Just a hunch but if the specifics of the general charges made by LQMT are valid... Visser may be doing a gentlemans agreement with LQMT and dumping shares to dilute his power. I'm sure in the arbitration those charges will be published with specifics that ole Barniekins doesn't want his "Nascar Buddies" to know about. Just reading between the lines on what LQMT said was going on...it almost straddles the line of criminal. I wish I knew more. The pricing charges seem horrendous. Just the general description seemed to indicate a deliberate attempt to sabotage LQMT.
It's clearly too difficult to speculate why he would be selling off, but a possible legal analysis is NOT that he is selling BECAUSE of arbitration, but in ANTICIPATION of it. That is my point regarding arbitration possibly affecting his relatively minor/major sell-off.
The "10% notice" is to notify the world that a shareholder is looking to start to gain control over a company, whether through trying to control the board, influence other shareholders at shareholder meetings, introducing proposals for proxy, etc etc etc. so that other shareholders can protect their own interests knowing the 10%-er is looking to gain influence over how the company is run. It's a bit of an extreme example, but think of Icahn's ability to influence Apple and its shareholders, and he doesn't even have 10% of Apple. Now, couple that with the corporate opportunity doctrine which applies to officers, directors and, yes, you guessed it, large shareholders.
Again, this is speculation, but if Visser had over 10% he could influence board apptmts, other shareholders, etc. and, if he's also dealing to his own benefit (VPC as exclusive manufacturer) with all that control, he can't have it both ways. In other words, get under 10% and cede some voting control, but retain some manufacturing capacity (or all, if he is good at it) or, keep 10% control, but give up exclusivity on manufacturing.
Intro article on the corporate opportunity doctrine and it DOES apply to large shareholders.
P.S. I'm starting to think that to get the exclusive, Visser might have been prohibited from directly appointing a board member and/or he knew the corporate opportunity doctrine would force him to relinquish his exclusivity if he got a board member directly appointed. I'm not seeing a lot of altruism in the Visser deal, but I am reading a lot of game-playing, desperation, and greed into it. Jmvvho, fwiw.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
