|
(1)
|
Title
of each class of securities to which transaction
applies:
|
|
(2)
|
Aggregate
number of securities to which transaction
applies:
|
|
(3)
|
Per
unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is
calculated and state how it was
determined):
|
|
(4)
|
Proposed
maximum aggregate value of
transaction:
|
|
(5)
|
Total
fee paid:
|
¨
|
Check
box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule
0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid
previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number,
or the Form or Schedule and the date of its
filing.
|
|
(1)
|
Amount
Previously Paid:
|
|
(2)
|
Form,
Schedule or Registration Statement
No.:
|
|
(3)
|
Filing
Party:
|
|
(4)
|
Date
Filed:
|
|
·
|
submitting
a properly executed, subsequently dated BLUE
proxy card that will revoke all prior proxy cards, including any white
proxy cards that you may have submitted to the Company;
or
|
|
·
|
attending
the Annual Meeting and withdrawing your white proxy by voting in person
(although attendance at the Annual Meeting will not in and of itself
constitute revocation of a proxy).
|
Name
|
Common
Stock Beneficially
Owned
|
Percent
of
Class
|
||||||
Ted
Karkus
|
620,850 |
(1)(2)
|
4.8 | % | ||||
Mark
Burnett
|
151,473 |
(3)
|
1.17 | % | ||||
John
DeShazo
|
277,000 |
(4)(5)
|
2.14 | % | ||||
Mark
Frank
|
0 |
(6)
|
0 | % | ||||
Louis
Gleckel, MD
|
20,000 |
(7)
|
0.15 | % | ||||
Mark
Leventhal
|
240,000 |
(8)
|
1.85 | % | ||||
James
McCubbin
|
0 |
(9)
|
0 | % | ||||
ALL
SHAREHOLDER NOMINEES (Seven Persons)
|
1,309,323 | 10.14 | % |
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
|||
4/26/07
|
3,435
|
9/7/07
|
3,400
|
|||
4/27/07
|
1,600
|
9/10/7
|
2,100
|
|||
4/30/07
|
3,810
|
9/11/07
|
9,001
|
|||
5/2/07
|
613
|
9/14/07
|
(500)
|
|||
5/3/07
|
1,000
|
9/17/07
|
(26,800)
|
|||
5/7/07
|
18,400
|
9/19/07
|
10,926
|
|||
5/8/07
|
27,321
|
9/19/07
|
(14,174)
|
|||
5/9/07
|
9,300
|
9/24/07
|
(1,069)
|
|||
5/9/07
|
(1,100)
|
9/26/07
|
(28,460)
|
|||
5/10/07
|
800
|
9/27/07
|
(1,900)
|
|||
5/11/07
|
1,070
|
9/28/07
|
100
|
|||
5/14/07
|
1,371
|
10/8/07
|
6,100
|
|||
5/15/07
|
100
|
10/9/07
|
(200)
|
|||
5/16/07
|
1,150
|
10/10/07
|
(500)
|
|||
5/16/07
|
(1,000)
|
10/10/07
|
5,000
|
|||
5/24/07
|
900
|
10/11/07
|
(3,306)
|
|||
5/25/07
|
100
|
10/11/07
|
1,598
|
|||
5/29/07
|
700
|
10/12/07
|
(1,550)
|
|||
5/30/07
|
800
|
10/12/07
|
6,100
|
|||
6/15/07
|
21,140
|
10/15/07
|
2,500
|
|||
6/15/07
|
(2,390)
|
10/16/07
