"He is obviously trying to balance his duty of confidentiality to the company against his his duty of loyalty to the shareholders."
Mr. Wesson has no such duties.
Having parted ways with the company he would only have a duty to keep things of the nature under discussion confidential extending beyond his relationship with the company if he signed an agreement to that effect.
Likewise, he has no duty of loyalty to the shareholders.
He could have a "sense" of both things, but not a duty.
He may also have a prevailing sense of loyalty to the man who brought him on board.
"If he were to name prospective board members, before they are even nominated, then I am sure there would be cries of foul play."
To my knowledge he has not even been asked that question....at least not here. He was asked which Investor in the investor "group" appeared to be standing in the way of the attempts to seat an "unqualified" (you know what I mean by that, of course) board.
From my last post to Mr. Wesson:
"It sounds from that like the one candidate proposed by the Investor who met all criteria was also granted the necessary due diligence access."
""Kevin and Matt would not agree to seat any of my candidates, after discussions with that Investor"....but that candidate wasn't "one of my(your) candidates", so what happened that resulted in his not being appointed?
Finally, given the obvious impact that the Investor has had on this process, which I take from your comments you feel has been extremely negative, why the reticence to name him/her?"
His response.....and his last post to date:
"Yes, the Individual from the Investor's slate has done all due diligence.
My reticence in naming the individual is that I feel in may be inappropriate."
I though that it was clear to him, though perhaps not to you, that my questions were regarding two separate issues and two separate people.
The first was answered incompletely....we still don't know why a fully qualified candidate who had done his due diligence and was actually proposed by the Investor purported to be blocking the process, wasn't appointed by the board at the time, which was composed of MI, TB and Mr. Wesson himself.
The second was not answered base on his sense of propriety, something that he certainly shouldn't be denied but might be misplaced. It doesn't necessarily comport with your characterization of a "duty of loyalty to the shareholders", a number of whom have evidenced a desire to have the question answered. People may not be entitled to know who is gumming up the works, but keeping it secret engenders speculation regarding the entire group.
Have you heard anything about whether a Recruitment Firm has been employed to try and find suitable candidates as was outlined in the agreement? I know the company itself wasn't a party to the agreement and hence isn't obligated to hire such a firm for that purpose, but I was just wondering if you, or anyone else reading this, might know the status of that.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
