GR1D, Pleased to be a member of your respected jury. I'm inclined to think about this a bit further, but it's likely that I will vote IN FAVOR. Among my several thoughts on the matter -- I wonder if indeed Sabby and related interests have as much of the company as it appears to me they may, based upon my understanding of their filing, plus other institutional interests and management ownership -- how many individual investor shares are even needed to exceed 50% of the outstanding base of shares. (Presuming institutional investors vote IN FAVOR, which would seem likely to me).
On the other hand, I felt that it was quite likely that the vote was going to pass last time around, and of course we know that it didn't. So, maybe our votes will make the difference, one way or the other.
No guarantees of what management will do with the money from additional share sales. That is, whether or not an acquisition will occur. If I force myself to make a guess -- acquisition/merger or not, should the authorized be increased -- I would say it's probably somewhat more likely than not.
I've been thinking that the additional BOD seat perhaps hasn't been filled yet, despite the NASDAQ requirement because of negotiations and plans with a buyout or merger candidate who might be a prospective occupant of that seat. It didn't appear to be difficult to obtain board members last year and I doubt that Sigma is struggling to find a qualified candidate who would be willing to serve. So, it may be that the BOD is waiting a bit longer until the authorized is perhaps expanded and potential buyout/merger negotiations are finalized, to appoint that required member of the BOD. Otherwise, why wait with the appointment? So, that ongoing vacancy could be a hopeful sign.
I'm not opposed to the idea of an increase in the authorized for employee and board member compensation. While Mark has a good number of shares, consider how few shares John Rice has given his apparent commitment to the company and the quality of his experience and background. I know this may be an unpopular view, but I'd like to see the whole team more substantially vested in the company's future -- So from the standpoint of flexibility to compensate and vest the team, I'm not opposed to the authorized increase. And in Rice's case he's drawing a decent salary so I'm not saying that I don't think he's being appropriately compensated, but some equity in the company could only encourage his long-term involvement and commitment all the more.
Anyway, I could go on with further thoughts, but I think I'll leave it at that and a probable YES vote for now and perhaps weigh in additionally, later.
AI