|
257
|
|||
6/22/07
|
1,470
|
10/17/07
|
(200)
|
|||
6/22/07
|
(2,000)
|
10/17/07
|
4,000
|
|||
6/25/07
|
7,200
|
10/18/07
|
200
|
|||
6/25/07
|
(2,743)
|
10/19/07
|
100
|
|||
6/26/07
|
(1,100)
|
10/22/07
|
(200)
|
|||
6/27/07
|
205
|
10/22/07
|
2,518
|
|||
6/28/07
|
(4,200)
|
10/23/07
|
(1,900)
|
|||
6/29/07
|
600
|
10/23/07
|
8,100
|
|||
6/29/07
|
(3,516)
|
10/24/07
|
(600)
|
|||
7/2/07
|
(1,100)
|
10/24/07
|
1,500
|
|||
7/5/07/
|
400
|
10/25/07
|
(1,100)
|
|||
7/5/07
|
(100)
|
10/25/07
|
18,793
|
|||
7/6/07
|
100
|
10/26/07
|
(500)
|
|||
7/6/07
|
(316)
|
10/26/07
|
3,948
|
|||
7/9/07
|
300
|
10/29/07
|
(575)
|
|||
7/9/07
|
(100)
|
10/29/07
|
1,150
|
|||
7/10/07
|
1,600
|
10/30/07
|
(1,500)
|
|||
7/12/07
|
300
|
10/31/07
|
(6,700)
|
|||
7/12/07
|
(1,900)
|
10/31/07
|
5,300
|
|||
9/6/07
|
14,268
|
11/01/07
|
27,660
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
|||
11/2/07
|
(2,590)
|
1/16/08
|
(100)
|
|||
11/2/07
|
16,600
|
1/16/08
|
450
|
|||
11/5/07
|
(600)
|
1/22/08
|
(450)
|
|||
11/5/07
|
1,800
|
1/22/08
|
8,600
|
|||
11/7/07
|
3,000
|
1/25/08
|
(600)
|
|||
11/8/07
|
(1,000)
|
1/25/08
|
730
|
|||
11/8/07
|
2,300
|
1/28/08
|
(1,530)
|
|||
11/9/07
|
610
|
1/28/08
|
6,500
|
|||
11/12/07
|
(5,400)
|
1/29/08
|
(700)
|
|||
11/12/07
|
40,450
|
1/29/08
|
5,100
|
|||
11/13/07
|
(2,433)
|
1/30/08
|
(200)
|
|||
11/13/07
|
4,300
|
1/30/08
|
(1,500)
|
|||
11/14/07
|
(300)
|
1/31/08
|
(2,577)
|
|||
11/14/07
|
2,575
|
2/1/08
|
181,431
|
|||
11/15/07
|
(100)
|
2/1/08
|
(7,054)
|
|||
11/15/07
|
4,300
|
2/5/08
|
1,600
|
|||
11/16/07
|
(500)
|
2/5/08
|
(100)
|
|||
11/16/07
|
1,325
|
2/7/08
|
3,600
|
|||
11/19/07
|
17,500
|
2/11//8
|
(3,140)
|
|||
11/20/07
|
(100)
|
2/12/08
|
(22,700)
|
|||
11/20/07
|
4,638
|
2/15/08
|
1,800
|
|||
11/21/07
|
(500)
|
2/15/08
|
(500)
|
|||
11/21/07
|
2,700
|
3/17/08
|
500
|
|||
11/27/07
|
(1,276)
|
3/17/08
|
7,400
|
|||
11/27/07
|
7,213
|
3/18/08
|
500
|
|||
11/28/07
|
(400)
|
3/19/08
|
(1,096)
|
|||
11/28/07
|
2,000
|
3/20/08
|
700
|
|||
11/29/07
|
(300)
|
3/20/08
|
496
|
|||
11/30/07
|
(900)
|
3/25/08
|
373
|
|||
11/30/07
|
3,700
|
3/27/08
|
1,923
|
|||
12/3/07
|
(100)
|
3/28/08
|
(650)
|
|||
12/3/07
|
4,252
|
3/28/08
|
100
|
|||
12/4/07
|
(600)
|
3/31/08
|
(746)
|
|||
12/4/07
|
4,254
|
3/31/08
|
(3,000)
|
|||
12/5/07
|
100
|
4/1/08
|
1,200
|
|||
12/6/07
|
700
|
4/3/08
|
4,000
|
|||
12/6/07
|
(900)
|
4/4/08
|
(11,200)
|
|||
12/12/07
|
200
|
4/7/08
|
(524)
|
|||
12/24/07
|
700
|
4/16/08
|
1,800
|
