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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russwinter who wrote (963)	12/19/2001 12:23:50 AM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 39344

...ain't over till the fat lady sings... web site for a proxy fight... Russ, From your heads-up on this GEO & RC dance a month or two ago, it has been quite an education to all readers on this thread. Many twists & turns so far, and i'm sure everyone here will be most interested in developments, and desire for that outcome where the interests of the shareholders are not traded away as seems to be the case here based on the information available to you as a shareholder. I'm not up to speed on these things, and can only use situations that i have already been involved in to comment. For example that consolidation 20 to 1 i as a shareholder in another company was seened by me as the only way to prevent that company from doing a belly-up, so it was that saying 1/20 of something is better than all of nothing. My question is as follows, as mentioned by you and others was that only 1 or 2 at the most of the 3 steps taken were needed to resolve the problems GEO had, and eventhought i really don't have a handle on these as you do, i ask what if the cash needed by GEO to settle its affairs was obtained using that money mentioned through buying GEO shares after a consolidation of x to 1 would better serve shareholder interest versus those 3 steps that i think did not do a reverse split but dilutions with other steps. Sorry if i'm totally missing what has been done and this question of mine makes no sense. It just seems that a greed factor was in play by those in RC that had GEO by the balls, and GEO's management decided not to fight RC to protect shareholder value/interest, which by law that is their duty. If so, then might you focus a fight not at RC but at the GEO officers saying that the deal they did was illegal. Done this way RC might obtain the execution of those 3 steps but have a dark cloud hang over their heads with the possibility in the future of months or years the courts might rule that what the GEO officers did was criminal and null & void it. If so that might cause RC to ask GEO's officers for another plan. Just a way to get RC to cry uncle without a direct approach. Not sure if my poor English grammer delivered my thoughts, as i'm trying to say that rather than fight and do battle with a proxy fight and collect enough shareholders to vote down what has been started, it might be better to throw RC a curved ball and acknowledge that the vote is fixed in a way that its weighted in favor of those with connections to the officers that in my way above talking is that what they are doing is breaking the law for what their legal duties are. (or) Let the vote go through with just a posting for all shareholders to vote no, and this is done with the statement that your actions will fail to get a No vote, and because of that you will place 99% of your time and energy to put forth a legal claim that the GEO officers acted criminally. or, Don't spend your time & effort to fight the proxy, but to notify RC that once an expected passing of these steps occur that you will have in place legal action to null & void it in a court, and if later you are successful then any new time and money RC places into GEO will most likely be lost if you win the case against the GEO oficers. Best case is that RC decides not to go forward with the present steps outlned knowing that it can be undo to their loses. d:oug