InvestorsHub Logo

Prudent Capitalist

03/11/16 10:37 AM

#29961 RE: rshops #29960

I believe Mr. Spader was back in control for 6-8 months until he resigned at about the same time that Jim "Baby Face" White, the skin cream salesman from North Carolina, resigned, leaving Mr. Sneller. At least that is what one could glean from the 8-K filings. IMO, it was readily apparent that White was the CEO in name only, that Mr. Spader seized control after ousting Richard K, and that Mr. Spader was calling all the shots, including dumping the sales force, which IMO was hard to understand. What was so disappointing, is that the time period after Mr. Spader had previously stepped aside after telling shareholders he was not cut out for the CEO role in a publicly traded company at his age, was the best time period for shareholders here. The last full quarter prior to Richard K's ouster was the highest revenue ever and was around $1.75 Million for Q ending 6/30/14. Quite tellingly, that was the last quarter with a timely SEC filing, which occurred right around the time Richard K was ousted. Of course, there have not been any filings or substantive communication with shareholders since then, and no media exposure or frequent substantive PR's as we experienced under Richard K's leadership.

A couple more questions that shareholders deserve an answer to:

1. Isn't Mr. Spader the largest creditor? How did this come about?

2. And, how did Mr. Spader get so many shares in his name?

3. Was there sufficient consideration or capital injected by Mr. Spader to back up those shares?

4. Is it possible that while Mr. Spader was in control he got shares and a debt claim on top of the shares?

5. Wasn't Mr. Spader sued for fraud by one of the founders of this company?

Shareholders deserve to know what is going on. In the end, I could care less who is running VRTY at this point so long as they are tending to keeping the revenue producing businesses going and growing, and that they get the SEC filings brought current. There is still value here, IMO, but the manner in which shareholders have been treated here since August 8, 2014 is a disgrace. Whoever is now on the Board or in executive roles all have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders which is not, IMO, being met.