Thanks very much Dad. I hope that I have "sanitized it sufficiently to pass muster:
Here is the new version:
Board Meeting. I'm back, but have some other obligations so this is going to be very short. Attendance at meeting (approximately 20 people 10 of which were SGLB employees, another 8 or so who were obvious friends/business associates of Thacker/Mark) one other independent lady and myself. The Board actions were passed quickly with no discussion permitted until the question and answer session. I'm really glad that they supplied copies of the presentation on the web site. I tried to take detailled notes but wasn't sure I caught everything. The main takeaway from the presentation is lots of new evaluation systems out but no sales as yet. Also the attorneys have apparently done some major work to strengthen the patent situation.
When Mark asked for questions, I was the only one asking and I got a number of dirty looks from the audience for being so audacious. My primary concern was two-fold:
1. The timing of the reverse split and
2. Thacker being recognized as an independent board member
I asked Mark what his plan was when he implemented the reverse split and I was so dumbfounded by his answer II had to ask again to be sure I understood correctly. He said that there were a number of requirements for being listed on the Nasdaq Exchange: Share price, board composition, sales, shareholder equity, etc. He saw the reverse split as step 1. The share price was between a nickle and six cents so a 100 to one reverse split made it $5-$6. Step 2. Certify the Board as independent. Step 3 Achieve the sales and shareholder equity sufficient to qualify. I asked again "You mean that you took this action without any pending sales or contracts and he said yes. I asked didn't you think that this would have an adverse effect on the share price and he replied that the share price was unfortunate, but that he had no control over how the market viewed this action. I simply could not believe my ears.
I pushed pretty hard on Thacker being recognized as independent given his 20 year history with SGLB and it's predecessors. Their attorney basically said that Nasdaq rules allow a board member to be declared independent if the Board believes him to be so. I expressed my strong disagreement with this approach and inquired why they have not recruited some true independent members who would pay more attention to shareholder values. The answer was that it is very difficult to recruit board members for small companies but they would look into it. Bottom line the Board is not going to change. Further I got the distinct impression that the Board consists of Mark and Mark alone and that Thacker and O'Mara rubber stamp everything that is put before them. Neither said a single word during the discussion and question session.
Bottom line. This is my interpretation of the meeting results (Had some of the stocks strong proponents been present you may have gotten a very different read). They would be very enthused about all the new test sites and be predicting additional sales as a result.
Before I even wrote this report I dumped the 100 shares I bought yesterday. I believe Mark, Thatcher, and O'Mara to be totally clueless business people and I don't forsee a bright future. For those of you who are not totally smitten with the company, I can't urge you strongly enough to get involved. .........to let Mark, Thacker, and O'Mara know in no uncertain terms your concerns. You need to plan now to attend the annual meeting next year and to be extremely vocal on the conference call.
My apologies to Driftin. I don't own a suitable video camera, and given the looks I received just from my comments would have been lynched had I used one.
