is the group being transparent., page-5

".it sends a message in strong terms that there are ramifications if enough holders may seek change in company direction, decisions, and ultimately company psychology."

Not really. In the end it's just a few major holders. The little guys didn't really count.

But let's hope for compromise. Were any directors due for re-election? Maybe one could step down?

I think people asking for "transparency" are probably using the wrong word. The group seems honest and transparent enough. But they certainly aren't puting out enough information to sway the number they will need.

When a company recommends voting against a resolution and then diverts proxies, it's hard to counter. Only a wide sweeping mission statement can open the door.

Having said that, now is not the time. The 249D is new. A meeting is scheduled. Things should remain amicable and private until the meeting.

If the meeting in good faith gains an acceptible outcome then great. If not, then that is the time to launch a campaign and sell the benefits versus pitfalls.