I talked with my securities lawyer in Nevada today about our Cetek situation and got most of my questions answered, including one or two others as a bonus. None of the information that I post today will be particularly sensitive, so I will go ahead and post it here. However, at some point, we will need to take our conversation elsewhere, as there would be certain basher board members we obviously do NOT want to be knowledgeable of our plans, and of course, we would have to assume that Hilal would be aware of anything we decide to do if posted on this board.
Here's what I was told:
(1) We do not need a Nevada securities lawyer to enforce the Nevada statutes under which Cetek operates, Any legal action can be filed in any state we choose, because each state will enforce the other states' statutes. It appears to me that New York would be the best choice, especially if we have to litigate.
(2) We need only 5% of the shareholders (proxies) to issue a demand for a list of stockholders.
(3) We need 15% of the shareholders (proxies) to issue a demand for a stockholder meeting and for a look at the company's books.
(4) With 50+ percent of the shareholders, we can demand a shareholder meeting to elect our own board members. However, in this case, Hilal's voting shares, would preclude that from occurring, and it would be the mother of all court battles.
(5) His estimate of the legal costs to initiate (1) and (2) is less than $5,000. However, he said that there would likely be counter-measures which might force us to initiate litigation to enforce the Nevada statutes, and that's where it would become more expensive abd impossible to estimate the costs.
(6) In general, it is impossible to estimate the cost of the various alternatives because of whatever obstacles Hilal would throw in our way. He did say that 50% of the shareholders would be very impressive to the courts in any litigation we pursued, and the seven years of silence would likely get us considerable sympathy from the courts.
That said, I think our number one priority should be to get the proxies of 10-12 of our largest and most dedicated shareholders from this board and then present a letter to Hilal demanding the list of shareholders. I know we only need 5%, but I think if we present a percentage of shares well above 15% that he will know we are very serious. Plus, once we have the list of shareholders, we will know what the outstanding share count is and will know for certain about the naked short situation.
Further, we can get legal document samples for both proxies and the demand for the shareholders list, and we won't even have to use an attorney for that letter.
That would be a feeling-out process, but if successful, could have a very positive impact on the stock price if what we suspect about the share structure is true. After we have that information, then we decide whether or not to proceed with round two and be prepared for possible litigation and the ensuing legal costs, if needed.
Along with the legal steps I've outlined, I agree with several posters that any public or political pressure we can bring to the situation makes a lot of sense. Litigation will be expensive, although probably well worth it. I'd love to see us get something published in the Poughkeepsie Journal or Wall Street Journal about our plight.
AI
