Jea48 I didn’t wanna make the communication on this form very personal since I didn’t want to come off as any sort of know at all. However, perhaps some of my work background will be appropriate and give some perspective on why I have made the comments i have. I ran a number of large consumer products companies earlier in my career. I tired of that and then did turnarounds for private equity and venture capital portfolio companies for over a decade. Subsequent to that I started a hedge fund focused on small ( under $1B market cap) public companies in some stage of turnaround. I took a number of client companies through bankruptcy. I have a pretty good idea of the situation if not the specifics facing Krell and Buhler.
As I have outlined, there is much to be desired with the communication from Bicking. I realize Krell and Bicking are both private companies and won’t have the disclosure mandates of public companies.. What I am about to write is based on some level of conviction of the situation at Krell despite a lack of knowledge of the facts. I have researched Bicking and there is no indication that they hold an equity position in Krell or any other company. They are strictly an advisory firm and as such they are likely trying to turnaround Krell. It is unclear who hired them or for that matter who they report to. I agree it is curious that Buhler used terms like “we” or “our firm” when referencing Krell but you need to understand I suspect he is the management of the company at this point probably largely through default. Again a suspicion on my part, but this has been going on so long that personnel has dispersed and he is of the last men standing at the company. While perhaps a bit sloppy, Buhler’s note to this forum was casual and not official so the terms he used are understandable. Nevertheless he has missed some self imposed deadlines for communication on the situation. Also while not mandated, in a situation of a consumer products company communication with “stakeholders” becomes paramount in preserving brand equity.
While I am not at the point of suggesting Krell is a failed company it certainly would meet my definition of being in the “zone of insolvency”. I am not a lawyer either, but I have worked clients through the bankruptcy courts, and when a company finds itself in that situation the people running the company need to take care of the debtors first and the equity holders second. Basically they need to run the company so that debtors get their money or in my case my property back. Frankly anyone who has equipment in at Krell for repair, warranty or upgrade is supposed to get their equipment back since it isn’t part of the Krell estate.
I don’t want to speculate on outcomes but even if Bicking is an equity holder in the company at this point I SUSPECT their focus to shift from protecting the equity holders interests to protecting the debtors interests. I agree this whole situation is odd and it appears Buhler has had a relationship with Krell for sometime. Given the financial trials and tribulations I am not surprised Bicking has had a relationship with the company for sometime. However based on what I have seen and on some likely assumptions, the nature of their advisory services has probably changed over time. Unfortunately not much we can do other than rely on the better Angels doing the turnaround.