I respect the fact that you were able to make this information known, assuming its true. The grammar and spelling has something to be desired. My understanding was that Lloyd Spencer was with Microsoft before going to Coroware... Were these people upset Microsoft employees, and if so, is their some type of grudge? Also, after reading the balance sheet, I don't believe that your statement that we are running profitably can be anywhere near true; revenues-expenses=profit or anti-profit... i have yet to see this company obtain enough revenue from operations to cover their expenses... not to mention, a $15m accrued deficit, and questionable capital funding make their financial position look atrocious. With that said, past performance (previous jobs, etc), is no guarantee of future results. Truthfully, the reluctance of your resources to make this information public is what is frusterating me in the first place; this information should have come straight from the source -- maybe more politically correct than to say Lloyd Spencer was driving CoroWare into the ground, but at the very least what was going on internally... The lack of communication is the sticking point. With that said, I think it is safe to assume that the deal that we reached with ABB (~$3m-attorney's fees of $928k=roughly 2m) was grossly undervalued for the amount of revenue they have collected via our technology; a settlement should have concurrently included a licensing agreement and a settlement for previous use of said licenses...
I think we all need to remind ourselves that this is a SMALL company, and the amount of secrecy and shady late afternoon trades to drive share price down easily can make someone wonder what the motives are behind these actions... In terms of shareholder letters or proxy votes, I strongly disagree with you. If this is considered an irreconcilable offense, then are we saying that we will get our shares revoked or get voted off the island??? these are our rights under federal and state law to provide oversight into the company we OWN; regardless of the size of our positions. i do agree with you that some of the banter on this site has not always been value added, but the job of the company is to allay concerns of shareholders, by communicating. If the company doesn't desire an outsider on the board of directors helping to represent shareholder interest, then they have a responsibility to provide enough information to us that we don't need someone. The truth of the matter is that the job of the CEO is to direct strategy, control the financial health of the business, and CREATE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. If none of these things are being done, then things need to be reassessed. If our executive team is the best resource we have, it needs to be shown by example. Thank you again for your post, and assuming that this is the case, we should be looking for results soon.