|||
12/26/07
|
2,200
|
4/16/08
|
4,311
|
|||
12/26/07
|
(5,000)
|
4/18/08
|
300
|
|||
12/27/07
|
12,971
|
4/22/08
|
100
|
|||
12/28/07
|
11,100
|
4/23/08
|
800
|
|||
12/31/07
|
26,100
|
4/24/08
|
100
|
|||
12/31/07
|
(300)
|
4/25/08
|
400
|
|||
1/2/08
|
10,670
|
4/28/08
|
1,800
|
|||
1/2/08
|
(480)
|
4/29/08
|
13,528
|
|||
1/3/08
|
5,550
|
4/30/08
|
(100)
|
|||
1/3/08
|
(300)
|
4/30/08
|
7,750
|
|||
1/4/08
|
200
|
5/1/08
|
(1,500)
|
|||
1/7/08
|
100
|
5/1/08
|
(1,865)
|
|||
1/7/08
|
(1,700)
|
5/2/08
|
400
|
|||
1/9/08
|
13,300
|
5/5/08
|
(2,400)
|
|||
1/9/08
|
(3730)
|
5/29/08
|
(100)
|
|||
1/16/08
|
100
|
5/30/08
|
100
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
|||
7/15/08
|
1,402
|
11/03/08
|
1,000
|
|||
7/31/08
|
598
|
11/4/08
|
(1,600)
|
|||
8/5/08
|
500
|
11/4/08
|
400
|
|||
8/11/08
|
600
|
11/6/08
|
100
|
|||
8/12/08
|
1,300
|
11/7/08
|
(4,250)
|
|||
9/16/08
|
100
|
11/10/08
|
900
|
|||
9/18/08
|
100
|
11/12/08
|
500
|
|||
9/29/08
|
100
|
11/13/08
|
(2,585)
|
|||
9/29/08
|
300
|
11/13/08
|
900
|
|||
10/1/08
|
(17,000)
|
11/14/08
|
900
|
|||
10/1/08
|
100
|
11/17/08
|
7600
|
|||
10/3/08
|
1,100
|
11/19/08
|
(11,300)
|
|||
10/3/08
|
(41,464)
|
11/19/08
|
800
|
|||
10/6/08
|
400
|
11/20/08
|
3,900
|
|||
10/7/08
|
200
|
11/20/08
|
(4,365)
|
|||
10/8/08
|
700
|
11/21/08
|
(10,500)
|
|||
10/8/08
|
(3,736)
|
11/21/08
|
2,600
|
|||
10/9/08
|
1,900
|
11/24/08
|
5600
|
|||
10/10/08
|
3,600
|
11/24/08
|
(8,100)
|
|||
10/13/08
|
(8,898)
|
11/25/08
|
2000
|
|||
10/13/08
|
4,300
|
11/25/08
|
(4607)
|
|||
10/16/08
|
10,300
|
11/26/08
|
(26,393)
|
|||
10/17/08
|
600
|
11/28/08
|
7,000
|
|||
10/17/08
|
(4,100)
|
12/1/08
|
13,000
|
|||
10/17/08
|
2,000
|
12/2/08
|
40,500
|
|||
10/20/08
|
(400)
|
12/8/08
|
2,000
|
|||
10/20/08
|
200
|
12/9/08
|
100
|
|||
10/22/08
|
(100)
|
12/10/08
|
400
|
|||
10/22/08
|
600
|
12/11/08
|
300
|
|||
10/23/08
|
(700)
|
12/12/08
|
500
|
|||
10/23/08
|
1,100
|
12/15/08
|
200
|
|||
10/24/08
|
100
|
12/29/08
|
400
|
|||
10/24/08
|
(102)
|
1/5/09
|
600
|
|||
10/27/08
|
600
|
1/6/09
|
2600
|
|||
10/29/08
|
200
|
1/22/09
|
984
|
|||
10/2/08
|
100
|
1/23/09
|
1,416
|
|||
10/31/08
|
200
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
||||
3/13/07
|
7,000
|
|
|
||||
3/14/07
|
9,000
|
5/30/08
|
1,030
|
||||
3/16/07
|
7,400
|
6/3/08
|
300
|
||||
5/1/08
|
4,000
|
6/13/08
|
7,300
|
||||
5/2/08
|
4,000
|
7/8/08
|
700
|
||||
5/5/08
|
2,400
|
7/9/08
|
4,300
|
||||
5/6/08
|
1,001
|
7/10/08
|
5,000
|
||||
