I agree that shareholders who expect from the beginning, in any investment, that they will eventually have a need to defend their rights, and who have the capability, and are prepared to do so with overkill in the thunder and lightning department if necessary, when the time is right, are generally those in the best position to succeed in the effort.
I don't think that means that you benefit more by posting everything there is to know, or everything you might do, here on the list... but, more transparency rather than less is a generally good thing... including, usually, that a company that makes a better effort in transparency will "tend" to avoid the sorts of problems that may otherwise be tied to failures in that department. JMHO.
I'll agree, generically, that you never discard opportunities that might come up to work with others cooperatively, instead of against them, whether the focus is inside the company or outside of it, as long as the effort might help to resolve the situation in a conflict in a way that is more advantageous to the investors...
If the IMVS investors were in position to make us an offer that would be better for us than what the PGPM management might be intending to offer us... it would be a mistake to not listen to them. I don't think PGPM investors have any moral obligations to try to help make IMVS investors whole by putting what are rightly PGPM's assets at new risk of being taken by the IMVS holders.
It appears to me that there are multiple constraints operating here, now... with a variety of private interests in play, as well as some public interests, that in combination will tend to limit their options far more than they might otherwise be limited.
That works for me...
I expect that means that PGPM likely will be in position to call the $40 million Lariat note "soon", and without ACLY being able to cover that obligation, the security interest PGPM had in the assets PGPM transferred to Lariat, and that they had in the assets transferred to ACLY, likely means they will all have to come home to PGPM...
The benefits, to them, are that doing that not only removes the risks that come paired with PGPM shareholders ire, it also removes the assets from risk of attachment in the lawsuit tied to the residual IMVS shareholder issues with ACLY. At the same time the failure in performance by ACLY on the note will tend to benefit them again by eliminating the problem they have now... with them owing US in PGPM more $$$ than the assets might be worth now... ??? They need the $40 million note to go away... to prevent losing the assets to IMVS shareholders... and to prevent them from being saddled with the liability for them at above market prices. Having the "other" issues tied to the note go away by virtue of a failure of ACLY to meet the terms of the note... pretty well wraps up all the risks in one neat little package.
I don't see that there is any upside for them in having the effort in enhancing the value of the assets succeed... as long as the assets remain in ACLY, where they are held at larger, and multi-faceted, risk...
The benefit for PGPM shareholders in cooperating with the IMVS shareholders... would be in the potential to have them help pin down the ownership of the assets and have the value of them be realized. The risk is that the IMVS shareholders acting on their grievances could end up having them taking all the value that exists.
So, if the note exists and isn't called, the conflict could result in the assets staying in ACLY, with the former IMVS investors gaining control of ACLY, meaning the assets might get better management courtesy of the IMVS investors... with some risk that PGPM holders might not be treated nearly as well under new management by IMVS investors as they are now... (???) if that is even possible.
Or, if the $40 million Lariat note is called, all the Lariat and PGPM assets come back to PGPM, and management dodges the problems with their bad timing in the assumption of the $40 million debt at the peak of the market, while also avoiding the legal and tax problems that the intended sleight of hand that the conversion of note would have created.
Or, if the $40 million Lariat note WAS eliminated in the original PGPM/Lariat/IMVS/ACLY transactions... then there is a whole lot of 'splainin to do to a lot of different people about a lot of different things... and no graceful way out of any of the situations that result. The theft of PGPM's assets by management as Lariat... or the valuation problems the structure of the transactions would reveal... the conversion issue in the ownership of the note... and the SEC and IRS problems associated with all of that.
I don't see an option that solves all the problems... other than PGPM calling the $40 million note. That might also create some issues in the relationships between PGPM and ACLY managements... but, they'll probably opt to deal with their difficulties in house... instead of dealing with them in other ways.
The timing issues, then, won't be defined by limits in the time requirements for ACLY filings... they will be defined, first, by the terms of the $40 million Lariat note, and then by the terms of the PGPM/Lariat convertibles...
So... it all still hinges on the $40 million note... which makes it important to know they still acknowledge it exists... and important to know what its terms and timelines are.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
