One thing in your post is correct. Greed is a constant.
Here is my theory, Lori has a "deal" she knows the shareholders won't like, but has certain offside benefits for her. So to make the deal go through, she needs to either make the company appear to be worth much less than the buy price of her deal. So if she sold a deal for a $1/share, she needs to make it look like SLI is only worth a fifth of that or the shareholders would not vote for the deal. Of course, this is a big risk to leave control in someone else's hands, so ideally, she would do what ever she can to get voting control back. Since the stock is held so tightly, the only way to do it is to drive the price down and issue a private placement at rediculously low prices to get the most shares as possible. Or drive the price down and shake as many shares as possible out of the longs. Either way, she had to drive the price down to win and the best way to do it was deliver poor results by drilling outside the anomaly.
Selling 200k shares is no smoking gun considering she owns millions of shares, but it it sure could be a smoke screen. Sell shares to throw off any scent of the scheme to take control.
Greed may be a constant, but power, that's what corrupts.
You wanted an alternative theory, here you go. All of this, of course, is just my opinion and like your post is pure speculation with no facts backing it.