5/7/08
|
2,200
|
7/11/08
|
4,500
|
||||
5/8/08
|
100
|
7/14/08
|
15,560
|
||||
5/14/08
|
7,499
|
12/1/08
|
3,000
|
||||
5/19/08
|
2,200
|
12/2/08
|
2,500
|
||||
5/20/08
|
1,000
|
12/3/08
|
100
|
||||
5/21/08
|
10
|
12/9/08
|
600
|
||||
5/22/08
|
500
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
||||
12/22/08
|
2,095
|
3/4/09
|
1,600
|
||||
1/21/09
|
800
|
3/5/09
|
4,900
|
||||
1/22/09
|
397
|
3/6/09
|
2,500
|
||||
1/26/09
|
1,500
|
3/10/09
|
2,500
|
||||
1/28/09
|
1,500
|
3/11/09
|
2,000
|
||||
2/9/09
|
1,000
|
3/12/09
|
3,345
|
||||
2/13/09
|
7,175
|
3/16/09
|
100
|
||||
2/27/09
|
1,000
|
3/19/09
|
1,000
|
||||
3/2/09
|
2,500
|
3/23/09
|
2,500
|
||||
3/3/09
|
5,000
|
3/24/09
|
1,861
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
||||
4/26/07
|
1,200
|
2/22/08
|
4,000
|
||||
5/10/07
|
2,000
|
2/25/08
|
1,000
|
||||
7/13/07
|
1,000
|
5/12/08
|
4,175
|
||||
9/12/07
|
3,100
|
5/14/08
|
202
|
||||
12/24/07
|
(36,000)
|
5/16/08
|
900
|
||||
2/12/08
|
10,213
|
5/19/08
|
344
|
||||
2/13/08
|
11,227
|
5/20/08
|
100
|
||||
2/14/08
|
4,500
|
5/21/08
|
5,100
|
||||
2/15/08
|
5,219
|
5/22/08
|
800
|
||||
2/19/08
|
1,700
|
11/24/08
|
10,000
|
||||
2/21/08
|
1,700
|
11/25/08
|
10,000
|
TRADE DATE
|
QUANTITY
|
||
5/1/08
|
100
|
||
9/19/08
|
8,000
|
||
9/22/08
|
1,950
|
||
9/23/08
|
3,700
|
||
9/24/08
|
402
|
||
9/25/08
|
1,274
|
||
9/29/08
|
343
|
||
9/30/08
|
4,331
|
||
10/6/08
|
16,000
|
||
10/16/08
|
22,500
|
||
10/17/08
|
21,500
|
||
1/27/09
|
5,000
|
||
2/6/09
|
350
|
||
2/10/09
|
1,800
|
||
2/11/09
|
1,400
|
||
2/19/09
|
1,400
|
||
2/25/09
|
50
|
Quigley’s Allegations
|
Our Responses
|
|
“In
making solicitations for shareholder proxies, and his solicitation against
execution of proxies voting in favor of the slate of candidates for the
Board of Directors, proposed by the existing Directors of the Company,
defendants Karkas [sp], Burnett, DeShazo, Gleckel and Leventhal are and
were at all times working with defendant Ligums.” Complaint,
paragraph 32.
|
The
Shareholder Nominees deny the Company’s allegation. Mr. Karkus,
Mr. Leventhal and Mr. DeShazo have had personal and business relationships
with Mr. Ligums. No other Shareholder Nominee has any
relationship with Mr. Ligums.
The
Shareholder Nominees confirm that there is no agreement or understanding
between any of the Shareholder Nominees and Mr. Ligums relating to this
proxy solicitation, The Quigley Corporation, or the voting of any shares
of The Quigley Corporation.
