RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:... "Scoundrels" ...LaticelnExile wrote: Well he didn't have a problem with letting go of 505,000 shares at $12.31 did he? He could have covered the margin call and PREVENTED his shares from being sold. If I thought my shares were to double as you have suggested, then I would move heaven an earth to cover the debt and not have them sold. Remember he was not buying shares and had a margin call. These were owned by him and he had pledged them against debt. So he was essentially using a debt instrument against a decline in the share price which in my opinion that is identical to placing a put against your stock and getting out the back door because he could not sell them with strategic review. His shares were sold over three days - August 12, 15 and 16 as you can see on SEDI (previously posted) and I do not believe that he got a call from the financial institution on the morning of August 22nd, the day of the press release, advising him, "oh, by the way, your shares were sold last week." I had posted on this board as well as it was flying around twitter that there was insider selling (I didn't know who was selling at the time but I posted and tweeted that there was insider selling asit was reported on tmx.com and they did not issue a correction for those days. It was finally disclosed on the 22nd when the press release came out that it was Thompson. So you are saying that shorts knew about it, but Thompson was in the dark until the 22nd and "surprised and remorseful" that his shares were sold and you believe this press release? Come on, I wasn't born last night and I am calling BS to that. This was a way for him to get out of his stock, and it was exactly what Pearson did with his margin call when Valeant was at $70. There was also no Statement of Risk filed with SEC that Thompson ever had these shares pledged. And I am going out on a limb and saying that the other 1.6 million shares, if he still owns them, are pledged as well as collateral against debt. With these shares being in a trust account in the Cayman Islands (or deregistered in the Cayman Islands by way of Argentina), who knows what he did with them or how many he owns. He chanaged ownership of the shares to a limited numbered company in February, moved them to the Cayman Island trust account in March which is coincidentally when the anti-hedging policy came down for the directors. Don't you think that timing is suspicious? Perhaps he knew that there were no buyers for the company? I am not saying he did anything illegal (if anything CRA would have the issue because it would have triggered a capital gain when he changed ownership of his shares to the limited numbered company in February), but I am saying though that it seems that he took care of his own stock while the stock was tanking for shareholders and he was telling investors that the company was "firing on all cylinders" and "that business has never been better." Investors should have been asking themselves why he was trying so hard to sell the company if business was never better.
Lattice, you make a good point.
Why CEO Mark Thompson allowed a portion of the CXR shares he owned to be used to cover his margin call is an interesting question......Perhaps they were his most liquid asset....?.....Not many people, even very wealthy ones, have approximately $6M in cash sitting in a low-risk, highly liquid vehicle that can be accessed quickly to cover a margin call......Maybe he did have other liquid assets to cover the call (e.g. common shares in other publically-traded companies) and nonetheless chose to allow his CXR shares to be used, maybe not - We can only speculate, but it does make one wonder about the state of his personal finances, or perhaps, as you stated, his possible desire to creatively be able to unload a portion of his position in CXR without violating securities laws......
Regardless, I think any objective person would agree that Mark Thompson has performed poorly as CEO. Consequently, one of two scenarios needs to play out in my view:
If CXR’s Board is indeed in the final stages of completing the sale of CXR to another entity that will be announced by the end of this month: Mark Thompson can stay on as CEO to complete the deal.
If there will be no sale of CXR completed and announced by the end of September (or if a potential sale the Board thought would be completed by the end of September falls through or is delayed into October or beyond): I believe the Board must insist on Mr. Thompson’s resignation as Chairman and CEO of CXR immediately. The investment community has rightfully lost faith in Mr. Thompson and he would be hurting CXR shareholders by clinging to power after letting them down so badly. Another Board member can be installed as interim CEO until the company is sold or a successor is found. This action send a message to the investment community that the Board recognizes the errors made by Mr. Thompson and is serious about bringing in another CEO who will not repeat Mr. Thompson’s mistakes and offer a clear plan going forward to solidify the company’s financial position and prospects as either a going concern in and of itself or as a rebuilt company which would be a much more attractive takeout candidate for another firm.