We had an opportunity to interview Mr. Joseph Collins, President of Punch TV. As can be seen by the introduction to the questioning, Mr. Collins was advised that his responses would be on the record, and likely published for all to see. One would think that given your comments would be on the record, and you had sufficient time to prepare your responses… you would make sure your responses were truthful and accurate. It is working under this concept that we make the following observations and comments. And again, we thank Mr. Collins for his time to respond, and his directness in his responses.
See the interview verbatim text here.
We think many would agree that the central issue that caused the breakup of Collins and Samblis was the issue of viewership. Mr. Samblis has seemed to maintain that Mr. Collins misrepresented the level of potential viewers/homes their signal would be available to. In Mr. Collins’s response to question #1 he seems to be saying Mr. Samblis’s assertion is incorrect. Now, this is question #1, and since this, according to Mr. Samblis, was the central issue that caused the problems between the two, one would need to make a determination as to which man is more creditable, and therefore more believable with respect to the central issue. There are more questions to follow, and if you don’t think Mr. Collins is creditable on this issue, than you are unlikely to believe his responses to the rest of the questions. We suspect the avid believers in Mr. Samblis will likely disbelieve anything Mr. Collins says, however keep in mind that Mr. Collins is on the record here with his responses, and, appears to have (previously) provided documentation to support his positions. Mr. Samblis on the other hand has not really provided much detail on any issues surrounding the breakup, or the cause thereof. We are confident investors would welcome a response by Mr. Samblis, accompanied with supporting documents to validate his responses. As the accuser, Mr. Samblis should be required to prove his case.
The second, and likely related, issue is that of control of the company. Mr. Collins states in his response to question #1 that Mr. Samblis was “not going to yield control of the company under any circumstances, even though the contract clearly stipulated differently“. As we referenced in our recent blog post here, Mr. Collins provided documentation that appears to support his position that Mr. Collins was to “step up” as CEO. Additionally as we pointed out, there appears to be no preconditions to this specific clause in the contract. Lacking rebuttal documents from Mr. Samblis it would appear the document Mr. Collins provided is accurate.
If one were to look logically at the contract agreement overall, and then ask themselves what would be the inducement for Mr. Collins to have his company acquired by Mr. Samblis and his public company IC Places… it could seem reasonable that this CEO clause is believable, and likely valid. It would just seem to be common sense to think that Mr. Collins would have been asking… what’s in it for me? Mr. Collins had been in business for some 15 years building Punch TV, and one would need to ask themselves why he would turn over his baby to Mr. Samblis without some assurances that he would still be in control over what he worked so hard building. Likewise its believable that Mr. Samblis would offer such in order to make the deal happen. Specifically if he knew, as Mr. Collins states, he had an ace in the hole so to speak in that there was an employment contract in force providing that Mr. Samblis would always maintain majority control of the stock, and therefore the company. IF, as Mr. Collins states, this document was requested, and not provided (under the guise of no such document existed) Mr. Samblis would feel protected in allowing the specific takeover language be included in the contract. We will leave it to the courts to decide the legality of this action.
Another interesting point, again of central issue, is the return of the shares exchanged as a result of the agreement. Mr. Collins states (question #3) that upon acceptance of the rescind agreement, Mr. Samblis cancelled the shares. If in fact Mr. Samblis “cancelled” the shares, and in effect rendering them worthless, 1) what was the point of returning them, and 2) if the shares were indeed worthless why did Mr. Samblis make such a spectacle of calling and waiting for their return?
Feel free to read the verbatim text of the interview and make your own decision and conclusions. Many reading such, coupled with Mr. Samblis’s creditability issues, may find Mr. Collins’s responses valid and accurate when not looked at through a self serving bias in favor of Mr. Samblis. In addition to looking at the information logically, let your gut be your guide.
Mr. Samblis… you are encouraged to air any rebuttal facts in support of your previously stated position. We would be happy to publish such here. Given that there are many who question your creditability, supporting documentation would be extremely helpful at rebuilding your creditability.