Actually the press release was full of doublespeak. The release, when addressing specifically the addition of Mr. hartley and his "team", used the word agreement over and over and only once was the word acquisition used, and the wording was "Acquiring this team positions Expo as the preferred choice in custom cabinetry." Later in the release the magic buzz word-Acquisition was used no less then four times in one single paragragh. Interestingly enough the paragragh referred to had nothing to do with Builders Choice and the "news" of the day.
My opinion is that we signed Mr. Hartley to an agreement, as in Employment agreement. If we actually acquired the company, we actually acquired the debts, obligations, tax liens, and material obligations of this company. The release specifically states that we did not assume any of the mentioned liabilities. Impossible since Builders choice has substantial debt, a sizable tax lien and active UCC's that encumber each and every asset of the company, both future and present.
Mr. Hartley would not be the first former officer of Builders choice to join D & D displays in my opinion. For example, is Mr. Hartzog still employed with Builders Choice?
If it is possible to acquire another company's encumbered assets without assuming any existing liabilities then why didn't Mr. Brown use the same "magic acquisition sprinkle dust" when taking D & D displays public through the merger/acquisition? I look forward to any response.
my opinion only
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
