Lord Fauntleroy, this isn’t simply a matter of managerial succession. Please consider your theory (Dr. Shannon leaving for reasons of convenience, dispute, death, or …) as such relates to the willingness of top-shelf distributors to engage with MZEI. Not only should a major distributor want to be assured that Dr. Shannon has an ‘unconditional’ long-term commitment to the company, they would also want to know that there is adequate continuity of the company’s knowledge base and adequate records maintained that could lead to quick replication of the science, etc. in the event he, for whatever reason, was no longer associated with the company. In this regard, Glen Balzer can’t go about creating maximum value for shareholders if we have staff ‘who don’t play well’. The same could be said of the distributors’ view of MZEI’s financial condition, quality and depth of management and BOD, SMTC’s production and tangential capabilities, etc. On the surface, we think we have a production unit, just go sell the thing. In reality, the distributor(s) will be putting many millions into a relationship and their reputations will be on the line – they have a right to evaluate the aforementioned and other issues, and to a degree, also ask for certain changes before they participate. Of course, one would need to consider the ‘reasonableness’ of the ask in the context of the value of the prospective relationship. In this respect, understand that changes at MZEI may be sought by various current and prospective constituent groups, not just shareholders.
AI
