|
Zbyte, I presume you allude to the issue brought up by Zeev Hed of the apparently huge number of shares that have supposedly been sold into the float by Robert Gordon since the inception of the company in 1996. I e-mailed Paul Henry this information Sunday, May 16, the day it appeared on the thread. Receiving no response, I called Paul Henry on Friday, May 21. He told me that he went through that entire issue with Marty when Marty visited the company after Easter. But he said, he would try to look over the numbers this past weekend. I went back and read Marty's reports of his trip to St. Pete. The thread did not ask questions regarding Gordon selling some 70 million shares into the float, and Marty posted no answer. I e-mailed this news flash to Henry Sunday night. I also said I would not post any explanation that was not substantiated, i.e. number of shares, dates, and costs due to the credibility gap that currently exists between management and shareholders. Today, on the phone, he said he still did not have those calculations for me. He said he had talked to the lawyers who told him that information about Gordon's shares was stated in the 10K and in the S-8 registration statements, and that was the extent of the company's obligation to provide information on that subject. To say any more would be an invasion of privacy. So I asked him, "What we read in the SEC documents is what we have to work with?" He affirmed that. To cut to the chase here, Gordon has put large sums of money into the company and in turn has obtained shares (perhaps on the order of 70 million) either by grant, options, or loan conversions. He has sold all but 14 million of those shares into the float. According to Henry, Gordon is the savior of the company and has sacrificed most of his personal wealth for TSIG. Henry says that Gordon's average cost per share is $.35. I have no way to prove or disprove these last 2 statements. I have been cautioned against believing this. I suggested to Mr. Henry that if Gordon had truly sacrificed to keep the company afloat, why not publish a substantiated explanation of his selfless devotion to the company and turn a huge political liability into a plus. So far, Mr. Henry has chosen not to do this. Mr. Henry pointed out that the company had never had a secondary offering, and Mr. Gordon had provided the lion's share of the company's capital. I asked Mr. Henry why the company had never had a secondary offering, and he did not answer that question. Regards, Suzanne |
