Just an opinion, but I'm not sure if more proof would make any difference. I recently received a letter (the same as yours I presume…. a form letter) and in my cynicism I concluded it was just another way for them to try and generate more work for themselves. On the original proof page they gave you two lines (if that) to provide proof, and then they send me a 4 page letter asking that what ‘you’ provided wasn’t adequate (???), …… and so they have reduced it to 80%....funny everybody else’s has been reduced to 80% too, have we ALL provided the exact same level of proof? They felt I needed to provide precisely how, when and why ION’s alleged conduct affected my decision! (der that’s what I sent them), they also said that part of my 20% rejection was based on lack of proof of brokerage (get real…retailers CAN’T purchase without brokerage….and they could check anyway). I think the letter is probably the same to all shareholders. The courts decided on 80% so that’s what they are giving. I used the same logic for ‘pre’ and ‘post’ 9/9/2004 and the ‘pre’ was 100% rejected….so don’t waste your time giving them the opportunity to write to you another income generating letter. By the time they have finished it will be TEN years (or more)…Wow you’d only need to be administrator for 2 companies every ten years and you’d be set for life…. I can’t believe the legal system’s ethics department allows this….but then again it is the fox incharge of the hen house...Still I can’t complain something ($) is better than nothing.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
