It will take more than proving the slightest bit of wrongdoing. The company needed cash and Fletcher had a very good reputation on Wall Street, even considering that he sued his former employer for money owed because he performed too well. But that was a different time. My how the mighty have fallen. And yes, i'm aware of the Dakota stuff. The original terms of the Fletcher agreement looked pretty good. What happened next is the problem. There is a clause in the contract called the down round which basically protects the investor from corporate dilution. Now Ants was clearly starting to have issues about this time, but it could also have been Fletcher helping manipulate the price downward, while at the same time withholding cash they could have given the company from warrants, so when another entity came in with funds, Fletcher's original investment would be altered to reflect the new, lower funding price(the down round). And guess who that new entity was. BRG, a branch of Fletcher. I really think it's going into conspiratorial territory to think management was in cahoots with Fletcher though. Why would they do that? Most had substantial stock in the company. Why torpedo your own interests. From my limited point of view I think management just got too self interested towards the end. And the only proof of Joe as a crook that I know of was him withdrawing funds. Maybe he felt it was justified for salary. I don't know, but until I hear all the facts I will reserve judgement. What I do know is that he was the CEO when the decision to build and focus on the ACS was made. I just hope Frank was able to successfully negotiate buying Fletcher's shares.
