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: esxtarus who wrote (6953)	2/16/2003 1:54:49 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Ed Could you please see if you can get Mike to provide a copy of the Escrow agreement as amended 1/27/98. I would like to see if it includes a specific expiration date for the Escrow shares like maybe 1/27/03 as Pyng published twice in the FY2000 and FY2001 FORM 20-F ANNUAL "REPORT". Also the terms of release for the escrow share in this report states $1.26 per share when the orginal agreement and extension called for $2.66 per share I think (misinformation or mistake). I would like to know how the per share amount changed. There must be some basis for this assertion. If there is no actual Escrow agreement then I think that the information provided in these reports should be controlling in establishing the expiration date. If there is an agreement that specifies the May 10, 2003 date that Mike is using in the FY2003 AGM proxy then I think all concerned Pyng Shareholders should call the BCSC to report that we were mislead in the Form 20-F for 2 years and we want the petition for the Escrow Amendment issue to be thrown out. The actual language of the 1/27/08 AGM proxy can be review on www.sedar.com it states the extension will be for no more that 15 years from the May 10,1992 date not that it will be 15 years from that date. I think that Mike is playing fast and loose with the facts and for the last 5 years he has believed the shares would expire on 1/27/03 but then realized that he may have some wiggle room in interpreting the date since there is no actual offical Amendment to the Escrow Agreement. In my opinion he is depending entirely on the shareholders not challenging his interpretation. Well I am calling his bluff and challenging Mike to produce the evidence to support his use of the May 10, 2003 expiration date by early next week or I am going to send out an email to all 150 shareholders in my database asking them to call the BCSC and file a complaint with Chris Chang to investigate and settle this matter once and for all. I think the fact that our complaint last year had merit will only bolster our case. While we are at it maybe we should express our concern about the fishy timing of the US Army contract news release after the PP closed even though the emails suggest Mike did not know definitively the contract would materialize, surely in the many conversations he had with the US Army representation he had some inkling that success was very likely and maybe a conversation between Chris and the US Army would be in order. This still doesn't pass the smell test. I want the escrow shares to expire and I think that now we may be dealing from a pretty strong position. Either way Pyng has misrepresented the facts either the Form 20-F is correct and Mike is bluffing or the May 10, 2003 date is included in an Official Amendment and we were mislead in the Form 20-F. One last thing that if push comes to shove we should not forget if we talk to Chris we should mention the Proxy would lead a reasonable person to believe that David and Judy had some stake in the Escrow Issue when we all know they don't. I am waiting to see Mike's proof with baited breath. This mining for votes to defeat the Escrow Amendment is hard work and I would really rather the issue died a quiet death. Regards Jack