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.

Technology Stocks : Internap Network Services Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jibacoa who wrote (605)	6/18/2003 4:41:50 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 1011

No, there are a lot of people that hold their shares on broker's accounts(including myself.<g>)that did not vote their shares. ... That's probably why Dawfan was called. Yea, I got a call on Saturday from Milano. Still, I thought that there was some provision that if shares weren't voted, they defaulted one way or another (and I thought I read in this case that they defaulted as "against" votes). Not that important. Dave

To: Jibacoa who wrote (605)	6/19/2003 2:51:52 AM
From: dawgfan2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1011

But then why was "98% of the vote" involved? >>At the meeting, shareholders re-elected Gregory A. Peters the company's president and chief executive officer, and outside director Robert D. Shurtleff, Jr. to serve on the company's board of directors through the 2006 annual meeting. Each of the two nominees received support from at least 98 percent of the vote.<< Is that saying 98% of the shareholders voted? Or that of those that voted, 98% approved the re-election? Why was that vote validated, but not the others? Do some proposals require a higher percent vote? I would guess that since this was a $.50 stock, not many people bothered to cast their votes as they have just let this holding slip into the night (myself included). Has anyone heard any more about a potential reverse split? I know the board has until Sept. '03.