board knew the risks, and knowingly accepted them, but it was the best of the alternatives at the time.
I know nothing more about this "derivative" issue than any of you. However, from what I can decipher (admittedly without a whole lot of effort), it comes into play when the share price (and thus the required number of shares) sinks below that necessary to adequately service the debenture. Prior to my departure, we never imagined the share price sinking to the current levels -- below that which could be serviced by the then-authorized number of shares.
Again, from my perspective, in the big picture, not a whole lot has changed. It still comes down to performance, and I'm waiting just like all of you.
To better days for all of us.
--RoseBowl
