Replies to post #99 on Modern Energy Corp (fka MDRG)

[dealerschool2006]

According to the TRO Complaint, Wyoming State Law requires..blah blah blah...read #61 of the complaint...

well here is the statute #61 refers to:

17-16-705. Notice of meeting.

(a) A corporation shall notify shareholders of the date, time, place and means of communication of each annual and special shareholders' meeting no fewer than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days before the meeting date. Unless this act or the articles of incorporation require otherwise, the corporation is required to give notice only to shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting.

(b) Unless this act or the articles of incorporation require otherwise, notice of an annual meeting need not include a description of the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called.

(c) Notice of a special meeting shall include a description of the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called.

(d) If not otherwise fixed under W.S. 17-16-703 or 17-16-707, the record date for determining shareholders entitled to notice of and to vote at an annual or special shareholders' meeting is the day before the first notice is delivered to shareholders.

(e) Unless the bylaws require otherwise, if an annual or special shareholders' meeting is adjourned to a different date, time, place or means of communication, notice need not be given of the new date, time, place or means of communication if the new date, time place or means of communication is announced at the meeting before adjournment. If a new record date for the adjourned meeting is or shall be fixed under W.S. 17-16-707, however, notice of the adjourned meeting shall be given under this section to persons who are shareholders as of the new record date.

Now this brings a new opinion to this matter. There was a vote, Scottrade calims they weren't notified by The Company because, I'm assuming, ST wasn't entitled to vote. Each and every line of ST's complaint needs to be broken down and they need to prove their claims of course. but the defendents also have to come up with counter-claims to prove them wrong.

I don't have a vested interest in MDNO, but I do have an interest in this case and what precedence this will set for the markets. Chaos is NOT good, and that isn't what I'm implying. I'm analysing this case by using the LAW and pointing out the issues and who is at fault here. Plus I'm babbling along the way to see what arguments their could be in this case.

Also, has NASD ever "signed off" on the daily list that they shouldn't have because a Company made an error and NASD didn't catch it? If so, then the daily list isn't fulproof.