The
Shareholder Nominees confirm that Mr. Ligums has not been involved in the
financing, preparation or distribution of this proxy
statement.
|
|
“Defendant Ligums has, from time to time, joined with Mr. Karkus in his efforts to profit from trading in Quigley common stock or to influence management to implement measures to advance their short-term interests. Ligums uses the Internet pseudonym “John E. Montana” and his Facebook page indicates that he is a “fan” of “Cold-EEZE,” the signature product sold by the Company. He has boasted to Quigley management that he controls over one million shares of Quigley stock. In late 2002, Ligums contacted Quigley, claiming that he could assist the Company in promoting its stock with a large financial institution. More recently, in early 2008, defendants Ligums and Karkus together approached a senior executive at Quigley, suggesting that he join with them in a proxy contest to oust the current CEO, Guy Quigley. Defendant Ligums’ Facebook page includes as a “friend” Dr. Roger Sohn, a Quigley shareholder who contacted the Board in 2008, raising many of the issues now raised by defendant Karkus and his allies in their proxy campaign. Ligums has introduced Karkus to several members of the Karkus “group” described below.” Complaint, paragraph 18 |
As
stated previously, Mr. Karkus, Mr. Leventhal and Mr. DeShazo have had
personal and business relationships with Mr. Ligums. No other
Shareholder Nominee has any relationship with Mr. Ligums.
In
or around April 2008, after reading the Company's proxy, Mr. Karkus became
concerned about the bonuses and compensation packages awarded by the
Company, about the employment and compensation of executive's family
members and about the sale of Darius. Mr. Karkus wanted to
speak to Mr. Phillips, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer about his concerns, but Mr. Karkus believed Mr. Phillips
would not be comfortable speaking to Mr. Karkus on these
topics. He therefore asked Mr. Ligums, who Mr. Karkus believed
had a better relationship with Mr. Phillips, to set up and participate in
a call with Mr. Phillips in order to discuss these issues in a way that
would not be perceived by Mr. Phillips as being in any way
"hostile".
Mr.
Ligums was able to set up such a telephone call, during which call Mr.
Karkus discussed his concerns with Mr. Phillips and asked Mr. Phillips his
views as to whether changes to the composition of the Board of Directors
would be helpful to the management of the Company. Mr. Phillips
stated that he had no interest in taking a position adverse to Guy
Quigley. Mr. Ligums then told Mr. Karkus that in
view of Mr. Phillips’s response, he had no interest in any plans or
discussions concerning the composition of the
Company’s Board.
Mr.
Karkus had no further conversations with Mr. Phillips or Mr. Ligums on
these topics.
|
|
“On
April 7, 2009, defendant Karkus, along with all defendants other than
defendant Ligums, filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC announcing, among
other things, they had formed a “group,” as such term is used in Section
13(d)(l)(k) of the rules and regulations under the Exchange
Act. There defendants announced that their “group” had been
formed to solicit proxies in connection with the 2009 Annual Meeting of
the Company. There can be no doubt that defendant Ligums played
a key role in fanning the “group.” His agreements, relationships, and
understandings with the other members of the “group,” however, are nowhere
disclosed in the Schedule 13D. Indeed, defendant Ligums has
extensive connections with other members of the “group.” In addition to
their joint roles involving Quigley, defendant Ligums and Karkus have
extensive personal relationships and have engaged in other joint
investments. For example, both Ligums and Karkus were investors
in Truelite, Inc., a start up company. Defendant Ligums’
Facebook pages list both Mr. Karkus and one or more of his children as
“friends.” Defendant DeShazo is also a Facebook “friend” of defendant
Ligums. Defendant DeShazo’s business, FNB Construction,
contains a testimonial from defendant Ligums on its web
site. Defendant Leventhal is likewise linked to defendant
Ligums. Defendant Leventhal invested in Empire Financial
Holding Co., a now defunct brokerage firm that employed both Mr. Ligums
and his wife, Ann Bradford Ligums, in 2008. One or more of
defendants use Mr. Ligums’ firm, J.P. Turner, as their stock broker.”
Complaint, paragraph 19.
|
The
Shareholder Nominees deny the Company’s allegation. Mr. Karkus,
Mr. Leventhal and Mr. DeShazo have had personal and business relationships
with Mr. Ligums. No other Shareholder Nominee has any
relationship with Mr. Ligums.
The
Shareholder Nominees confirm that there is no agreement or understanding
between any of the Shareholder Nominees and Mr. Ligums relating to this
proxy solicitation, The Quigley Corporation, or the voting of any shares
of The Quigley Corporation.
