You are worried that:
I wouldn't be so worried about Gardiner leaving. IMHO, he was probably merely a placeholder so that the company would have six directors running, versus the five by the hostile group. By doing the increase immediately and not waiting for the election, the company clearly outmaneuvered the hostile group. I would suspect it is way too late for the hostile group to nominate a sixth person. It would appear that the hostile group was caught unprepared when the company increased the number of directors shortly before the hostile group nominated their five. If they were prepared and smart, they would have immediately found a sixth, revised their paperwork and nominated six directors. In business and in law, you have to be prepared for the unexpected and know how to react immediately. This was the first test of the hostile group and they failed the test.
You inquired regarding:
If you watched the 3rd installment of the hostile group's video Zoom meetings, the hostile group made great issue of Chris Lonsford. This was clearly put in the filing at the last minute, hence at the very end. Recall what I said above about being able to react immediately to changing events, which the hostile group failed when they nominated only five, not six, directors, but the company passed here.
Also, note the paragraph is prefaced by:
That's basically law talk or legalese that essentially means it's clear as day that it is not the case, but we are lawyers so we are going to say it anyway.
Quote:1. The new director (Gardiner) that joined July 1, is not nominated this time. He is out....
To me, it isn't a good sign the three most recent directors are all leaving.
I wouldn't be so worried about Gardiner leaving. IMHO, he was probably merely a placeholder so that the company would have six directors running, versus the five by the hostile group. By doing the increase immediately and not waiting for the election, the company clearly outmaneuvered the hostile group. I would suspect it is way too late for the hostile group to nominate a sixth person. It would appear that the hostile group was caught unprepared when the company increased the number of directors shortly before the hostile group nominated their five. If they were prepared and smart, they would have immediately found a sixth, revised their paperwork and nominated six directors. In business and in law, you have to be prepared for the unexpected and know how to react immediately. This was the first test of the hostile group and they failed the test.
You inquired regarding:
Quote:For some strange reason, they had to make a comment about Chris Lonsford to state that he was not authorized to solicity proxies. This is just about the last line in the entire filing. Do a search for Lonsford. Just seemed odd. Someone else can try to interpret or research that one.
If you watched the 3rd installment of the hostile group's video Zoom meetings, the hostile group made great issue of Chris Lonsford. This was clearly put in the filing at the last minute, hence at the very end. Recall what I said above about being able to react immediately to changing events, which the hostile group failed when they nominated only five, not six, directors, but the company passed here.
Also, note the paragraph is prefaced by:
Quote:For the avoidance of doubt,...
That's basically law talk or legalese that essentially means it's clear as day that it is not the case, but we are lawyers so we are going to say it anyway.
13
