Replies to post #103481 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[coastiretired]

That would be fresh. . .

It would be the first time I have seen this company do anything, "on behalf of shareholders." I've only seen management and their cohorts benefit from any actions that this company has ever taken.

I think its, by far, a stronger likelihood that they are once again serving their own self interests.

Interesting that they have sent more money out the door on a race car driver (implicated by the SEC) and a small airline owner (implicated by the SEC) than they ever spent on research or the development of any Globetel product; Just looking after shareholder interests I guess.

[jpharrah]

mide, you say...

"Jp...there is also the strong likelihood that by GTEM deciding to take the SEC to the mat on this in front of a judge on behalf of shareholders (after all we are the company), is prudent. (Not sure, I agree)."

You are saying there was a strong likelihood they had this option, since you say they "decided" to fight the SEC. But you also say you may not agree and you would prefer a quick non-culpable financial settlement.

Wouldn't anyone in their right mind?

Surely these guys don't want a fight with the SEC, and the investigation to continue, if they had the option of closure and a relatively small fine. Logic tells us they were never given this option! What in the world makes you think they were.... "hope"?

"Sure they burn through more of the D and O insurance in doing so to pay the legals..."

Is that how it works? The SEC offers a small settlement amount and the company tells their insurance company they want them to spend at least ten times as much fighting the SEC? I don't think so!!! And I think this pretty much proves they were never given an option, as the Insurance company would have said either you take it or you're on your own. I've never heard of a policy that didn't protect the carrier in this manner.

"Jon and the BOD, what is of them, feel that the shareholders will be better off with a fight than not...and feel strongly that the company, us, will be vindicated."

Those who have "hoped" the company would finally do what was best for shareholders have been wrong for years. Those who have looked at the facts and anlyzed them logically have been correct about the downfall of this company for years. Maybe the "hope" will eventually work out, but I don't see any factual basis for believing this logically.