The
Shareholder Nominees confirm that Mr. Ligums has not been involved in the
financing, preparation or distribution of this proxy
statement.
|
“Defendants
deliberately did not disclose Ligums as a ‘participant’ because such
disclosure would have required Defendants to set forth in their proxy
statement Ligums’ extensive track record of securities law
violations.” Complaint, paragraph 34.
|
Because
Mr. Ligums has no involvement with this proxy statement, this claim is
false on its face. Because the Shareholder Nominees
are not acting in concert with Mr. Ligums and Mr. Ligums is not a part of
our 13D group and is not a participant in our proxy
solicitation, we have no comment with respect to what the
Company characterizes as Mr. Ligums’ “track record”, other than to note
that all of the matters referred to by the Company occurred more than 10
years ago.
|
The
Company claims that the attestation by the Defendants in the Schedule 13D
filed by Mr. Karkus, Mr. Burnett, Mr. DeShazo, Dr. Gleckel and Mr.
Leventhal, that they “ ‘do not have any plans or proposals’ relating to
any possible sale of the Company or to engage in any other major
transactions” is false. Complaint, paragraph
22.
|
The
Shareholder Nominees do not have any current plans or proposals with
respect to a sale of the Company. The Shareholder Nominees do not have any
current plans or proposals with respect to any other major
transactions. Once elected, the Shareholder Nominees intend to
conduct an in-depth review of the Company’s operations, and formulate
proposals to improve the Company’s business operations and increase
shareholder value.
|
|
“In
January 2008, defendant Karkus approached [the Company’s] CEO, Guy Quigley
and indicated that he was prepared to purchase the [C]ompany at a $2 per
share premium to the then current market price. One or more
defendants had plans to join in the bid. In January 2009,
defendant Karkus renewed his proposal, indicating that he had a buyer for
the Company.” Complaint, paragraph 23.
|
In
early 2008, during one of Mr. Karkus’s calls with the Company’s CEO and
Chairman, Guy Quigley, Mr. Karkus briefly mentioned that he
knew several wealthy individuals and that if Mr. Quigley were interested,
Mr. Karkus could probably put together a bid for the Company. Mr. Quigley
said he was not interested. Accordingly, Mr. Karkus did not further
consider or explore that subject and did not contact anyone else regarding
the possible sale of the Company.
Surprisingly,
in late 2008, during a call with Mr. Karkus, Mr. Quigley enquired whether
Mr. Karkus could still potentially put together a bid for the
Company. Speaking hypothetically, Mr. Karkus thought it would
be possible. Mr. Quigley then stated he was still not
interested and terminated this discussion. Mr. Karkus is still
uncertain what prompted Mr. Quigley to initiate this subsequent discussion
given his stated lack of interest.
Due
to the casual nature of the conversations and the fact that there was no
follow-up, Mr. Karkus does not recollect more than the general periods of
time in which the conversations took place. In any event, Mr.
Karkus never approached any potential investors about purchasing the
Company and, other than those two brief phone calls, did not discuss the
purchase of the Company.
|
|
“The
Preliminary Proxy Statement . . . fails to disclose defendants’ . . .
program to arrange for a sale, most likely to one of their own group, or
alternatively spin-off Quigley’s Pharma division . . . .
“ Complaint, paragraph 24.
|
As
discussed above, the Shareholder Nominees do not have any current plans to
engage in the type of transaction
described.
|
The
Preliminary Proxy Statement is false and misleading in its description of
Darius as a “key revenue producing asset” as Darius had not been a
profitable segment of the Company since 2005. Darius had lost
$1,227,604 and $688,111 in 2006 and 2007, respectively. In
addition, the revenues were stagnating and in decline in the three years
prior to disposal. Complaint, paragraph 25.
|
Darius
was a key revenue producing asset for the Company. The Company
reports at page F-9 of its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
that Darius had produced sales of $15,274,940 for the year ended December
31, 2006 and $11,233,879 for the year ended December 31,
2007. Although Darius had experienced losses in 2006 and 2007,
its business had turned the corner and was profitable for the first two
months of 2008 (prior to the sale). The Company
reports on page F-9 of its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
that for the first two months of 2008 (prior to the sale) Darius had net
income of $139,263. In fact, for the remaining ten months of
2008, the Darius business generated net income of more than $1.3 million
with net income from operations of over $2.5 million, as reported on page
F-3 of the Form S-1/A filed on April 17, 2009 by Innerlight
Holdings, Inc., the purchaser of Darius.
|
|
The
Preliminary Proxy Statement is false and misleading because of the claim
that Darius was sold to “a company for which the CEO’s brother is a major
shareholder (which was not disclosed in Company filings).” On
February 29, 2008, the Company sold the asset, Darius International Inc.
