" Those who don’t will see their current stock holdings downgraded, the letter says, 'without certain liquidation preference and voting rights' that they currently have. "
Billy Bramblett and other early shareholders are rightfully upset. I don't know how common such a maneuver is, but this sounds like theft and/or extortion.
I thought that a properly run business could get credit from a bank, rather than demanding its own shareholders donate more money?
Well, clearly I am totally unqualified to run a corporate business, unlike MPBC board members such as James Joaquin and Daniel Gluck, who successfully took over the company. I regard them as greedy lying narcissist jerks, but what would I know?
Personally, I would have thought that firing the founder and then suing her with ridiculous claims that she's trying to steal her own recipes was a bad move for a number of reasons, including damaging the company's credit rating. But those men did that, and now they're leveraging to remove "liquidation preference" (i.e., OWNERSHIP) from the original investors/stockholders.
They ousted the founder whose creative talent made the company's products possible, and now they're closing the facility in Petaluma and getting rid of their employees (while still retaining the value of Miyoko's name and her original recipes). To an ignorant person like me, this seems like a criminal ripoff. But maybe that's just how business works in the real world?
" Those who don’t will see their current stock holdings downgraded, the letter says, 'without certain liquidation preference and voting rights' that they currently have. "
Billy Bramblett and other early shareholders are rightfully upset. I don't know how common such a maneuver is, but this sounds like theft and/or extortion.
I thought that a properly run business could get credit from a bank, rather than demanding its own shareholders donate more money?
it seems this move benefits the largest shareholders. and banks are very hard these days.
Well, clearly I am totally unqualified to run a corporate business, unlike MPBC board members such as James Joaquin and Daniel Gluck, who successfully took over the company. I regard them as greedy lying narcissist jerks, but what would I know?
Personally, I would have thought that firing the founder and then suing her with ridiculous claims that she's trying to steal her own recipes was a bad move for a number of reasons, including damaging the company's credit rating. But those men did that, and now they're leveraging to remove "liquidation preference" (i.e., OWNERSHIP) from the original investors/stockholders.
They ousted the founder whose creative talent made the company's products possible, and now they're closing the facility in Petaluma and getting rid of their employees (while still retaining the value of Miyoko's name and her original recipes). To an ignorant person like me, this seems like a criminal ripoff. But maybe that's just how business works in the real world?
yup. that is exactly how it works!