Hello Prove it, we intrepid ECT supporters must stick together now more than ever. As you have relayed your doubts about the board, I am now understanding of the source of your information, as I have talked to this person as well. Though his intentions may be well meaning (though I believe that this is a big question mark) this person has a very biased point of view and in the end what he has suggested to me for the direction we should take I believe would be very harmful for the majority of shareholders and most would reject it if given full disclosure,and would be disastrous for the future of ect past a very short term period.
With regard to some of the concerns you have expressed:
I know that Mario Naim attempted to grab the patent through legal maneuvers after leaving the board, but it would be pure speculation to claim he intended this from the start. Even if he had that plan, he obviously failed and that failure was due to actions from current board members! Are you faulting them for saving the patent for shareholders? For putting up their own money to protect our interests? This is a reason to thank the board not criticize them!
Though Guy Benoit may have had a more behind the scenes role than other board members, he has been actively supporting this company and was, in fact, directly responsible for the shareholder consent action to remove RH. He has put his money where his mouth is in terms of protecting shareholder interest in the past, and also very recently. Again, this is a reason to thank him, not criticize!
Your comments on Gib are diametrically opposite to my own experience of his character and integrity. I am very surprised that you would characterize the shareholder action to preserve our ownership of the patent as having "stolen" it from RH. We the shareholders are the owners of that patent, not RH. We paid for it long ago and we have supported this product's further development for over 2 years with our purchase of shares as RH diluted the AS. RH was just the CEO. He had no ownership rights to anything. Honestly, what would you have had this board do in this regard? They have taken the appropriate action to save our investment and have in the process been the target of personal lawsuits against themselves. Obviously this is a difficult situation for all involved, yet they have continued in this effort despite the numerous personal risks.
Gib had informed us about his trip to Korea, which is part of his work at another company, but is synergistic with work at ECT and has excellent possibilities to further ECT's interests. Gib is working to establish contacts for us throughout the automotive industry in Korea and elsewhere. This is great for us, not a bad thing! Korea is at the cutting edge of using technology such as the one we own to create the next wave of technologically advanced automobiles. If there is a larger market for our product, I don't know what it would be. The date of this trip is coincidental. He will also be traveling to the US for meetings later this Fall.
Again, my impression through many conversations is that he is adamantly supportive of shareholder interests and in making this company legitimately successful. I have zero doubt in this matter.
I do not have too much personal knwledge about Guy Paul Gaultier as I do not speak French at all and there is a bit of a language barrier. However again, there is every evidence that he has supported protecting shareholders against several actions that would have destroyed our interests, including the ones you cited with Naim and also with Gordon Bain. He was RH's initial contact with Bain's group as I understand it, and this had benefited us in many ways, including that Bain and friends had initially provided some of the legal funding for the action against RH. I do not have full information as to how this relationship soured, though my suspicion is that the Bain group likely found it could be cheaper and easier to just take the tech, as the company was in fragile shape after RH's mismanagement. It is really too bad that they have tried to harm their fellow shareholders by working against our mutual interests and trying to basically steal the patent from us in this legal action. I suppose that in their eyes it looked like a win/win situation, as they either get the tech on the cheap or reap the rewards as shareholders if the Board should happen to pull it off and get the financing they need elsewhere. But in the end these tactics will not work and they will have just wasted precious time for us all. This product is too valuable to too many people to be snatched up in this way. Simply stated, it won't happen.
With regards to Guy Fauche, I respect the service he has provided to the board and I know that he has made substantial investments to this company, as have many of us. My hope is that he will continue to have everyone's interest at heart and understand that our best hope is for this company to be run by people of good ethics and reputable professional standing.
I disagree with you completely about the trustworthiness of the board. They have fought for our interests and have proven this by the fact that we have prevailed against those who would drive this company and it's stubbornly committed investors into the dust. The last few weeks have been both perilous and amazingly encouraging. We need to continue to work together for the benefit of everyone, leaving none behind.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
