Decision Diagnostics Corp (DECN)

[loanranger]

Thanks for the link....I really couldn't find it and found no other public mention of it by the company.

Do you really believe that an effort was undertaken to determine this?
"This clean-up included only shareholders that their individual brokers or former brokers could not find or contact for one reason or another at least since 2011."

Let me ask you:
Was there a shareholder vote to initiate the reverse split and Amend the Articles of Incorporation or wasn't one necessary?
Did the Amendment to the Articles required in order to implement the reverse split include a term that acted to eliminate shareholders holding less than a certain number of shares? ("All of these people were holders of less than 25 shares each")


....or is it reasonable to believe that a search for investors whose "individual brokers or former brokers could not find or contact for one reason or another at least since 2011" was the basis for the elimination of those shareholders from the shareholder list as the company's statement suggests?




I'd like to know those things, but of course "it is their (the company's) right to do as they please" (within the securities laws and subject to shareholder approval for certain things) and the filing of Form 15 is one of those things. I never questioned that but simply pointed out that that was the obvious reason for the corporate action that trimmed the shareholder rolls. It WASN'T just a "clean up".....the company had tried and failed to file a Form 15 before due to a shareholder count in excess of the legal requirement allowed under the Rules and they HAD TO eliminate some of them. The Form 15 was filed with the SEC on the very same day that the splits were filed with the State.
It would be helpful to be able to see "a description of the provision adopted or changed by amendment" of the Amendment that allowed those shareholders to be unceremoniously dumped. Form 8-K Item 5.03 Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws requires it, but ironically the whole exercise was undertaken in order to avoid the requirement to make that filing...although they had a continuing obligation to report for 90 days. The OTCMarkets Guidelines require it as well but they don't seem to care much about enforcing their own rules.

"it is their right to do as they please."
Not really. That's an overly broad statement by a long shot. There are securities laws, state laws, by-laws and shareholders rights that provide certain constraints to a management or Board of a public company doing "as they please".