Circuit City’s (CC) Board responded to Mark Wattles demands today.
In said letter they said (letter below):
April 4, 2008
Mark J. Wattles
Wattles Capital Management, LLC
7945 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 205
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Dear Mark:
We have received your letter of April 2, 2008, in which you indicate that you would like to meet with the Circuit City Board of Directors or with its lead director to discuss your views regarding Circuit City. I will contact you to set a mutually agreeable time.
It appears to me from your letter and certain other statements that you may not have a full understanding of the Company’s current strategy and challenges, and I think a conversation will help provide a better picture of those efforts and possibly facilitate a more productive dialogue between the Company and your firm. I also want to note that the company had previously reached out to you to set up a meeting following the year-end management quiet period or to listen to your concerns prior to our reporting date.
It was a surprise to read that you would not permit the individuals you have proposed as nominees to the Company’s Board of Directors to meet with the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board without imposing an unusual and unreasonable condition for such a meeting. Our practice is for the Committee to evaluate director nominees proposed by shareholders in the same manner it evaluates other prospective nominees. We believe this is a very standard and appropriate process. The Board strives to select for its membership highly qualified individuals who are dedicated to advancing the interests of the Company’s shareholders and actively seeks nominees who will bring diverse talents, experiences and perspectives to the Board’s deliberations. Certainly you would agree the Board has an obligation to its shareholders to thoroughly research and personally interview potential members. This is even more true given that your proposal to remove the entire Circuit City Board would, if adopted, give your nominees absolute control of the entire Board.
I trust that we can resolve this point in a personal conversation, so that the Nominating and Governance Committee can meet the individuals you have nominated to the board, and separately look forward to the opportunity to meet with you.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mikael Salovaara
[JT]
Here is the “between the lines” on this one. Wattles is attacking both the Board and CEO Schoonover. What the board is going to do is offer up Schoonover as a sacrificial lamb to get Wattles to back off his demand to remake the Board.
Defending Schoonover is an exercise in futility as the “conditions” the company now facing are of his creation and even those who are his closest allies must realize this. If they do not, CC’s problems are deeper than anyone thinks.
They are going to go through the public pronouncements necessary to save face but when all is said and done, Schoonover is out.
That being said, we can now officially beginning the “Schoonover Reign Death Watch”
My guess is that before the month is out CC has a new CEO.
Disclosure (“none” means no position):None
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
One reply on “Circuit City Responds to Wattles”
We were local customers of circuit city for many years …… after this incident, we will never step foot into a circuit city store …. and we have told all family members and many, many friends, and they too … have agreed … to never shop at circuit city ….. Mr. Schoonover was sent a certified letter and never bothered to email or even acknowlege our complaint … it is right that he no longer be the head of the this company.
Re: Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Phillip J. Scoonover
President, CEO and Chief Executive
9950 Maryland Drive
Richmond, VA 23233
P. S. How can you possibly accept $17.1M for fiscal 2007 when your customers are being treated like this?
On February 26, 2006 we purchased a 50 Inch Plasma TV, model no. (LG 50PX1D) for $3,299.99, ticket no. 316402608104, at store #3164 in Salisbury, Maryland. We also purchased a specific TV mount for $403.99 along with a five-year “Advantage” Service Protection Plan for $549.99 (on the advice of the salesmen, D. Abbott). We purchased this plan in good faith and expected “hassle-free” certified service.
This purchase was made after extensive research on purchasing a quality plasma TV with the correct dimensions. Our home had been recently remodeled and the family room fireplace and custom cabinetry had been made to fit the TV dimensions. The TV was professionally installed on March 6, 2006.
On Friday, May 12th, 2006 (two months later) the TV lost its picture quality and the screen showed large black spots. We were unable to watch the TV. We called Circuit City’s Service Department on Monday, May 15th at 1-800-787-0750 and were given a call reference no. 5925646, confirmation no. IHR605220412 and DUC no. 5927591. We were instructed to call Appliance Unlimited, Circuit City’s Authorized Service Provider at 1-800-448-3997 to set up a repair appointment. Jim, the technician (410-587-4945) called back a few days later to set up an appointment. We were given ID No. 6106800.
On June 6th, two weeks later, the technician arrived and quickly stated that he needed to order a digital board for the TV. He told us that it could take a short time for the part to come in or up to two weeks. Two weeks pass and we call the service technician. He informs us that the part is on national backorder and that it could take up to another two weeks. We wait another two weeks and call the service tech again. He does not return our calls. We call Appliance Unlimited and talk to the secretary and she acknowledges that the service technician is having a hard time finding the part.
