How did the CC originate anyway ? Too many posts to read as is to go back over those from yesterday morning.
Did someone hear ask them to do this, or did they contact someone here saying we want to do this will you post this announcement ?
(I know, go look for yourself - thx)
I have just caught up on posts since my early morning time on the board. Some comments :
< IMHO ON >
Why did they want our "coordinates" info ? My first email did not have my address or phone, just my state of US. Richard emailed back asking my phone. I ended up using a different phone to call after I saw it was a toll call, but no problem from the different number.
Leaves me wondering WT* was that about ?
I have the same feeling as others expressed this morning, Andrew seems in charge, with much following of Robert's lead. Martel does not impress me relative to business acumen, and at this stage of company potential transition, this does not give me a warn and fuzzy. I am used too an IR guy that introduces and then steps back and let's his employers take over, stepping in only when some moderating is needed (or to remind of the mute button on phones)
There was new material info provided. If nothing else I asked about the $4.7 million accrued deficit and received new info. Also there was mention of operations being sustained from private loan(s) iirc from distributor(s). I would imagine someone hear having a recording to post does not satisfy their imposed need to play fair by providing full public disclosure, ey?
Can someone relinquish a Canadian patent ? and then it gets wiped out of the CA patent database ? It sounded as if the co-held patent at time of original agreement between Robert and Wanderport would be the same as involved in the international coverage application we know was withdraw. But yes, good point, if it did exist and as Robert said it was abandoned then should it not be discoverable ?
On AGM and BOD, someone posted quote from wikipedia was it that all states require an AGM. I can appreciate the comments in the CC that Robert dominates, and that they had not held an AGM because of the costs involved. All the same, where is this heading if management does not play by the rules ? Impromptu CC with new material info ? No required ownership participation ?
I was not at all happy about the response from Richard that Wanderport the company did not need to do anything, that the AMF was all and only about Andrew. Asked if they had done anything to confirm that they did not need to do anything, I got the feeling the response was of course not why should we it is all about Andrew. But that is not how I see it. They could at least make some inexpensive calls and emails to verify their interpretation is correct, but they have apparently not done that.
Oh, btw, why would Canadian law be involved with an investor law suite against an American corp. ?
So, CC left me feeling better about a product, but did not impoove my concerns as to whether it will be Wanderport that brings it to market.
< IMHO OFF>
