waltertx, I respectfully disagree! Shareholders turned to the company first!!!!
.......and repeatedly! The company, failing on almost all standard measures in that regard, IMHO, set the stage, firmly and unequivocally for the current shareholder situation. There is, again IMHO, no question about who cost who the most and which occurred first. Additionally, the differential order of magnitude is staggering.
I have just been written about another issue, relevant to upcoming events, that will be investigated in more detail. If it proves verifiable, it may well become another substantial piece of evidence to present before the court and shareholders. If it isn't verifiable, as significant, there are plenty of other things that are. I personally have difficulty comprehending the magnitude of the shopping list of deficiencies that appear to exist.
Nevertheless, the court is the proper stage for the shareholder petition to evolve, and it apparently will. I've mentioned the possibility of alternatives, and they do exist. In my mind they are realistic but have not been aired. Why should they be? They are certainly not feasible until the few who cannot see the forest or the trees, get their head(s) out of the sand.
There has always been the old saying that "Pride Goeth Before the Fall" but in this unique business case, I sadly, and personally feel that the "fall" will occur before, and possibly a second or third time before "pride" comprehends the true situation.
Best of luck to ya,
Bob. |
