I see you didn't answer the question about how you voted. But thats okay. Yes it was pointed out last year that there was very little Institutional ownership in the company, and it was pointed out that there was very little insider ownership in the company. So to your question as to whether the small investors vote would of counted, in my opinion it would have. The best I can tell from the filings, the small investors collectively held more shares then the insiders and institutions. Especially if you add up the over 1000 investors shares, and if they all own about as many as everyone here claimed to own. But I have no way of knowing that and neither do you at this time. We do know it would of sent a strong signal to management and the board if every small investor voted NO.
As to the too late to cry remarks, that statement wasn't made as a legal statement. It was made in reference to you personally, based on your actions during this whole process. If I remember, all summer long you were posting how you were buying more, every time the price dropped. A few here including myself, warned you and others that buying on the dips wasn't a good idea, and to wait for a clear reversal, but you chose to listen to others instead, and kept buying, thus increasing your risk, while at that same time knowing the details of these deals and the guaranteed share price etc. It was all discussed at length here, and you participated in those discussions. Had all gone well and the pps skyrocketed, I doubt you would be attempting to claim negligence on the boards part and would be praising them.
Now that gets us to the next issue. Negligence and fiduciary responsibility are two different things. Fiduciary responsibility means the board has to act in good faith, with the investors best intentions in mind. Negligence means they just neglected the investors and acted in such a wreckless fashion that it would be apparent to anyone the results would be a disaster. Those are different standards and I personally don't see the negligent part as far as acquiring the subs goes. It might not of been wise, but it wasn't negligent either.
As for the property being used as collateral thats pretty standard business practice. And no the company doesn't have to go to the shareholders to raise the funds, and typically they do not go to the shareholders, and you can thank SEC regulations etc for that. They typically do a second offering, a VC funding, or similar financing. So again nothing wrong there, they followed the normal procedures. The patents still belong to the company, so I don't see what your point is there, unless you just don't like that they were put at risk. When all you have is intellectual property and no real property to secure a loan, you use what you have, or you don't get the loan. And where would your investment be now, if they hadn't got the loan?
So my point I was making in that original post to you, is you bear the brunt of the responsibility for your investment decisions. If things are happening that you don't like, but you keep buying more and more, then why look to others when things go bad? You could of sold at .40 if you didn't like the news of the subs, just like I could of. But instead you kept buying, when Chartist and others said wait till there is a real turn around. Now its all the Boards fault, for the decisions you made. Not only was all this open public information by the company, it was discussed here, and I and others personally attacked this strategy, so its not like no one here had a clue. Except those who at that time(I had been posting about 3 weeks) had already labeled us paid bashers, who didn't own the stock, and were going on their ignore list. Even if we hadnt attacked the strategy, it was there in each filing for you to see.
So you can not blame NEOM or the board, because YOUR strategy didn't work, just as theirs did not work.
And yes we are incorporated in Delaware, and I do not know what the statutes there are. Its been my belief that they are less favorable to shareholders, and thats why most start ups go their to become incorporated, but thats just my opinion, based on the number of start up companies I have personally researched, who went their. And the list I researched is hundreds, so I drew my own conclusions based on that.
AI
