SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Kurthend who wrote (1045)7/25/1998 2:51:00 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1110
 
Kurt, No problem in Sacramento as it's not the Sec. of State's duty to maintain copies of the by laws. However today another person went by FPAM's San Diego Headquarters and asked for a copy of the by laws. A defensive secretary referred her to a person named "Erica"in the Administrative section. This Ms. "Erica" said that "she had to talk with the General Counsel".

She came back and said that the General Counsel said that because of the litigation he could say nothing, and referred us to the 1-800 number for Sitrick & Co.

Absolutely totally unbelievable-YOU CANNOT DENY SHAREHOLDERS OF A COMPANY ACCESS TO THE CORPORATE BY LAWS!!!!

Well I will call this "proxy" Bankruptcy Company next week- and if they do not produce a copy of the corporate by laws then I will "elevate the game a notch" and contact the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I am truly beginning to believe that Mr. Dresnick et al. are hiding something here. This whole process is developing a very rancorous odor. Criminal wrongdoing? I am not sure. But they are walking perilously close to significant SEC violations if they do not produce a copy of the corporate by laws which I as a shareholder have requested.

And in addition not a single major shareholder has raised a"peep" about the share cancellation- were they bought off quietly on the side?

Sincerely,

Doug F.