RE:RE:RE:I'll just leave this hereThe collusion comment (which I'll admit is extreme language with some underlying truth) is that Beedie controls a significant portion of the company because management kept taping their credit line not because it needed cash (at least not nearly as much as what they've drawn) but because it allowed them to stay onside with covenants. A significant portion of this "debt draw" occurred while the company was negotiating acquisition terms with Beedie. Net, net management put Beedie in a position where they control a significant portion of the company which gives them tremendous powers in negotiation including with any alternative bidder (Beedie owns ~2.5M actual shares plus now has about 30M shares via $11M of convertibles with an average strike of 37 cents).
So why did management knowingly continue to increase Beedie's control despite not needing the cash other than for covenants (which did and could continue to have covenant relief)? It could be i) that they wanted to put Beedie in a position to be the sole bidder (and simultaneously dissuade other potential suitors) to protect management's jobs/shares OR ii) SA and his team are incredibly incompetent and unfit to be leadership of THNK (or any other company).
Now all that said there is a price at which Beedie would be happy to cash out of THNK and get all their money back. I believe that to be 50 cents or higher given the upside/downside scenario and Beedie's core strategy. We may yet see another bidder come to the table and it's possible that if discussions are ongoing Beedie is at the table both as the original bidder but also as an insider / shareholder looking to sell.