Imorovan:
>capnmike, it says "why didn't we do something when we had a chance to take things in our hands?"
Imorovan, two lawsuits were initiated by investors. These lawsuits were able to obtain a negotiated settlement and a court-ordered distribution.
>It says "why did we allow personal issues get in the way of our unity of purpose and interest?" It says "why did we chose to sit on our hands and allow others that have not gone through what we have, to decide the outcome of our investment?"
Imorovan, no one sat on their hands. In fact, there were many shareholders who worked tireless hours on your behalf and on the behalf of all Loch Harris shareholders. These people were united in their purpose: to obtain the best possible ratio in the shortest possible time for Loch Harris shareholders.
>It says many more things but I don't want to cause more anguish and anxiety where there is enough of it already.
Imorovan, hindsight is always 20/20, there will be those who believe that they, and only they, knew the best option available. The plaintiffs and their attorneys could probably have obtained some of the things that you believed that they should have sought to obtain. However, the real issue that impacted shareholders the most -- the distribution of CDEX shares and protection of ownership of the technology -- would have had to have been put on the back burner, possibly for as long as two or three years. These two to three years could have resulted in technology that was marketable at one time being passed by other technologies in the marketplace.
YOUR way could have resulted in YEARS of litigation costing exponentially more than the court-ordered settlement costs. YOUR way could have resulted in MORE lawsuits, causing years of more delays, addressing issues such as ownership, the APA, etc. etc. YOUR way could have resulted in shareholders ultimately receiving NOTHING after more years of turmoil in this investment.
The plaintiffs, who were privy to ALL of the information about this case, and after listening to attorneys who are very well versed in these matters, unanimously supported the settlement. You can second guess these decisions all that you want, but the fact of the matter remains: They made the best decision they could based on the facts, based on legal advice, and based on the goal of providing shareholders with the best possible ratio at the earliest possible time.
Good luck to you and to all Loch Harris shareholders, of which I am proud to be a member.
AI
