Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Artaflex Inc V.ATF



TSXV:ATF - Post by User

Comment by jackbnimbleon Oct 04, 2009 2:20pm
97 Views
Post# 16361039

RE: RE: RE: Board of Directors

RE: RE: RE: Board of Directors

Wormbuster: speaking of fiduciary duty, I am less concerned about RH members fulfilling their responsibilities than the none RH group after all it was the non RH group that has ensured that ATQ has been functioning at a suboptimal level for many years and spending like drunken sailors when a little parsimony would have made this company consistently profitable years ago.

If the non-RH group of Directors was carrying out their fiduciary duties how could the following have occurred?

-Use one of the most expensive audit firms charging a fee similar to that of LB which is six times the size of ATQ? IEC uses a local Rochester audit firm and law firm

-Use one of the most expensive law firms in the country unlike IEC
-Hired a ceo who lives 4000 km away from the office instead of stating that the job is in Toronto and we expect/require you to live nearby. I have checked with a few headhunters and besides laughter they confirm there are not many other cases where the ceo has to fly across the country to come to work. in fact none of the headhunters could name a successful company where this was the case. When you check IEC and LB (and literally thousands of other companies) you will see that the ceo is co-located where the head office is. Is this not a common sense best practice?
-Expand through acquisition of other companies, a favourite strategy of the financial community where all sorts of fees can be hidden in the purchase price saying its accretive when not one of the ATQ decisions has been accretive except to Bay Street.
-Establish multiple plants in different geopraphic locations to ensure that the operating costs are much higher and efficiencies are not possible.
-Use of IR when many companies do it themselves to save money. No need for IR when there is no consistent profitiability
-and the list goes on. I think the RH members will finally force some strategic thinking and decision making that may finally be accretive to the shareholders.

This will finally open the door for much greater top and bottom line growth.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>