negativity? Knowing that there are shareholders out there who are going to vote yes, and have voted yes on the RS and other amendments makes me think that the situation is already possibly hopeless.
--It is clear that NASDAQ was an afterthought. Virtra's CEO and COO can't be considered independent directors. And then reducing the number of directors isn't in line with the Nasdaq goal they claimed in the CC. Isn't it obvious why NASDAQ requires that the directors not be in cahoots with management, but instead represent the shareholders? Virtra's management are the directors!
--Why support the share price at $4 post RS, but not have audited financials? Of course, an audit is not an issue with a private company.
--I also don't buy the argument that the share price is a problem with potential foreign sales, yet a company with a pink sheet listed stock with unaudited financials doing a market-cap-killing 100:1 reverse split would not be an issue with those same foreign companies.
--Most of the amendments have to do with forking over even more shareholder power to the management/directors.
--I am still not clear on how many shares management is going to be compensated after the split .. not that it matters, they could always award themselves more shares without a split. However, it would not look as bad with 100 times fewer shares. How many years until they have most of the marbles? A couple hundred years, or a couple of years? A large RS reducing the shares to such a small number may make sense if there is going to be dilution.
If all of this sounds paranoid, a public company going private happens all the time. Look at Gander Mountain.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
