News Focus
News Focus
Followers 843
Posts 122806
Boards Moderated 10
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: DewDiligence post# 9499

Friday, 03/28/2008 6:48:41 AM

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:48:41 AM

Post# of 19309
More musings on the LFB conversion
(my reply to lrgoudy on Yahoo):

>Dew is claiming that the designated director provision was specific to the preferred itself (and thereby tacitly suggesting that the board will no longer have such a seat as a result of the conversion).<

LFB is still entitled to one board seat by virtue of: i) being the sole owner of the Series D preferred stock (note that LFB chose not to convert 115 shares of preferred); and ii) holding a 10%+ equity stake in GTC on an as-converted basis.

>Just why did they convert? May we now expect that by virtue of being plain vanilla stockholders of such a large part of common equity that they will now have a full seat? (…the [existing LFB] designated director was not eligible to sit on committees, which might be relevant to the question.)<

LFB has no contractual right to a “regular” board seat merely by being a large holder of the common shares. (Of course, GTC could nominate someone from LFB for such a seat, but that’s a different matter.)

>Another hypothesis which Dew has plausibly advanced is that the conversion happened so that we would be at liberty to issue more preferred shares in connection with a deal (eg partnering) without needing to get approval from the owners (before the conversion the preferred issuance was near its authorized limit).<

For now, this strikes me as the most plausible explanation for the conversion.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today