We decide to call LG (the TV manufacturer) and they inform us that they have plenty of digital board parts. We then call Circuit City (Jesse, TV/sales manager at the time) with the hope of having him help resolve this matter. It’s now been over two months that the TV is unviewable. After a few more days of no answers, we call LG the TV manufacturer again and they inform us that Circuit City’s service provider “Appliance Unlimited” is UNAUTHORIZED to work on LG TV’s. They will not sell Circuit City’s service provider the parts. We call Jesse, the TV manager from Circuit City and explain the situation to him and he acts odd when we explain to him that LG stated the service company that was sent to our home is unauthorized to work on the TV. We ask to speak with the store manager. Lauren Palmer/CSA #1 who offers no solution. We contacted Circuit City Corp. and they put us on hold for two hours.
We felt deceived. Is this a scam or a tactic of Circuit City? We again contacted Circuit City Corporation and spoke with Marilyn Pando, and finally were given a contact ID Number 2205897. I never heard from Circuit City again. We contacted the Better Business Bureau. They were working on getting a replacement TV for us and checking into the unauthorized service provider issue. A few weeks later we speak with the store manager again, and she states that they are working on getting authorized service.
On July 14th, after several months of misleading information from Circuit City and their service provider, we returned the TV to the store. We were issued an exchange for our original TV on July 31, 2006 under ticket no. 14150118491 only after the Better Business intervened. However, we did not take the 50” LG exchange TV that was offered to us because of the unresolved service protection plan issue. In addition, by this time, our original model TV was no longer available and the exchange LG model was not similar in dimensions to our original TV. We were told by store manager, Paul Renshaw/CSA #2 that we could wait a few weeks to see if any new models arrive while the service issue is being resolved.
February 2007, we still have no TV. I again call Circuit City and speak with new store manager, Tracy Sgon/CSA #3, and return to the store to consider a different brand TV. This brand was a Sony 46” LCD TV (Model No. KDL46XBR2), with similar dimensions as our original TV and was priced at $3,609.99. It was not a 50 Inch Plasma TV. We were however, willing to pay the difference between our $3,299.99 original purchase and this particular exchange TV, but when we arrived, Tracy informed us that we had only been authorized an exchange value of $2,800.00. We never agreed to this amount, especially when the original TV only worked for two months. She also informed us that she still had not been authorized to refund our service agreement fee, and stated that “the corporate office should not be selling those service contracts when they know that we’re not certified”. We did not take the exchange TV. I called Circuit City Corp. and spoke with Amos Forman, and waited on the phone for over two hours, and was finally told that there was nothing he could do for me.
On February 16th, 2007 we contacted the Maryland Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Affairs to help resolve the issue. As of March 3rd, the office had not heard from Circuit City or had returned their calls.
On April, 9th, 2007 John Rekinburg, Circuit City’s new TV Manager calls to say that he has a different “lower-end” 46” Sony LCD model priced at $2,249.99 and asked if we were interested. Since Circuit City had still not addressed the service protection plan issue, and the quality and value of their TV offer was continuing to go down, we informed him that we were not interested. We also told him that we sent our complaint to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office and were taking steps to file in Small Claims Court. A week or two later, other TV salesmen from Circuit City called to say that 46” TV we ordered was in. We informed him that we did not order a TV.
After a year of explaining our case over and over again to different store managers, TV sales managers, customer service reps, making numerous telephone calls to the corporate office, typing emails, and sending many letters without resolve, we feel victimized. The Circuit City “Advantage Protection Plan” states that it provides you with the best product coverage and customer service available. “Relax with a peace of mind” only seems like an “Advantage” to Circuit City. I have spoken with hundreds of people on the internet that seem to be going through the same problems with Circuit City. The consumer should be made aware of this.
We would like to add that Circuit City is misleading the average consumer, with the intent to deceive. This is an unfair and deceptive business practice. They sell a service contract knowing that they can send anyone (an unauthorized service tech) to your home and say that they “attempted to fix it”, or actually fix it and make matters worse, and then after weeks and months of the consumer trying to get this resolved, they begrudgingly offer you an exchange that “is similar” … a new item with far less value or even worse, a TV that someone else returned, and then offer you nothing for the service contract fee.
Circuit City sold us a fraudulent protection plan. It is unacceptable that they are now only offering ($2,659.96)? exchange value for a $3,299.95 TV that only worked two months. As a customer, we have done everything possible to resolve this issue in a patient, timely manner. Circuit City’s customer service policy prolonged this situation by not being honest and forthright from the start.
In the interest of consumerism, we now expect Circuit City to refund the full amount of our original TV purchase, in addition to the service protection plan refund. If this cannot be resolved we will have no choice but to file in small claims court for the total amount of the TV, the protection, plan, the custom mount, installation and repairs, and possible attorney fee.
We filed and were given a court date. Circuit City has decided to defend and we are now awaiting a new court date.