Replies to post #94328 on Drone Services USA Inc. (DSUS)

[Seaam]

PG, as an admitted company representative, announcing official company business regarding ID's for the company meeting. This announcement of the rules to participate in the Dec 23 & 24 meeting should be posted also via PR and also formally on "the official company forrum/web site"?

[marianothis]

PG,

"It is not uncommon for companies to insist the individual(s) that wish to meet with a company or its representatives provide proof of identity "

yOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THERE IS A COMPANY THAT DOESN'T ASK FOR proof of identity. I don't know of one. common sense & common practice imo. it is good business too.


glty, get her done PG, buddy

[Cassandra]

It is not uncommon for companies to insist the individual(s) that wish to meet with a company or its representatives provide proof of identity AND sign a roster.

PG: It would be EXTREMELY uncommon, if not completely unheard of, for any legitimate public company to require that any investor or potential investor wishing to simply visit the office or meet with company representatives to provide some sort of proof of their identity prior to the company allowing the visit or meeting.

What would be the purpose of such a requirement? Why would any legitimate public company make such a requirement?

Since you claim such practices are "not uncommon," can you provide any information to verify your claim by naming even one legitimate public company that requires such proof?

If not, can you provide the name of ANY company whether legitimate or not that requires current or potential investors to provide proof of identity before being allowed to visit the company's office or meet with company "representatives?"

The company is well within its right to request such. If a visitor has nothing to hide, then providing the required identification should be no problem.

I suppose that a company can make any requirement it wants prior to allowing someone to visit the office or meet with company "representatives." But why would any public company, especially one that claims it is doing all it can to be "transparent" have such an unusual requirement?