Stevia Corp (STEV)

[Trained Monkey]

The takeover language was never in a PR, it was in the 14A proxy statement. Language disclaiming anti-takeover effects is in every 14A proxy statement filed with the SEC.

I hardly believe that it was the primary thrust or reason for the A/S increase. It was ancillary to the point of the increase... which was for future operating expenses. Were these anti-takeover provisions to be triggered, it would in fact decimate the PPS as the shares would be issued to directors and key holders to inflate their holdings.

In short, if you read the 14A, it says DESPITE the anti-takeover protection it is believed the benefits outweigh the costs. It's hardly a selling point, it's a poison pill!

See PG 4: http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=65051237

------
The Board believes that it is in our Company and stockholders' best interests to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock in order to have additional authorized but unissued shares available for issuance to meet business needs as they arise.
------
The increase in the authorized number of shares of common stock could have possible anti-takeover effects. These authorized but unissued shares could (within the limits imposed by applicable law) be issued in one or more transactions that could make a change of control of the Company more difficult, and therefore more unlikely.
-------
While the Amendment may have anti-takeover ramifications, our Board of Directors believes that the financial flexibility offered by the Amendment outweighs any disadvantages.
-------

Can we all please accept that the anti-takeover a) isn't the big reason for this, b) would, if used, decimate the PPS and share structure, and c) was never PR'd?

I think there are more net negatives to the A/S raise than positives.


By the way, Texas... great pull on PHOT! I had nowhere near the net gain, but crushed the percentage. I was in under .02 and cashed out in the .50s. Just into 6 figures net. :)

TM