InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Carboat

08/23/15 9:26 PM

#231609 RE: 4OurRetirement #231607

How can this legally be categorized as a routine vote. That is usually reserved for procedural issues like accountant approval etc. This seems not kosher at all. Clearly massive dilution and a new 175m shares is NOT a routine matter. Maybe an sec complaint is in order here.
icon url

asmarterwookie

08/23/15 9:33 PM

#231612 RE: 4OurRetirement #231607

OY! If the share owner says nothing it is a NO vote is how I understand this...owners will be forced to vote YES not NO.

If I send nothing in my vote is no. Correct?

wook
icon url

BCS Paladin

08/23/15 11:06 PM

#231626 RE: 4OurRetirement #231607

Typically Brokers vote Yes to support all companies on "routine" items when they have not received any direction from actual owners




WRONG
icon url

jbainseky

08/24/15 4:43 AM

#231675 RE: 4OurRetirement #231607

4OurRetirement - Why do you think this vote will be different? As I posted earlier, since 2010, there have been significant numbers of broker non-votes on each item, routine matters included. Brokers don't vote routine matters, why would they spend the time for absolutely no return? The voting has shown that is the case for the last 5 years with PPHM. for Proposal 3 to pass, that has to change.

FFTT

JBAIN