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: Edward W. Richmond who wrote (6957)	2/17/2003 12:05:00 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Ed Stang was merely posting the 2003 proxy I think so every one could see what was being discussed. My challenge to Mike still stands produce the formal amendment showing the May 10, 2003 expiration date and explain why he reported the expiration date as January 27, 2003 in the annual reports or talk to Chirs of the BCSC. I do not think that Mike can produce a formal signed amendment with the May 10, 2003 date and if not then the expiration date published in the last two annual reports should legally control. All I think Mike is doing is reading the the proxy used in the January 27, 1998 AGM in the most favorable way to him (as usual) and since there is no formal sign amendment he is going back to May 10 1988 the date the certifcate was issued and saying he had fifteen years to May 10, 2003. But that is not what the proxy says it says the date can be no more than 15 years meaning it could be less and could be January 27, 2003 as stated in the 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports. The actual expiry date should have been and could have been set by a formal amendment signed by Mike and Mellon shortly after January 27, 1988. The January 27 date used repeatedly had to come from somewhere because it was used over and over and the May 10, 2003 was never used in the annual report so it probably was not included in a formal signed amendment. Another point is that the last communication I heard on this issue after it was dropped from the last AGM was that there would be another vote within 30 days. Well I guess Mike decided that the minority shareholders were too well organized at the time and that the longer he waited the better chance he had. My point to the BCSC will be that he could have settled the issue once and for all with in the 30 or 60 days but delay to gain advantage and now he has waited too long and should have to live with the date that he published in the annual report because it would not have been a hardship on him to do so. Please relay the message to Mike and get the explanation to avoid the call to the BCSC next week. I hope that the Escrow Amendment is dropped by Pyng so I do not have to have the BCSC tell them to drop it. I can not see the scenario where Pyng can win this because either way the shareholders have been misled by a controling interest shareholder who stands to gain directly from the misinformation. If I have to go to the BCSC then it will not be on this one issue it will be to complain about the wording of the proxy to lead uninformed shareholders to believe the issue involves David and Judy which is untrue. And to ask for the BCSC to investigate the fishy circumstances of the insider's take of Private Placement based on inside knowledge about the US Army contract. All of these things I think warrant attention and should convince an independent party that Mike has some answering to do. Best regards, I look forward to Mike's explanation I really do not have time to organize the effort to defeat this issue again. Jack