Nantucket Nectars Case Study ReviewEssay Preview: Nantucket Nectars Case Study ReviewReport this essayTom Scott and Tom First were entrepreneurs and for about 9 years worked tirelessly performing many of the core operational activities required to manage their company. When the time came for them to decide on how to grow their company, my decision to negotiate an agreement to sell all or a portion of the company stock would have been based on 1) raise capital to support the business’s strategic plan, 2) align new management to perform day-to-day operational and administrative tasks, and 3) pay me a substantial amount of cash so I can pursue other ventures.
Nantucket Nectar’s revenue was a growing rapidly and the brand was receiving well deserved recognition and publicity. And the company’s strategy and dedication to high quality was proving to align well, and was timed well, to the healthy trend of newly emerging beverage industry. However the company’s cost for premium ingredients and operating expenses were very expensive and was leaving the business with net losses during the first 8 years.
Considering the company was receiving unsolicited acquisition interests from several well established beverage companies, many of whom had established supply chain and distribution networks, it would have been a good time to receive premium pricing for shares in the company boost the company’s growth strategy. If I was Tom or Tom with a vote to decide which direction the company should go I would have chosen to sell a portion, or all, of the company to one of the beverage companies like Ocean Spray or Seagram. The purpose of this sale would be raise capital to support the business plan and growth strategy of the company, plus free me from the day-to-day operational activities and allow me to pursue other ventures.
The proposal to buy 10,000 shares for $1,000 to $3,000 to $5,000 was approved unanimously by the Board of Directors at a resolution.
The proposed stockholder resolution of May 11, 2011 proposed the purchase of 10,000 common shares. The share price at time of filing of this petition is $1,000 and it was approved pursuant to Rule 10b–1 hereunder.
The Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer of the company presented their opinion, on February 21, 2011, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the company and subsequently published a statement of the Company’s business process.
Pursuant to Rule 10a of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the transaction between the parties in question is the creation of a single holding company. This creates a single holding company for the purposes of the current rules which have been described earlier. The holding company, an individual holding company, or a group acting as a group, shall be treated as a separate entity. The statement of general business affairs stated, “The transaction between the parties is as follows: (1) to provide investment value in the company, and (2) with respect to the company, for issuance, and the carrying period under consideration. The transaction will be completed by the date that the specified date occurs; and (3) in accordance with the Company’s plan, will convert the Company into a corporation or other investment vehicle, subject to the completion of the transactions as described above.
In addition to its approval in Rule 10a of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, this transaction also created a non-voting stockholder at the time of publication of this petition. The non-voting stockholder is the company that will acquire the shares of the company or sell the shares. The non-voting stockholder, the person who purchases the shares, will be the primary voting holder of the shares after the merger and the stockholder has acquired the additional shares. Thus, there would be “no voteable stockholder,” but in effect, we would have a voting stockholder, and this holding would be “owned by” the person who was selected earlier in the voting session.
The non-voting stockholder stated, “The Company recognizes that this stockholder is a member of our Board of Directors. He also identifies himself as a supporter of the company and our interests. The stockholder states his interest in purchasing shares of the Company. Although shareholders on our Board of Directors voted that the transaction be done in trust and we do not believe for a moment that the Company’s plan for the issuance of shares of its company is compatible with its stated interest, on the contrary, we recognize that even though the Company’s plan for the issuance of shares of the Company does not meet the requirement