Karl Seigerling on the board of ARQ, page-5

The justification for having almost 18% of CDM in one stock (especially like ARQ) should have been well communicated to CDM shareholders and in reality, should have been trimmed and profits taken when ARQ became significantly “overbalanced” as part of the CDM portfolio. The fact that Karl apparently thought that he knew better, and not only let ARQ get to the significant portion of CDM that it did is a concern for two reasons, one, that Karl failed to follow his graduated process of acquisition of buying and selling portfolio holdings, but as a fund manager, of letting the euphoria of having ARQ grow to that size, without prudent portfolio management. Most fund managers and LIC managers will list either their top 10 or 20 stocks with the percentage of the fund that they represent. I don’t know of ANY fund or responsible fund manager that would have let one stock get to 18% of the portfolio. If it had been CSL, I don’t know that there would have been much to complain about; but it defies imagination what Karl saw as the catalyst for ARQ to be such a growth stock and to justify becoming such an unwieldy 18% of the portfolio. I suspect that in terms of CDM dividend, that they, along with the significant reduction in dividends received to CDM, will be slashed or markedly reduced. You can’t keep paying out dividends out of capital when dividends received have been cut, and the capital reduced because of losses.
And so, like a house of cards, came down both ARQ and the price of CDM.