well, I just don't completely understand this:
G&W SECOND Time publicly called action of Mr McRae and his own BoD a SHAM:
"...... The company is hemorrhaging and rapidly running out of resources. Further delay is extremely prejudicial to shareholder value, and places the corporation in a precarious and risky position from a financial and business perspective. The board's artificial attempt to circumvent Mr. Wells's requisition by calling a shareholders meeting for Nov. 5, 2013, is nothing more than a sham that seeks to circumvent shareholder rights. The concerned shareholders and the company's shareholders cannot and will not wait until Nov. 5, 2013. The current board has had years to turn the situation around and has completely failed to do so. It is time to let the shareholders have their say before it is too late......".
FRAUD doesn't look polite I know, so they used SHAM instead which is, as per definition, the same as FRAUD (sort of?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see - Mr. McRae and his BoD notification 6 months in advance for the Annual Meeting as a direct response to Dissident's request is quite clearly designed to prevent possibility of Special Meeting. In my view it's obvious. So they're right - it's completely artificial and indirect attempt to derail....
So it's perfectly fits with "deceit" "trickery" "breach of confidence" perpetrated to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage..... exactly as per definition.
So, our in-house bright legal minds (High Tea?) - can you advise us, would it be legally appropriate to
call Mr. McRae and his BoD as a Fraudsters???