Hi Marc, long time, no see!
I don't know which is worse, IIA, LUMM or ATY! Mine sure have plummeted.
Regarding IIA, we plug away looking for justice!
Here is some correspondence regarding our search.
--------------------
Email from Kelley Fritz:
Don: I sent this letter to the two Halifax newspapers business editors
hoping to keep up the pressure.
It wouldn't hurt if you published it on all three sites,that is,if you
are so inclined, having been sent a copy.
I spoke with attorneys at the OSC and the SEC who say they will get
back to me.
The least we can expect out of all this effort is for AOL to pay up a
bit.
Regards
Kelley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 May 2001
“AOL planned acquisition of Infointeractive (“IIA”)
Witchity Corporation entered into a licensing and royalty agreement replacing a previous contract last autumn. The licensing portion amounted to US$1,600,000 and it was agreed that the cash payments would be spread over a 12 month period.
IIA choose to take the full amount into its Q3 2000 earnings and as a result it showed a profit for that period. Ultimately, it became necessary for a write-down to be made in Q1 2001. Interesting advice from its auditors!
In fact, payments of approximately C$500,000 were paid to IIA up until Witchity’s receivership. Those payments coupled with the first contract payment of C$500,000 means that Witchity is probably one of, if not, IIA’s largest contributor, as a licensee. Certainly on a net basis since the costs involved in both contracts to IIA were negligible.
On another more important matter I wish to point out that the 18 May 2001 press releases by AOL and IIA are unclear and may be hiding a very significant material fact.
Under the indicated Plan of Arrangement, AOL can force any holdout shareholder to accept the US$ 1.42 offer if it is successful in obtaining 66 2/3 of the vote…. that’s it, we shareholders are done and dusted.
You will note that the same release states that the two companies have entered into an operating agreement which includes the granting of a license to AOL. We don’t know if that contract is conditional on AOL being successful in its “squeeze”.
If it is not conditional and there is a contract in place then the Company’s shares are of significant greater value considering that AOL has 32 million subscribers worldwide and its product, Instant Messenger, has over 100 million users. Now, this is a company-maker for IIA!
The problem lies in that no one is causing IIA to reveal this material fact and the selling shareholders (over 2 million, so far since the announcement) obviously have missed the point and have been misguided through lack of clarity.
As each day goes by, someone is accumulating more shares. CIBC and National Bank appear to be the biggest buyers and they could be acting for AOL. AOL is permitted to purchase shares in the open market under a Plan of Arrangement.
Every share which falls into AOL’s hands means that the acquisition and ultimate rip-off becomes more of a reality.
IIA could claim financial difficulties as a defence which drove them into the arms of AOL. As I have explained above Witchity cannot be used as a cause in that plea and everything we have heard from the AGM and subsequently indicates that the financial future looked rosy. What is the real answer?
Another argument which IIA might use is that if AOL used a competitor’s product then at least 50% of the market would be lost to IIA.
Well, why do you think that AOL went for IIA? …best product and, most importantly, because IIA holds the patent, that’s why.
AOL has talked to a lot of the other providers of internet call waiting and even permitted Netscape in the UK to use the Witchity solution which indicates that IIA was and is their first choice.
I would be very surprise if AOL went for another unpatented product. It is not good business sense and not their style.
Infointeractive says to wait for the Circular which is due to be released on 11 June. In the meantime, shareholders chances of defeating the Plan are being eroded daily and quickly.
I am requesting that you to put it to your readers to seek clarification on the operating and licensing agreement and insist on a trading halt or at least a desist trading order on further AOL purchasing before it gobbles the unsuspecting shareholders’ last shares and before it is too late to stop this travesty.” |