(“Darius”) to Innerlight Holdings, Inc. (“Innerlight”), whose major
shareholder is Kevin P. Brogan, the former president of
Darius. Prior to the sale of Darius, Gary Quigley, the brother
of the Company’s Chairman, President and CEO, was employed by the Company
as a liaison between the Company and the Darius segment. While
Gary Quigley is currently a shareholder of Innerlight, it was not until
after the sale of Darius that Gary Quigley acquired his Innerlight
shareholdings. Defendants’ claim that an arrangement was in
place before the sale is false. Complaint, paragraph
25.
|
Innerlight’s
initial registration statement filed on July 21, 2008 stated on
page 43 that “On February 28, 2008, [Innerlight] issued, in connection
with the organization of the Company, a total of 10,600,000 shares of
Common Stock . . . exchange for services rendered to the Company and for .
. . cash consideration . . . . These issuances included . . .
2,250,000 shares and 468,000 warrants issued to Gary Quigley, a
shareholder . . . .” Innerlight repeated this disclosure as
recently as April 17, 2009, more than one year after the sale of Darius,
on page 37 of the fifth amendment to this registration
statement.
Interestingly,
the Shareholder Nominees note that on April 23, 2009, two weeks after
the Shareholder Nominees filed their preliminary proxy materials and six
days after Innerlight’s last amendment, Innerlight further amended their
registration statement for the sole purpose of revising this disclosure to
state that Gary Quigley acquired his shares on March 5, 2008 (five days
after the Darius
transaction).
|
The
Shareholder Nominees do not have sufficient information at this time
to form an opinion as to the accuracy of any Innerlight SEC
filing.
|
||
The
Preliminary Proxy Statement is false and misleading because of the claim
that the Company “sold the asset at ‘a highly questionable
valuation,’ . . . . Marcum & Kliegman LLP,
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants, conducted a valuation before
the sale and the sale price of $1 million was in excess
[emphasis in original] of that valuation.” Complaint, paragraph
26.
|
The
Shareholder Nominees continue to believe that the value received on the
sale of Darius was “highly questionable”.
According
to the SEC filings of the Company and Innerlight Holdings, Darius’s net
income for the first two months of 2008 (prior to the sale) was $139,263,
and its subsequent net income for the remaining ten months of 2008 of $1.3
million (net income from continuing operations was $2.5 million for this
period). We think these facts, plus the participation and ownership of
Gary Quigley in Darius, support our view that the value
obtained on the sale is “highly questionable”.
The
Shareholder Nominees have requested that as shareholders they be permitted
to review the Company’s relevant documents concerning the sale of Darius,
but in a letter dated April 13, 2009 the Company’s attorneys denied that
request. Accordingly, we have not been permitted to review the purported
valuation performed by Marcum & Kliegman LLP.
|
|
Defendants
have violated Section 16, and the regulations thereunder, by failing to
file an initial Form 3. Complaint, paragraph
56.
|
Mr.
Karkus, Mr. Burnett, Mr. DeShazo, Mr. Gleckel and Mr. Leventhal have
subsequently filed a Form 3 pursuant to Section 16 of the Exchange
Act.
|
BLUE
PROXY CARD
|
BLUE
PROXY CARD
|
1.
|
Election
of directors — Nominees:
|
¨
|
¨
|
FOR
ALL
|
WITHHOLD
|
||
NOMINEES
|
FROM
ALL
|
||
NOMINEES
|
|||
(01)
Ted Karkus
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(02)
Mark Burnett
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(03)
John DeShazo
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(04)
Mark Frank
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(05)
Louis Gleckel, MD
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(06)
Mark Leventhal
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
|
(07)
James McCubbin
|
¨
For
|
¨
Withhold
|
2.
Ratification of Appointment of Independent Public Accounting
Firm
|
¨
For
|
¨
Against
|
¨
Abstain
|
MARK
HERE IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE MEETING
|
¨
|