I will probably be endlessly flamed for this, but I wanted to give my view on all this.
What follows is based on the assumption that the latest flood of information has a majority based in fact. Much of the strange little pieces of information that has be leaking out the last number of weeks points to it being accurate. Sorry Ebb, you are way off on this one.
I think the situation is far more complex and dynamic than stating "this guy is a good guy..this guy is a bad guy"...this group is this or that. I am not ready to throw anyone under the bus or give them my complete trust. Think about the situation with John B. :
As far as I can tell, so far he has not taken any ill got gains and his big payoff will be the Poland deal and the financing happening. He was the "new guy" and even with the CEO label, he could only control entrenched elements in the company so far without jeopardizing his position. Did he sign off on things not in the financial interest of stockholders? Looks like he did..and I have a big problem with that. Was he instrumental in the Italian financing and the Poland project? Absolutely. Without John Benvengo, I do not think we would even be having a fight over anything of value because value would not be there. Like I said, complicated and I personally still value what he has brought to IPWG. I do feel personally let down by things of late and would not be recommending him for Pope any time soon....but under the bus? no, not yet.
Peter is far more complicated still. Right now I feel that he has totally lost sight of stockholders and is very p***ed those that have bought shares feel a sense of ownership. I do believe he has passion for the success of IPWG, but sees us stockholders as simply a money faucet to sell billions of shares to, but still be in control of "his" company....no one to answer to. The evidence is overwhelming that at one time, Peter used his own money to keep IPWG afloat. Would IPWG be here today and have anything of value if Peter wasn't there? no. Does it seem he has been working without regard to the shareholder...directing the faucet anywhere he likes...seems so. Being the secret COO all this time and controlling the dilution through 4 lackeys on the board does not inspire a "warm/fuzzy" from the owners of the company...us. Am I reading Peter right?? I don't know. If I had to guess whether Peter or John thinks about the welfare of the stockholders...even in passing...I would have to say John, but that is an opinion.
I think the worst of the worst is the 4 board members. These four have been directing a stealth company totally out of view of the business world and the owners...the stockholders. They secretly reinstated Peter as COO and did his bidding totally it seems. It appears they voted themselves a ton of shares and now bonuses. They seemed to have voted themselves a bunch of preferred shares with 25,000 to 1 voting rights to simply stick their finger in the eye of the majority of shareholders.(probably illegal as heck and they can get what they deserve for that) We have a PR stating that Peter was no longer an officer of the company and how many times have we been told "the PRs speak for themselves" well, the PR said Peter was not an officer... How can you do business with a company like that? How can we trust PRs now...which is a dichotomy since we need as much information and explanation as we can get right now. This secret board has put the company in the most jeopardy. I hope I do not hear the words "well, what we did was not...illegal" Please, please don't throw that flimsy argument. We are talking ethics here...personal integrity. REMEMBER PERSONAL INTEGRITY?
With a four vote board majority...how could John fight anything without putting his position in peril. He was focused on getting IPWG into a position of being a functioning company and he did amazing things putting together Poland and the financing. I have a hunch he signed off on everything so he could pursue the company's success, and not fight internals, which would give him his big payday. He has the most to lose from this becoming public and is probably not having a good weekend... but... I think IPWG really needs Mr. Benvengo and I do not want him lost. I do want to hear some real information from him...stuff that doesn't make one of you eyebrows go up as you try to filter information that doesn't seem to fit.
I also do not want to see Peter gone, but I do want him to realize that this is a public company and people like me have our money tied up in keeping IPWG going...not just him. Some of my daughter's college money is there and yes...I do feel I have a sense of ownership to the extent of my number of shares.
If the above do not want me to continue to have these opinions, they had better start communicating. I am a reasonable person and I see it reasonable to have the company opened up and transparent. If it takes a proxy fight to do it, then I would have to side with them. Now that all this is public, the worse thing for the company and for John, Peter the board is to try to quash it. If they truly care about the company, about the stockholders...about themselves...they will quit blowing off the owners.
At this point, what actions from the company would say to us that "The officers and board of IPWG are completely interested in the success of the company and will do whatever it takes to have the company succeed and be seen as a ethical company and a good business partner" What indeed, at this juncture, could be done to restore that view?
Oh, an one quick edit... I DO what to see the four snakes on the board...gone...gone..gone!
