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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Liteglow (LTGL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jebj who wrote (4071)	2/10/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: Philip Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4715

I don't think Spencer would have any problem doing another RS within a year of the last one. He does not seem to have any problems with morals. He certainly does not give a rip about investors in his company except that he will gladly take their money. I thought it was such a joke in the latest PR where they mentioned about the possible earnings per share with 3.5 million shares outstanding for the year 1999. By the end of the day the outstanding shares were above that figure of 3.5 Million. What an absolute and complete joke.

To: jebj who wrote (4071)	2/10/1999 5:46:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Respond to of 4715

jebj, When they increased the number of shares authorized without publicly noticing the shareholders, I sent them the following letter: July 29 1998 Via e-mail and mail Dear Sir, Madam I hereby request a confirmation of the total number of shares presently outstanding (exact figure as of July 29, 1998). In addition thereto, it would be appreciated if you can send me a copy of the resolution by which the number of shares authorized were increased to 200 000 000 (the latter should 'normally' be adopted at a general/special shareholder's meeting, during which a vote should have taken place to allow the increase of said authorized shares). A vote is required even if the directors legally hold the majority number of shares required to pass such a resolution. Thus, I am convinced there actually was a meeting to which all registered shareholders were invited to. Otherwise, I suggest you consult your attorney(s) with respect to the recourses a shareholder has or a group of shareholders have against a company (or its directors) that think(s) it (they) is (are) above the law (even if Liteglow Industries is a non reporting company (SEC)). Last time I checked, the corporate veil can be lifted (at least under the Quebec securities law) and the directors held liable, if such wrongdoings were considered to be illegal or should we say fraudulent. These documents can be transmitted by fax to If a fax isn't received by 12pm Friday July 31, 1998 legal procedures will be taken accordingly. You will notice that at the time I forwarded them said letter, I wasn't aware that they were a Nevada Corporation. I still haven't received an answer. I sent them 2 other letters which also went unanswered. That shows how professional they really are. They don't give a !/"$! I must be on my way now, however, I am confident that this discussion is far from over! Kind Regards AK