I think we're roughly on the same page here. We obviously disagree on the outcome, but substantively, I think we agree on the movements.
I'd say that the fact that they were one-off, outsourced, non-growth revenue will be relied on to prove that JK did fail in his Corps Act obligations. I don't think they'd be considered emotive arguments. It'll be used to indicate that he spent a lot of time and effort to hit the targets, knowing it was to the detriment of the shareholders (because zero growth). That he technically complied with the terms of the incentive plan (I agree, he did) will be irrelevant if the courts rule he acted deliberately against shareholder interests. If the courts have no problem with it, of course he'll get to keep the shares.
I'd say that JK's defense is unlikely to be "I hit the targets - i complied with the terms". It's more likely to be "I thought that these contracts might generate future business for us. They didn't, but I was trying to grow the business". If he can argue that successfully, then he'll keep the shares.
Whether he does or doesn't get away with it, I think most rational holders can see that his main aim in the contracts was to hit revenue targets (and therefore claim a whole bunch of our equity without actually creating growth). I consider that to be unethical.
ISX Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
