InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 22
Posts 3315
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/01/2010

Re: packerfan9 post# 223706

Saturday, 03/19/2011 3:20:46 PM

Saturday, March 19, 2011 3:20:46 PM

Post# of 375420
There was no shareholder vote -- Canouse and Bradley delivered a piece of paper titled Written Shareholder Consent purporting that they spoke for a majority of the company's votes. Written consents are used all the time in private corporations when shareholder approval is needed. They are rarely contested, as the signers really do have the votes. Its sometimes used in public companies, but its trickier because only shares evidenced on the official shareholder register would count, and many of those names are nominee. The Bradley/Canouse Written Consent has no meaning or impact on the company because its transparent that they did not represent a majority of the valid share votes. That's the end of the story.

While a bunch of dumb people are incurring risks/liabilities acting as if the Written Consent had changed the Board of Directors, you won't find Canouse actually taking actions. He's clever enough and persuasive enough to get others to act. Sort of like Charlie Manson, I guess.