RasoolMohammad1 wrote: Dear Shareholders:
I want to thank you all who voted for us. John, Scott and I will be reaching to you all indiviually to thank you for supporting us.
Here is what we have achieved in a very short week.
On August 8 we put our PR, and soon after there was an admission of guilt from SNS mgmt admmiting that it is a very 'top heavy' / very high SG&A costs company eg the PR said "....The Company's cost containment measures have materially lowered the Company's burn rate..salary reductions for all salaried positions.. etc"
The biggest untruth is "...Company continues to carefully manage its costs.." And I will explain why this is untrue. In the AGM meeting Steven Goldman had flown for the meeting because the mgmgt couldnt run the meeting. Now flying SG for the meeting and his fees is not what I would call 'carefully managing costs'... To sart the meeting, some large shareholders requested to dial in and attend the meeting by phone but they were refused to dial in. I guess the mgmt was afraid of something. The managment didnt allow the shareholders, whos money the mgmt is using to the run the company, to attend the meeting. Mind you others dialed in and it was free internet dial (Amazon Chime). I aslo requested the meeting be recorded, which was refused. When the meeting started the AGM script was missing and the chair (Zig Vitols CEO) did not had the script..... once that was provided to the Chair, he couldnt read the script, re-read the resolutions, on the wrong page, reading parts that were supposed to be read by the secratary; they appeared in my opinion very nervous... they were huddling every 15 mintues and at the same time on a conference calls with their counsel every 15 minutes. I will be interested in knowing how much did it cost the company to hold an AGM in Houston/TX this year, with SG flown in and the legal fees. There were three staff running around helping the chair to set up passwords, run chords etc And why would they hold the AGM in Houston? I dont undestand that part.
At the AGM Zig and Steven were very nervous, shaken, pale and just very nervous, in my opinion (I didnt understand why). There was staff running around crazy like I said... password lost, and there was even a mention by Zig that they have been hacked and that I should be watchful of my emails and they have hired a forensic expert to look into that... another 'careful managment of cost' as per their PR. I was told I should be careful/watchful of my emails (not a good thing to worry about for me). They can afford to hire "forensic expert" who do I hire??
The part that is relevant to you all who voted for John LaGourge (3 directors vs magmt 6 directors) : as I said they would leave the room and be on the call with their counsel every 15 mintes or so right before the directors vote was in (which was the crucial part of the meeting), this time they again went into another outside meeting leaving the AGM with their counsel before they announced the results to us and these results were the actual votes for the directors. I have attended, I cant say how many AGMs, and I have never seen this. Our counsel called this suspicous,frquent meetings and their counsel on the call every time!!!. So we have requested to review all proxy,ballots, and written records relating to receipt of proxies and voting instructions and to make them available to us (John LaGourge et al) and our representatives in Vancouver. Stay tuned on that.
In a very short period of time, that the shareholders were allowed to vote on our dissident proxy for only one day; in other words we only voted on Monday and Tuesday 8:00 AM PST the voting was closed. We got 7.13MM Shares vs 13.2MM shares(approx). I call this a very close vote. Give John LaGourge team two week and we would have won.. But it doesnt end here. So little people voted for them while they had the proxy out for months....we got 35% of the vote in literally one day. Another way to look at it only 40% voted; 60% didnot vote; does that mean that 60% did not vote because they did not like the current mgmt and board? Does that also mean if we had more than one day some of the 60% would have voted for us ... I would say probably yes...
DISCLOSURE: I ATTENDED THE MEETING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED AT THE MEETING WAS NOT AS DIRECTOR,CONIDANTE, FIDUCIARY ETC