|Regarding your comments Richard:
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to give me a call. Our office is closed Thursday and Friday for Thanksgiving, but I will be back in the office next Monday.
Regarding the “100” shares issue, is the statement in one of the first paragraphs that says that the corporation has 3100 outstanding shares”? Or should it correctly state “the corporation has 310 outstanding shares”?
If it is 310, then would it be appropriate to take my proposed 1,705,000.00 and divide it by 310 to come up with the distribution per full share? I’m not sure about these calculations. It’s much easier for me to deal with 100 shares.
Do you like the idea of rounding up?
— On Sun, 11/23/08, Richard E Simeonoff <email@example.com> wrote:
From: Richard E Simeonoff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Kathy, the intention of Uganik acquiring the land and selling the land was to improve the lives of present shareholders, and keep the emphasis on managing the remaining lands with out of pocket cost. The proxy to sell the land should be a binding and clear document that explains that the land will be sold, and 95 % of the proceeds will go directly to the shareholders upon close of escrow and payment. There should not be any loop holes for anything but full distribution of the amount voted upon by the Current board of directors, and the shareholders in the proxy. The proxy shall state the tax implications of a sale and distribution. The land for sale under that was received from the Afognak Joint Venture, is land that is covered under the Alaska Native Settlement ACT. This land is not taxable as a distribution to shareholders. This should be clearly stated on the proxy. This land deal is by no means an isolated or “new” deal to both accountants and Lawyers familiar with the AJV partition process. State and Federal law and the ANSCA have ample situations where this has occurred, and there is no reason we cannot clearly state the tax implications of this sale. This tax issue may have a negative impact on the passage of this proxy. The other issue I have is,, what is the authorization to close transaction section C? Which states that officers may make amendments and modifications. It would be better if the Board of Directors were making those decisions. my main question. Does this mean issues like missing punctuation? Or can this have ramification to distribution of net proceeds? implementation would be by the officers
I know that Don Nekeferoff and others at the last shareholder meeting explicitly asked that we clear up any tax issues. Either way, we need to clear this up now before we proceed. It would not be in the best interest of shareholders to vote in the blind without a clear understanding of the tax situation. We cannot distribute the money until this is resolved. So why would we vote without shareholders knowing what their tax liability is. It is in the best interest of the Corporation to resolve this issue before wasting money on a proxy. The likelihood of the proxy passing is highly increased with educated shareholders. I have attached a copy of the original proxy with my remarks for all to see. We as a board should be able to resolve this issue working with Kathy. Kathy, with her experience in theses matters and professional contacts, should make this a seamless one. My main concern is that the shareholders have a clear understanding of what they are voting on.
RSJ Construction & Design LC
949 W 13th Ave, Apache Junction, Arizona, 85220