RE: Difficult Decision for ShareholdersI have read the SCC Proxy Circular and find it very convincing until someone tells me that it is not.
1. The Primoris financials confirm that Rockford contributed $11 million profit in the last quarter. BEV was unwilling/unable to complete a merger ?
2. BEV only backed down on the insider stock sale backstopping scheme after SCC objected.
3. There is no way we can tell whether BEV tried to push through a bad, insider deal without shareholder approval that was blocked by SCC. Unless we get more details from BEV I am inclined to believe SCC.
4. SCC was willing to negotiate with BEV but BEV has decided to spend $180,000 which forces SCC to spend $75,000 on soliciting proxy votes. If SCC wins, $255,000 of BEV's cash will have been frittered away. Seems like a waste of company money.
5. For all practical purposes current Directors hold no BEV shares and seem to collect nice fees at no risk ($470,000/year for doing what???). Indeed, SCC suggests that there is a sweetheart deal between BEV and one of the directors costing the company $93,000/year. Most directors sold their stock holdings in the last year. Jack Shaw sold 50% of his.
6. The BEV Proxy Circular doesn't tell us that John Bennett is suing BEV for damages but SCC does. SCC states that the criminal charges against John Bennett (NJ District Court) have "not been resolved". In fact from my search of the US Federal Court records, the case just languishes even though a Warrant for his arrest was issued August, 2009.
7. One year has passed since BEV raised $25 million to finance an acquisition. SCC says that there have been numerous opportunities since, including some where BEV didn't bother to respond to the submissions. SCC says their proposed Board would be better able to consummate such a deal.
Without information to the contrary, SCC makes some pretty damning statements.