so, am i to understand that someone with a 1% share in the company is able to institute a board of directors nominee? maybe i misread it, but it seems to discount groups of shareholders with a 1% total share. It sounds like the threshold then would be something on the order of around 357,000 shares... check my math - outstanding shares (per yahoo) of 82,510,000 - 46,780,000 float (available shares to be "bought" or unowned in the market)(again, per yahoo) = 35,730,000 total shares owned currently... if its one percent or outstanding shares we would need 825,100 shares, or if its current shares owned, more like 357,300 shares... either way, a large equity position... The bright side of the proposition is that only 35% of the current shares claimed are held by insiders to the company - representing something like 12,500,000 shares. I do not know what portion is owned by institutional investors (i doubt much if any at all), or what the exact terms of the debenture funding is (no more than 10% of outstanding shares?). in any case this means that something like 65% of this company is owned by those outside the "walls" of the company, and we can assume that some portion of those insiders might agree with the shareholders viewpoint; maybe coroware staff? with that said, i think we need to identify what level of ownership this group represents. if it is possible to have someone sit on the board that is going to question the hell out of some of the executive decisions; outside the current oligarhy, i think we can see some positive influence for moving forward our agenda... obviously we need some more research, but moving to have an outsider on the board with this group as its constituancy would help to not only open up the inner working of the company to the investor community, but also ensure that our voices are being heard loudly... any thoughts? fortunately, it seems as though we are in the majority, not the minority when it comes to voting power, assuming we all feel similarly.
