Hello Rago.

You’ve asked a question and made a statement, both of which, rightfully express your concern. After all, for week after week, year after year, Peter wrongfully repaid you zip for your trust in him.

Most of us share your frustration and understand your doubts that anything good can come out of the current cast of characters. Yet the information I have (some of it new) allows me to come to much more bright and hopeful conclusions than you have.

First your rhetorical question:
“Did anyone really expect Peter to give up control?”

My answer (which is awkwardly worded because I’m leaving out four names due to confidentiality):

Likely, he would not do so voluntarily. Two reliable sources tell me he stepped down in response to the influence of an institutional investor (who prefers not to discuss the matter publically). By the way, “Shareholders for Accountability at Fancamp” played a role by placing our reform message with another influential institutional executive who promised me, outside of Granger’s slate, he would get our reforms fulfilled another way.

For the sake of argument, even if I were mistaken (and the change were Peter’s idea), what does it matter? Jean Lafleur’s message, his work ethic on our behalf, and his forthright communication skills have nothing whatsoever in common with how, repeatedly, we’ve been rebuffed by Peter. To me, according to all logic and according to how I’ve been reassured by people I trust, Peter is not the power behind the throne.

Moreover, I’ve received an email from Jean, confirming his willingness to reach out to the same type of investment institutions and industry publications we’ve specified. Besides that, he’s given me five firm dates for us to choose from to meet with him at a boardroom he’s renting in New York (where I’m located) just for that purpose. At the New York meeting (which I will attend), we will also discuss his non-dilutive financing ideas. Of course, the meeting will be open to all the New York shareholders (and all the others who want to travel there).

Does this sound like it came from Peter? Is this Peter’s modus operandi? If it is, I welcome the news that he’s undergone a wonderful metamorphosis.

The second part of your message was:
“He got rid of Granger because Granger refused to be a yes man.”

My answer: Very likely, you’re right. However, that’s not the primary concern of shareholders.

Presently, Jean Lafleur has promised to get for us what we’re asking. He’s backed up his promise. That’s what matters to me. These last few months, I’ve grown tired of all the attention we’ve given to boardroom intrigues. I welcome the new focus on business matters and shareholder returns.