Since today has generated a plethora of opinions, OP ED's and rants by the posting elite, I'll ask one question. How many posters understand the effect of or even the meaning of proposal #3 that was defeated?
If any of the "authorities" that are passing their wisdom on to us would care to enlighten us as to their actual understanding of the effect of prop #3's rejection I would be greatly appreciative. Otherwise in the words of Archie Bunker, "Stifle thy self". This is getting a mite foolish.
In this case no apologies to those I may have offended particularly the dilution freaks.
Jim Long and calm
Jim, I do see the legal loophole in proposal #3. It's an 'if then' statement that if the reverse split was not approved then endless dilution to the pink sheets would take place.....basically a force measure. As I read it, it does not say the company cannot do a shelf offering in the future. Correct me if I am wrong?
The way I read it is they stopped the extension of possible dilution dead in its tracks. There is plenty of room for them to raise cash, if needed, with the authorized shares currently available. Should they get into trouble in the future they can always call for a vote by the share holders. I never cared for the request for more shares as it was not well presented as to need and how it related to the situation as it exists. It one of the few times I've had a problem with the governance.
As to the possible buyout, remember ZLICS requires a 75% vote for it to happened, and I don't think they garnered that type of response for any of proposals. I'll check that fact latter today. Of coarse a vote to approve a take over could be a completely different situation as there are many that would be absolutely giddy about a 200/300% premium. I would be livid and I think the large money investors would feel the same. This isn't you grandfathers type of investment, this is a game changer and 10 fold would still be chump change. JMHO
I should change this post I just remembered I am a Grandfather. LOL
Jim Long and calm