Why didn't they warn investors before going bankrupt?
They did warn investors when their filed their 10-K and 10-Q with the SEC. There is nothing in those financial filings that would have supported that this was a healthy company with a bright future. To the contrary, they were burning cash and had no revenues to show for it, and a bankruptcy was indeed inevitable and obvious to anyone that took the time to actually review the financials.
What could GTAT do? Apple was holding an iPhone to their head. /s
What? You signed the contract and you took the money! Welcome to the "business world"... you must be new here. You got a crapload of money and *gasp* were required to make good on your commitments. Talk about a bunch of entitled, whiny crybabies! I tell you what... why don't you go lobby the government to raise minimum wage and you can go work at McDonalds. There... we've taken your risk away for you. Jeez!
The question that now needs to be answered is: When did the COO and CEO know the above -- was it pre or post stock sale, pre or post telling the shareholders that GTA was doing well?
sog35 wrote: »
Only the shareholders got screwed.
sog35 wrote: »
Guidance from the CEO was for a profitable 2014 and over a 200,000,000 in profit in 2016.
There was ZERO warning the guidance had to be adjusted.
"We remain confident in our ability to achieve our 2016 non-GAAP earnings per share target of at or above $1.50."
GTAT CEO - 6 weeks before BANKRUPT
CROOKS and FRAUDS to the very end.
So GTAT was in such dire straights? Why didn't they warn investors before going bankrupt? Total CROOKS.
Why didn't they go to Apple to discuss the situation? Because they wanted the stock price to keep going up and cash in on TENS OF MILLIONS in stock sells.
I know you and other felt that GTAT knew in August, here is the information which shows it came to head in Sept
Risk is like that: in the rear view mirror you see "bad management" while going forward at the time the risks could be judged manageable for the potential gains.
I have no problems with contracts even if they're lopsided.
Apple didn't hold a gun to anybody's head and force them to sign.
Maybe Marc Newson did.
It doesn't make any sense. My assumption is GTAT were in way over their heads. If they truly did feel the equipment Apple selected wasn't economically feasible to create the product Apple wanted, why didn't they negotiate the equipment they wanted to use or just not accept the contract.
I think they basically under bid the job. Happens all the time. They want to be the low bidder to get the job but, you can't deliver if it costs you more to make the product than what you are earning. This manufacturing process was uncharted territory. Apple was relying on GT for expertise. It was definitely not in Apple's best interest to have them default.
It was unscrupulous of the executives to bail with a golden parachute but I doubt that was their original plan.
daveinpublic wrote: »
So gt took a huge risk - but they don't want to pay if the risk fails?