Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Garry R. who wrote (4287)	8/8/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Garry R, as I have said in a previous post to you I am certainly willing to participate in a process that brings together like minded shareholders to ask management to answer the most important questions raised on this forum. The proactive approach is more my style anyway. I am afraid that I would not be the best author of such a formal letter as I am sure I have worn out my welcome with Jacobs. The only problem is that we will need to have the support of a significant number of shares to have our request addressed. I can pledge 72,000. Are there 75 other independent shareholders with a similar stake or more, I do not think so. We may not have to have 50% of the outstanding voting shares (5,000,000) but we will have to know how much voting power this group represents and it will have to be significant to move Jacobs to respond in my opinion. The mistake that you are making is that you assume that just because a company is publicly held it "must" take its responsibility to shareholders seriously. Good business practices would support this belief but no one ever said that all public companys employ sound business practices. An age old adage comes to mind "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". In a situation like this where there is a controlling interest (Jacobs) that does not recognize shareholders have any rights collective or not he can not be forced to consider anything shareholders have to say unless the governing stock exchange intercedes on the shareholders behalf. This appear to be our only recourse, which I am sure none of us really wants. But if it would make Jacobs more responsive I would endure the stock decline to force him to be more responsive. This "negative" discussion started out with a respectful enough tone I thought and I did my best to promote that tone. But that did not work. So the tone became more accusatory and pointed. Management is only being asked to provide some form of update/explanation to explain were they stand now and why it differs from past statements. The "shame" them into living up to their responsibility has not worked either. Although I never really thought it would. I had hoped that someone on the Board would have the guts to stand up for the shareholders though this is not going to happen. Those that are interested in having a net meeting to discuss this let me know by PM and I will co-ordinate a time on Excite.com to discuss the possibilities.