News Focus
News Focus
Followers 168
Posts 20752
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 08/09/2000

Re: dealerschool2006 post# 96

Wednesday, 12/12/2007 6:15:41 PM

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:15:41 PM

Post# of 394
If 51% of shareholders vote YES the remaining 49% do not need to be solicited for a vote. Happens all the time where the company simply has a filing or a PR and says "we the majority have voted and decided to do squat, we are nt soliciting your opinion (Mr minority squat holder)".

In fact with GVRP the insider 11 shares got together and voted a "majority" vote even though I had 1000 settled shares in my account. They did so by not recognizing the shares that had been settled and were present in my account. The company further backdated a FL SOS document stating a majority vote had occurred increasing the authorized share structure after the shares were to have already been delivered (and had been delivered at some brokerages). I was never solicited nor was any other GVRP shareholder (other than the insider 11 who sold one share 138,000 times). From my viewpoint a precedence has been set with GVRP where investors were cheated (by regulators). Now let's be consistent here. ST is in a bind, Screw em!


The fact that the company appears on the daily list is the only critical issue here. The NASD by having the info on the daily list "signed off" on the reorganization.

You seem to be suggesting that CHAOS is good for the market place. You seem to be suggesting that companies should be able to appear on the daily list, do a massive FS or RS, have a bunch of trades occur, and then say - oops nevermind. We didnt like how it worked out for us and we decided to not do the split afterall. The whole purpose of the daily list is to create order. When the NASD put the issue on the daily list they certified the issuer had complied. Too late to undo later.


Modern Energy notified NASDAQ of the corporate action on October 5, 2007, with an effective date of October 16, 2007, providing more than the NASD-required 10-day notice. On October 18 and 19, 2007 NASDAQ published the terms of the reorganization listing the addition of MDNO and the deletion of MODR at: http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dailylist_detail.asp?d=10/18/2007&mkt_ctg=NON-OTCBB and at http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dailylist_detail.asp?d=10/19/2007&mkt_ctg=NON-OTCBB. These notices clearly stated that MODR was deleted effective 10/19/2007, with the comment: "Reorganization (.001 sh of Modern Energy Corp. New Common Stk & 100,000 restricted shs of Modern Energy Corp. Preferred Stock, Class B)"

Modern Energy issued a press release on October 11, 2007, providing the details of the restructuring along with the record date. More than 51% of shareholders approved of the recapitalization. Additionally, Modern Energy management believes that on the trade date in question, Modern Energy shareholders that held the pre-restructuring Modern Energy (Symbol-MODR) had yet to receive their post-restructuring shares (Symbol-MDNO) in their accounts, so they would not have been available to sell, even if the shareholders desired. Management of Modern Energy expected that MDNO would open near $1.00, reflecting the innovative share restructuring that also created preferred shares that effectively represent warrants to purchase MDNO common shares for $1.00 a share, which, if converted, would double the number of issued common shares to 2,400,000. (Modern Energy closed at $0.001 a share as MODR the day before the new symbol MDNO became effective.) Yet, inexplicably, Scottrade apparently did not inform their client of the change in shares outstanding, despite being informed through NASDAQ notification of the symbol and CUSIP change and the reason for these changes.



Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today