Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    10-21-2008, 07:49 PM #1

    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 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.

  2. Newman is offline
    Newman's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 1,162
    10-22-2008, 11:25 AM #2
    This was an excellent rundown cos, and I am very glad to see you back in the forums.

    It is a very intriguing idea, but one that I do not see as plausible.

    A few questions I have for Micheal Hartlieb:

    1) Where is the interopperable radio? One of your claims is that many of the radios on the streets right now are infact interopperable and are able to be activated by satellite. Where are these radios? You have allegedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with these issues, yet have you not investigated the radios themselves? Have you taken them to an electrical engineer to find out if they infact have both chipsets? Have you had the chipsets analyzed to find out what kind of programming is on them?

    2) You continually use "facts" that have been disproven elsewhere. Homer has told you a number of times that Infinity shareholders were not "f...ed" by Mel when infinity was taken private, that instead Infinity shareholders made a pretty nice profit during the time that Mel was in charge there. Why do you keep using Infinity as an example of Sirius getting screwed?

    Micheal has certainly gathered an amazing amount of circumstantial evidence. The only thing I want him to do is tie off the loose ends by presenting us with the facts that tie them all together. I have yet to see him present a single hard fact. If he could produce these, I would be right there by his side, because the evidence could certainly lead you to be suspicious (which I am) but until you have substantial facts that prove anything, a lawsuit or anything else is just a waste of time and money.

  3. cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    10-22-2008, 04:15 PM #3
    Newman I absolutely share your concerns regarding Michael's claims. He is convincing in his accusations but the reality of his claims are thin. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that interoperability could have been slow played by the companies.

    The question really is: What would be Sirius' incentive, if Michael's claim that their content was superior and would have drawn subs from their competitor, is true. I truly believe that being able to develop a "thing" to work does not necessarily make it "Viable", cost effective. Who was to buy interoperable radios? Consumers? OEM's? The chipset technology was just getting "size compatible" for one choice, what would that radio have looked like for two?? Here in is where the suit falls on its face.... What Harm, Really??

    Given the current problems in shareholder confidence that the company's management, specifically Mel, is experiencing, investors are running to any port in this storm, hence Michael's new popularity, IMHO.

  4. sxminvestor is offline
    sxminvestor's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 738
    10-22-2008, 07:22 PM #4
    If anything, he may have hurt himself and other shareholders by making a stink of this interoperable radio and may have had a hand in the delays of the last few months.

    Don't give this guy the time of day.

    He bet on something he believed would happen and if his theory panned out, he would have profited. Now the reverse happenned and he lost like everyone else has and not because of his "interoperable" radio theory of Sirius siphoning all XM's business because of their superior content.

    Think about it, if the merger closed 3 months prior, maybe Sirius does something before credit markets seize up & did this guy have a hand in the delays ?

    He pisses me off beyond belief !

  5. relmor2003 is offline
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    10-22-2008, 10:27 PM #5
    I think Michael's issues are all right on, and hes correct 100 percent. Now, if it turns out this was a big ruse by Sirius for some secret stockholder advantage, good for them. Too bad they have to make you sell your stock to make their plan work. How illegal and corrupt a plan that would be. Either way were looking at a purposeful stockholder destruction. Dont know the end game, but I see the path. The proxy vote was the last straw to me thinking Mel was being an imbicile for our benefit, when it was for the banks and bondholder and future owners benefits. Or no ones, and its simply the government powers that be or some big secret future owner pulling strings. All these senarios are possible, but trust me, one of the above is true. Tyler's picture he paints is juvenile, and dangerous to investors.

  6. clueless is offline
    Senior Member
    clueless's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Location: New York Posts: 251
    10-22-2008, 11:01 PM #6
    I have watched this stock go from $3.00 to $0.30 so, I have to believe one of these scenarios. I have watched nothing but common sense good news do nothing to stop this stock from sliding further and further down.

  7. cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    10-23-2008, 10:17 AM #7
    I can't help but feel is there weren't the issues of interoperability the FCC could have easily dismissed his claims, but having a complaint before them directly related to their license gave them reason to "Pause for Review". Their can't possibly be a claim that this wasn't ammunition for the Democrats to drag their feet. In this environment any delay beyond May 1, 2008 put everyone supporting the merger in peril.

  8. cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    10-23-2008, 10:21 AM #8
    Is it the proxy statement in general that has you believing we're being sold out? The Dilution of Shares? The Reverse Split?

  9. Greenland is offline
    Greenland's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Location: nation's capitol Posts: 119
    10-23-2008, 10:29 AM #9

    Anybody ?

    i know now that SIRI is a very long term stock and if it does get back on its feet , when will it at least get back to the 52 week high for 2008 ? 1, 2 , 3, 5, years ? just a ballpark figure would be good.