PURE, UNADULTERATED SPECULATION - I am thinking the canards were initially manufactured at VPC (I could have sworn that was mentioned in a c.c., blog, somewhere). Then, with the success of the product manufacture at VPC and review by LMT, the cost set by VPC was run by LQMT. The cost of product was way too high for LQMT to make money off of a product they need to start generating revenues and earnings when they probably worked hard to even get the contract.
From 8K - In the Company’s view, VPC has been difficult to work with, has quoted non-competitive prices to manufacture products for customer orders won by the Company, has often delayed delivery schedules for quoted products and has generally been unwilling to work collaboratively with the Company to provide customers with a seamless process for specifying, ordering and delivering products made using the Company’s technology.
In other words, VPC was attempting to pass on start-up costs, machinery acquisition, and understandably, (and maybe even expected), inefficiencies to LQMT. Either LMT or LQMT balked at the pricing. LQMT goes to work with Engel to find a way to make them cheaper resulting in the "adaptation" to the Engel plastic machine. LQMT lets LMT know that they can have their own machines with better pricing of product in the long run, but before any machines are really a "go," LMT is testing samples in the "future." Engel is happy to push machines to LMT if the opportunity arises. Visser's pissed he no longer has LMT manufacturing contract - conflict ensues - both parties have very valid arguments. (As an aside, VPC wouldn't be this ticked off already if he had a real opportunity to make money, IMO).
But really, if that is what did occur, LQMT has the better argument IMVVHO because their first objective is getting the best deal for shareholders and VPC, although rightly expecting to have the opportunity to recoup their costs, has a "monopoly" on manufacturing and the courts/arbitrators frown upon that along with his substantial ownership stake in LQMT. That works fine if you're private, but not when you're a cog in a machine of a publicly traded company with outside shareholders. In fact, if Steipp had just rubber stamped pricing from VPC, he would be breaching his fiduciary duty to shareholders. I'm thinking the exclusivity has become a major stumbling block for LQMT and although Visser might get some damages, an arbitrator or judge would look at the sum of the whole as opposed to just a part of the whole, and to kill LQMT and its shareholders to benefit one, would not make much sense. JMHO.
Sound plausible? To me, it sounds like it's possible because I could have sworn they said that VPC was manufacturing those canards, but even if they weren't, VPC's argument isn't that strong because although he negotiated exclusivity, no court would allow exclusivity by the sole manufacturer to kill a company's ability to benefit its shareholders, particularly when the manufacturer is a larger shareholder who would still benefit from the contract.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
