BDay...I hope to shed a little more light on this Space Florida money, as it was a part of the same conversation I had Friday with Barbara J. regarding the Yuma test.
First, let's look at the language of the April PR on this...
<The Space Florida financing commitment of up to $1.5 million is contingent on a number of conditions, including approval from the Space Florida Board of Directors, completion of adequate due diligence, financial market conditions, no material adverse change in the Company's business or financial condition, and potential applicable approvals and consents. In addition, Space Florida's financing is dependent on, and would be a match to, any equity or debt financing secured by the Company from third parties.>
The 3 bold parts I wish to discuss is last to first.
1. Matching was always the intent. WSGI raises 1.5 mm (which they did...btw) then SF could match that amount if they chose to.
2. Contingent on a number of "hoops" including approval by the the SF BOD....The board that extended this offer in April is no longer the board now sitting. Governor Scott of Florida replaced them all with his cronies. Now if you lived in the great state of Florida as I do, you would know that this governor who campaigned on job growth has done everything possible to stymie job growth in this state. Everyone at the SF facility is screaming for money promised and not put forth as yet. We are not the only company situated there with a similar letter. And yes they like us are continuing to discuss with that new board the release of those promised funds.
The reason the potential funds up to 1.5 mm from SF was removed from the 10q is the simple fact that the original offer letter from SF had an elapse date that has expired. It no longer formally exists.
The delay in the release of the funds due to nothing of WSGI's fault, has encouraged this management to look elsewhere with diligence for other opportunities for grants in a more favorable environment of cooperation, while continuing to work with at and with SF. The board is on the same property as the company's offices. The company has not heard that the funds are not available and there is still the possibility of them coming. If they do, BJ says we'd consider taking them.
Phipps...is an employee. He will not have a seat on the board. He is entitled to appoint two INDEPENDENT seats (matching the current SEC requirements for those seats) per the GTC closing documents of that deal. I'd guess you'd have to ask him why he hasn't done so. To my knowledge there is nothing standing in his way for doing so.
Just so I don't use another post for this...GTC had profitable revenues in 2009 of 2.7 mm and if they had 27 mm over the 6 years since inception in 2003, that's about an average of 4.5 mm a year. It plummeted when GSAT's satellite array failed. It should ramp up with the new constellation GSAT has/is putting up, sans any new business.
Trying to paint a more complete picture.
m
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
