"I wonder if this letter was provoked as a response to some legal activity from Boniuk's camp. Or perhaps Diwan wanted to put this on the public record so he can blame his inability to raise money on something other than himself."
Both of those things are possible but something else is absolutely obvious:
Diwan spent shareholder money to have the Company attorneys compose a letter that is largely just plain sour grapes and largely if not entirely personal...it provides ZERO benefit to those shareholders and is an abuse of the authority his position provides.
I hope you'l forgive me if I don't get too far into the specifics (but hopefully far enough)...the Boniuk ownership filings have always been very confusing based on his various interests and investment vehicles.
But re:
"as an outgoing Director and a holder of more than ten percent of the Company’s common stock, you are required to file a Form 4 to disclose your resignation."
That's technically not true. If you're going to go to the expense of hiring an attorney to do this nonsense it should be technically correct. He WAS required to file what's called an Exit Form 4 (there's a little box on the top of the form) indicating that it's his last Form 4 and that he has no further filing obligations. He IS NOT obligated to disclose his resignation.
(I want very badly to go into how Seymour AND the Company mishandled the filing requirements of his departure but I'll resist for now.)
"Moreover, as a ten percent (10%) shareholder, you are still required to file Section 16 reports for transactions in the Company’s securities until such time as a change in your ownership terminates such an obligation."
I don't believe that to be correct but I'll let someone complain about it and show proof that I'm wrong if they think I am. The fact that he was a Director created his obligation to make Form 4 filings. He resigned his Directorship. I BELIEVE that from that point forward that only his DIRECT holdings would count toward the 10% filing requirement and he definitely did not hold 10% of the outstanding DIRECTLY.
EVEN IF I'M WRONG about that his latest filing not only doesn't show a total Direct and Indirect holding of 10% but he doesn't check the little box indicating that he's a 10% holder. So the premise of this statement appears to be bullspit:
"Moreover, as a ten percent (10%) shareholder, you are still required to file Section 16 reports for transactions in the Company’s securities until such time as a change in your ownership terminates such an obligation."
Summing up, I think that there is more wrong about the three sentence excerpt that you quoted than there is right about it.
I'm quite certain that this is the same lawyer and law firm that failed miserably in their attempt in the NY Court system to get Seeking Alpha to reveal Pump Terminator's identity. More shareholder money laid to waste.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
