“IT IS MY OPINION, that the company does not require dual signatures...specifically for day-to-day transactions like paying electricity, rent, telephone, etc. I imagine for larger transactions that there is, or should be, the appropriate checks and balances in place like a second signature. “
Duh… do you think? The Nevada Revised Statues do not specifically state that a public corporation will require two signatures for disbursements from their bank account, but it also does not specifically state that the Directors breathe in a regular manner.
“IT IS A FACT that many small companies, public and private, do not require dual signatures for payments under a certain threshold. I DON'T KNOW if Medinah has such a threshold in place or what it is, but IT IS MY OPINION that as a small 4-person operation, they PROBABLY pay for minor expenses without necessitating dual signatures. Though I could be wrong in that assumption. It is not an issue that I care about with this investment or any others that I am involved with. “
Your investing experience must be mostly with scams. Public and private, because I personally don’t know of one other public company that doesn’t have two signatures required whether the check is for the monthly phone bill or a 10 million dollar purchase of equipment. I guess we hang out with different classes of companies as, other than Medinah, the public companies I know are audited each year.
It is a FACT that a basic tenet of professional management is adherence to the basic rules of proper management and having a PUBLIC company bank account controlled by one signature is a breech of the Directors fiduciary duty.
The fact that Les Price had arranged to have the Directors from all over the country (and now the world) and therefore they were physically unable to properly manage the bank account was very convenient for him. And now you say that Greg Chapin has taken over that role? What, they don’t know anybody in the same city? How very very convenient.
I’ve also heard recently from a good source that the Letts camp thought that the Medinah Board of Directors were “weak” and they wanted it to stay that way. If I were buying shares in a public company I’d want the Board to be weak also. Makes the open market shares cheaper to purchase.
”It is also my opinion that if this is something important to you that it is probably wise to confirm this factually with the company rather than taking my word for it before drawing incorrect conclusions.”
You’re joking, right? Everybody around Medinah is in hiding and unless you’re a favored person, like yourself, with a private phone number or email, none of the Directors can ever be contacted. The Directors have had a cone of silence over the company for a while now, perhaps for reasons like this. I thought they’d be proud to talk to the shareholders about the progress of the company and the property but I guess not. How do you effectively publicize a company’s good results, other than by releasing stale dated and poorly written updates, when the Board refuses to talk to common shareholders and be available to answer questions truthfully and honestly? Is this all part of some master plan by the Board to help the Letts and screw the shareholders? If so, its working.
For your information.
NRS78.138 Directors and officers:
1. Directors and officers shall exercise their powers in good faith and with a view to the interests of the corporation.
3 Directors and officers, in deciding upon matters of business, are presumed to act in good faith, on an informed basis and with a view to the interests of the corporation.
And you think the Medinah Board is conducting good governance?
Also for your information, Medinah’s IR guy is never there to answer his phone and his voice message box is always full. Go figure. All part of the plan to help the Letts acquire shares by getting the shareholders frustrated?
