CircuitGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 165
Is the following summary true?
1987 CDI is founded with the sole purpose of serving one customer- Dillards.
At some point Dillards makes an investment in CDI. They give CDI money to grow their business. In exchange Dillards gets 50% ownership. Now Dillards, as their half owner and main customer, can call the shots with them, but still have them operate outside their corporate structure.
The officers at this point each own several percent of the business. This share is useless b/c its illiquid. No one wants to buys 10% of a small business with one main customer. The use in these small shares is to incentivize the management team to grow the company.
They succeed. They build multiple Dillards and get other customers. Theyre very profitable. They value on paper grows.
2007 William Clark dies. His family inherits his shares.
Later 2007 Dillards goes to acquire the rest of the shares. The executive teams illiquid shares are about to become with worth up to a few million dollars. The executive team is about to get a windfall.
In doing its due diligence, Dillards accounting realizes CDI accounting has been aggressive. The ID show seems to suggest its debatable among accounting experts whether CDI was doing Enron-like tricks to make their numbers look good or whether Dillards was overly-conservative. This is understandable b/c Dillards probably invested in CDI in the beginning b/c it was more nimble and less stodgy and conservative. But it really comes to a head with Dillards accounting calling Mr. Glasgow an out-and-out thief. Dillards accounting tells him youre basically and employee of Dillards whos been stealing from your boss. Mr. Glasgow says youre not our boss; youre a stodgy company contracting with an aggressive small company you happen to own. It gets nastier from there.
Jan 28, 2008 Mr. Glasgow mysteriously goes missing.
Early 2008 With Glasgow gone, somehow Dillards gets over its problems. Maybe it was one bad apple whos not with us anymore.
Aug 2008 (7 mo later) The acquisition goes through. The management team all gets their money. Glasgows wife probably inherited his shares and received money.
John Glasgows death helped solve everyones problems. He was at the center of accusations that he was aggressively refuting. When he disappeared and couldnt carry on refuting them, the acquisition went through. All his executive colleagues and his wife all benefit.
This does not say who did it. One or more the people standing to gain may have done it. He may have felt horrible guilt. He may have said he was living to build this thing that would provide for his family and help employees, vendors, and customers, and how he messed it up and was wroth more to everyone dead than alive. He could have gone into hiding, but I would expect him to resurface once the acquisition went through.
My guess is one of the shareholders got angry with him. He thought, youre a thief and deserve to die. And unlike other crimes, your dying actually undoes the damage. This shareholder threatened him and arranged a meeting. Glasgow knew the guy might get violent, might publically condemn him, sue him, make a complaint against his CPA license, and turn him in to law enforcement. John probably didnt think he would go so far as to commit premeditated murder.
This is just a wild guess. The same factors could have led to suicide. Also, Im not sure his death is what made the acquisition go through. Its odd, though, that it was in peril while was alight working his tail off to see it through, and then it went through months after he died.
1987 CDI is founded with the sole purpose of serving one customer- Dillards.
At some point Dillards makes an investment in CDI. They give CDI money to grow their business. In exchange Dillards gets 50% ownership. Now Dillards, as their half owner and main customer, can call the shots with them, but still have them operate outside their corporate structure.
The officers at this point each own several percent of the business. This share is useless b/c its illiquid. No one wants to buys 10% of a small business with one main customer. The use in these small shares is to incentivize the management team to grow the company.
They succeed. They build multiple Dillards and get other customers. Theyre very profitable. They value on paper grows.
2007 William Clark dies. His family inherits his shares.
Later 2007 Dillards goes to acquire the rest of the shares. The executive teams illiquid shares are about to become with worth up to a few million dollars. The executive team is about to get a windfall.
In doing its due diligence, Dillards accounting realizes CDI accounting has been aggressive. The ID show seems to suggest its debatable among accounting experts whether CDI was doing Enron-like tricks to make their numbers look good or whether Dillards was overly-conservative. This is understandable b/c Dillards probably invested in CDI in the beginning b/c it was more nimble and less stodgy and conservative. But it really comes to a head with Dillards accounting calling Mr. Glasgow an out-and-out thief. Dillards accounting tells him youre basically and employee of Dillards whos been stealing from your boss. Mr. Glasgow says youre not our boss; youre a stodgy company contracting with an aggressive small company you happen to own. It gets nastier from there.
Jan 28, 2008 Mr. Glasgow mysteriously goes missing.
Early 2008 With Glasgow gone, somehow Dillards gets over its problems. Maybe it was one bad apple whos not with us anymore.
Aug 2008 (7 mo later) The acquisition goes through. The management team all gets their money. Glasgows wife probably inherited his shares and received money.
John Glasgows death helped solve everyones problems. He was at the center of accusations that he was aggressively refuting. When he disappeared and couldnt carry on refuting them, the acquisition went through. All his executive colleagues and his wife all benefit.
This does not say who did it. One or more the people standing to gain may have done it. He may have felt horrible guilt. He may have said he was living to build this thing that would provide for his family and help employees, vendors, and customers, and how he messed it up and was wroth more to everyone dead than alive. He could have gone into hiding, but I would expect him to resurface once the acquisition went through.
My guess is one of the shareholders got angry with him. He thought, youre a thief and deserve to die. And unlike other crimes, your dying actually undoes the damage. This shareholder threatened him and arranged a meeting. Glasgow knew the guy might get violent, might publically condemn him, sue him, make a complaint against his CPA license, and turn him in to law enforcement. John probably didnt think he would go so far as to commit premeditated murder.
This is just a wild guess. The same factors could have led to suicide. Also, Im not sure his death is what made the acquisition go through. Its odd, though, that it was in peril while was alight working his tail off to see it through, and then it went through months after he died.
