All trademarks and logos are and remain the property of their respective owners.With Solo's February 22, 2012 public disclosure that a few high executives would be given an additional half-million dollars each, if they could sell the company in about 90 days, this diary has developed a renewed, and sharpened, focus: tracking the manifold conflicts of interest created by such a scheme, in a '34 Act reporting company (even if the Solo equity no longer trades in the public markets). Significantly, the CEO (and the GC) are each already scheduled to get over $2 million (and in the case of the GC, $1 million) to do just that job. So, why the additional $500,000 (or an additional 25 or 50 percent, respectively, in cash)?
The board will need to explain that. Is it the goal of the board to sell the company before the next regular SEC financial reporting period passes? If so, why? Is there a debt-covenant problem looming, again? [There have been numerous debt covenant waivers negotiated in the past four years.] Are the sealed bids (due March 6, 2012) -- on the former Deerfield Road manufacturing site, and HQ -- coming in below what's needed to stay in debt covenant compliance? These are important questions -- all left unanswered by Solo's February 22, 2012 SEC Form 8-K.
[Of course, to be clear, all trademarks and logos are and remain the property of their respective owners.
All use here is intended to comply with the fair use and public commentary provisions of United States first amendment jurisprudence. This site comments on matters of public concern, and earns no commercial or other monetary return from any source for doing so. All logos and trademarks are used solely for the purpose of accurately identifying the parties involved in the reports contained in this diary. In order to request a take-down, leave a comment on any post -- and the site admin will promptly address the request, making a determination in the same comment thread, about whether fair use and/or free and robust commentary on matters of public import protects the disputed use.]
From at least from 2004 through to the present, Solo's management has commited more than its share of GAAP accounting, and SEC financial reporting errors -- most of these apparently only coming to light, after detection by the overworked SEC Corporation Finance staffers. This seems to be the sort of information investors might want to keep track of, in a separate running diary -- so I'll oblige.
To be fair, it would appear that one restatement (2005) was undertaken solely on management initiative, but it appeared to be the quantitatively, and qualitatively smallest of the adjustments uncovered during the review period -- 2004 to 2011.
One final word of caution -- this diary should not be construed as investment advice. Consult your own advisors before investing in (or going short on) the debt of this company.
