Send the message.
I think that everyone should make their own decision on the proxy. But they need to be very clear what it is that they are voting for.
If you vote "yes" on question 3, you are saying that it is all right for the company to issue an unlimited number of shares to Jameson Drive for financing $15 million.
If you vote "no" on question 3, you are not preventing the dilution of shares to be issued to Jameson Drive. You are not preventing the company from accessing cash. Shares will still be issued to Jameson in exchange for cash, but cannot equal or exceed 20% of the outstanding shares. In other words you are limiting the dilution to 20% which is still another 6.6 million shares. But from Jameson's point of view, there is more incentive to keep the price up than if they expect an unlimited number of shares. Give RGC and Jameson both an unlimited number of shares and it becomes a shorting game where the one that shorts the most, first, wins.
If the company needs more dilution than that (we're probably toast then anyway) they can always call a special meeting and ask again. I know that costs money but I think it is worth it.
Finally, do not assume that you are without clout. Of course the BOD will vote their shares as a block but look at the annual report, they are sitting on a lot of options, and you can't vote options.
Only about 10% of shares actually ever get voted, and they usually go with management. The thing will likely get passed even if every long on this board votes no on number three. But if we vote "no" on number three, it may spur the BOD to get things rolling quicker because of the fear of retaliation by a large number of unhappy shareholders.
Remember, if this ramp up in volume were happening in January of 2000, we would have been looking at a $25 stock then instead of a 50 cent one now.
Send the message. |
