institutional investors, page-42

MM,

You post raised an interesting possibility.

As I have asked before, numerous times, what was to be gained by the so-called 'rebels'? If, as you suggest, there's a possibility that the board wants the price lower so that they can more closely hold power and the value for themselves, does this suggest that perhaps the rebels sell out was exactly what the board wanted? As I mentioned in a previous post, one 'rebel' told me that the he had told the chairman and other board members that he intended to sell if things didn't change...so they knew it was coming and did NOTHING. Might a conspiracy theorist suggest that it was in fact the board who were quite happy with the price being driven down to consolidate their power? Clearly, the Gohgate saga reflects an intention to grab power and there remains unanswered questions by the auditors suggesting illegality. If as is contended by RB, these have been dealt with, and the matter is now closed should there not be a substantive release explaining each accusation in detail?

RB suggested that the 'rebels' should be investigated. I asked what it is that they had done and his suggestion was that they had 'manipulated' the price. All they did was sell and over a substantial period of time. Aren't we all entitled to do that if we so choose? The fact is that the board could have stepped in and bought and kept the price up, but they didn't. And they haven't. And if the board knew that they were going to sell out, does that make the board complicitous in any wrong doing?

Personally, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to have a low share price. I am sure the 'rebels' would have preferred to get a higher price, rather than a lower one.