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.

Biotech / Medical : FPA Medical Management - FPAMQ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ben Beale who wrote (1022)	7/22/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: Kurthend	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1110

Ben, This just came out on the wire: biz.yahoo.com ''We have taken steps to protect ongoing providers and provide a smooth transition for patients and employees of facilities that are closing,'' Dr. Dresnick said. ''While shedding businesses and filing Chapter 11 is certainly not a pleasant experience, we believe that the end result will be a Company that will be viable and profitable. Our goal ultimately is to fulfill our obligations to providers, payors and patients and to save as many jobs as possible while we meet our obligations to creditors.'' No where does Dresnick say that they have obligations to the shareholders. I can almost quarantee you that they were able to get away with screwing the shareholders by convincing the judge that there main priority was the care of their patients and to keep the jobs of employees. I am sure FPAM did not explain the ramifications of the stockholders to the judge. Looking at it from a judge's perspective, I would think that FPAM was doing a good job since FPAM is stressing the health care for the "needy" and continued employment for the employees. This ain't a bad avenue for FPAM to take. I suggest all those that are involved in a possible lawsuit try to get hold of that judge as soon as possible. Kurt I am not a shareholder and I am just sitting on the sidelines

To: Ben Beale who wrote (1022)	7/22/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Respond to of 1110

Ben, I'll be glad to help. I am disappointed to report that as an Owner of FPAM, FPAM did not follow its own Headquarters' telephonic recording's commitment and call me back or contact me by e-mail today. A strange world wherein managers under contract can ignore the actual owners of the Company. Well we need to do this properly in order to have a chance as owners of our Company to have input as to our own fate and that of our Company. If your wife could swing by FPAM's offices with no problem and obtain a copy of the relevant portions of the by laws, then that would be of tremendous help. We need the section on calling a special shareholder meeting; how it is done; how to submit the request; what percentage of shareholders are necessary to require management to call such a meeting; and proper time and time limits for making such a request. I'll reimburse you the out of pocket costs to get these by law sections. After we see what sort of quorum we need then we can plan to submit our request.... Sincerely, Doug F.