Impressions: Michael Hartlieb & Tyler's "Special Edition"
While I reviewed and openly expressed my dismay, as many others have regarding Sirius Xm Radio's SEC filing, Proxy Statement, Michael Hartlieb and his law suits and shareholder objections have come up. So much posting has been directed toward Michael that Tyler appropriately brought him to Siriusbuzz.com for a Special Edition interview.
Interview, does not fairly describe the event, it was more of a forum for Michael to put forth his concerns regarding Executive Management of the company, a brief history of his activities and his lawsuits as a shareholder which reflect his concerns.
I must say that in listening to Michael I was impressed with his commitment to what he has demonstrated fairly well as a complete disregard by the company of shareholder rights. There were a number of highlights that stuck out for me as I listened and wanted to put them down for your review.
1. Michael felt that prior to the merger, with the reality of two companies in competition for listeners, that Sirius Satellite Radio had superior content which is why he invested in Sirius.
2. He felt that per the FCC mandate of interoperability when licenses were granted, that the development of these radios were "doable" and "viable" at the time, but not put forth by the companies. (I interpret this to mean that Michael believes that the technology was available and it was cost efficient and withheld from consumers)
3. Michael's claim of "Harm" is that with the implementation of these available technologies that were financially viable, that Sirius' Superior Content would have taken market share from XM, minimally, reducing the ratio of shares exchanged at the merger from 4.6 to 1 to some smaller ratio, and optimally removing the need to merge completely because Sirius would have overwhelmed XM in the market place.
Michael claims that this would reasonably have occurred if consumers via an interoperable device could receive either service at their choice forcing true competition.
4. Michael further expressed that company executives in several public forums mislead shareholders by saying that they were "fully funded", "debt financing would get done favorably", "no further share dilution", "no reverse split", and then taking the company into a totally different direction. He openly, Mel, said in a Wall Street Journal interview that he would love to take the company private especially at these prices (Michael claims this contrary to common shareholder interests). Michael believes that management has a agendas that do not favor the common shareholder contrary to their fiduciary responsibilities.
5. Michael articulated an accusation of the Company utilizing "Class Action" legal proceedings to hedge or insure the company from uncontrolled legal liability in the future. He claims that through the use of professional plaintiffs, holding small equity positions, who file a class action for shareholders, utilizing specialized class action legal firms to file the suit, then settle the case outside of court and contain the damage through limiting future shareholder litigation liability in the settlement's agreement.
(This is an ingenious legal strategy, initiated by the defendants, who then higher (privately) the plaintif, "Hedge" against future shareholder actions. Who comes up with this stuff???)
I wanted to open this thread for people who have been interested in Michael's legal proceeding and to invite Michael to come here and see where his agenda may serve others and ours as shareholders, his.
Please do not post Michael's legal communications here because they are available in other posts / articles to read.