Apr 4th 2009, 11:36
Lexx Mureaux
ACE trader since 2007/12/02
|
Authority to take away shares? |
Where do you get this authority to take people's shares away?
You have NO right to do so, let alone give them around 30 days to respond to your requests.
You don't own their shares so you cannot take them away.
I think this is ridiculous.
-Lexx |
Apr 4th 2009, 14:03
Anja Drevnerussky
ACE trader since 2008/06/15
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Please have a look at http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/ESN/1098 .
These people have had 45 days to make their claims.
The question of ownership is a good one. From my point of view a resident who has left SL finally or was permanently banned from SL has ceased to exist. If there is no leigtimate inheritor, these shares should go back to the company as treasury shares.
Best Regards
Anja
|
Apr 4th 2009, 16:02
Hamncheese Omlet
me@hamncheeseomlet.com
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Hi Lexx,
The official policy is stated here: http://www.ace-exchange.com/forums/topic/439
You are correct that the shares belong to a person and they will be locked 45 more days. We have to balance the rights of the shareholder (the shares belong to them forever) with the realities of Second Life and that is that people leave, die or are uninterested forever. People don't leave wills where Second Life is concerned or otherwise we would have a way to ensure that shareholders get their shares.
We are open to tweaking the policy, if you have specific concerns that we can address.
Hope that helps,
Ham |
Apr 4th 2009, 23:58
Gravel Homewood
ACE trader since 2008/05/08
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
has anyone tried to contact any of these people? I searched on a few of them and it looks like some have valid e-mail accounts in their profile.
The shares held by Bank Book may be owned by BNT. I think he was their alt at one time.
|
Apr 5th 2009, 18:51
JayT Axel
Capital risker
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Hello Gravel,
In fact yes i have tried to contact them. I would not allow myself to put someone in this list is the avatar could be found in search. The only reason for them being in the list is that they are not found in search and no way to contact them out of SL except through the ACE website.
One of the first actions I did when I was elected CEO, was to contact all the shareholders who I never heard about, and those persons on this list are people who I have been unable to contact.
This is the reason why on the 19th February, I have made an announcement to meet them. However NONE of them have replied me, either through the website or through SL.
Another thing that I have noticed is that many little shareholders do not even know that they have shares of ESN. This is simply a shame that those shareholders are not even aware of their possession. I have spent enough time contacting them and now it is time to simply act to save those who know that they have shares of ESN and who are willing to save what can be saved.
But now that ESN is on its take off stage, I think that it is quite natural that only shareholders who belive in the company should be rewarded for their faith in us.
More action plan will be made official later concerning ESN's stocks. The board will have a meeting at the end of the month to decide what to do and in which way we would best serve our shareholders.
Feel free to ask questions.
Best regards.
|
Apr 7th 2009, 15:09
Gravel Homewood
ACE trader since 2008/05/08
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
A similar question at SlcapEX
http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2575
|
Apr 8th 2009, 13:31
Ashleigh Wade
ACE trader since 2007/10/23
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Lexx - I tend to agree with you on this issue and I don't really feel the practice is a good one. This was also discussed at some length at ISE:
http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=802 |
Apr 8th 2009, 22:29
Hamncheese Omlet
me@hamncheeseomlet.com
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
What part of ACE's policy do you disagree with? It doesn't matter if it has been discussed at length elsewhere because elsewhere they don't have a policy.
The fact remains that people leave the SL scene permanently and usually the shares involved is not a lot of money. If we don't "do something" then those shares remain tied up, with no hope of having a conversation, no hope of liquidity, no hope of new shareholders that become passionate about the Company, etc., etc.
There are some other ideas we haven't implemented yet, but I would like to hear specifically what concerns are remaining on our official policy.
|
Apr 9th 2009, 10:09
Ashleigh Wade
ACE trader since 2007/10/23
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Ham - I don't disagree with the policy. Notice I said I disagree with the practice, not ACE's policy. What I disagree with the ethics of the situation, wherein a company is allowed to confiscate another's property (someone who paid for ownership of that company!), and the conflict of interest inherent in that. I fear companies will abuse this if allowed to regulate the process.
As far as the policy I think you've done the best you can to mitigate the risks you anticipate. It starts off taking the right position, namely protecting shareholder rights. You might consider widening the timeframe though. Another thing to consider is that you can "check" yourself our of search now.
Only time will tell if this becomes an administrative nightmare or problem. I myself have been told flat out from an individual they will not invest in a company where the exchange allows for confiscation of shares.
It's a sticky situation indeed, but I tend to fall on the side of a shareholder is a shareholder in perpetuity regardless of when they log in or how active they are. Only the respective shareholder can exercise his right to sell, maintain or gift his shares. I can see your side, though, and I think ACE has acted in good faith towards finding a resolution both sides.
Another resolution might be to create an ACE unclaimed funds type of situation wherein the companies don't have inherent interest to "scrub" thier shareholders list to increase their treasury.
|
Apr 9th 2009, 16:48
JayT Axel
Capital risker
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Ashleigh and Lexx,
You are right about the question of ownership. However all companies are not the same, we have to study the case of each company first.
The main reason for ESN to act so is to save existing shareholders. If the company had assets or treasury to autofinance its activities, we would not have taken such measures.
Don't you think that it is best to eliminate those who have quit sl and who are not active on the website rather than delisting the company?
"If" we liquidate the company tomorrow, this means that you should hold at least 3 shares of the company to get back 0.01L$ on your account. This would be a very very big lost for all existing shareholders and we do not wish this.
By adopting this kind of measures, we also attract shareholders attention on their responsibility as shareholders. If they quit without saying anything, then we consider that they have taken their lost.
Actually, there is no real reason why the company should continue to exist. The company rely completely on the devotion of some people to make something out of it. Even if some unpopular measures have to be taken, we will do what we judge the best to save the company.
Best regards. |
Apr 9th 2009, 18:03
Ashleigh Wade
ACE trader since 2007/10/23
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
JayT,
I understand where you are coming from. You have a limited mechinism by which to finance ESN activities and that limits your options. I would ask though, that you explore other options before altering your equity structure.
I disagree with you that this is something to be considered on a company by company basis. This is an exchange issue and altering someone's equity and could be mis-construed as theft by certain perspective. That's a serious issue. By no means am I singling out ESN. You are not the only one doing this. In fact, there are other companies who have quite healthy balance sheets that make this a regular practice. That concerns me.
You note that this practice "attracts shareholders attention on thier responsibility". I would like to know what you mean by this? It's our job to produce for shareholders, not the other way around. If we are doing our job right then they will be interested, or perhaps not. That's thier call though, as owners. I don't really see where they are obligated to perform outside thier purchase of pieces of our company, the right to vote, and the right to speak up if they feel like something is amiss. I also don't see where we can reserve the right to punish our owners for inactivity by conficating thier shares. Shareholders own the company - the company doesn't own the shareholders.
As far as ESN, if the plan doesn't work then yes, it's probably time for bankruptcy and liquidation. There are many dead shell companies in this situation, and its long overdue that we start to formulate an orderly exit system while at the same time tightening our controls to ensure that only the proven companies are allowed to enter the public market.
You are a good guy JayT. I know the shareholders appreciate your hard work. And I can empathize with you that being a SL CEO is sometimes a very time consuming, thankless and unrewarding job. Hang in there.
|
Apr 9th 2009, 21:30
Hamncheese Omlet
me@hamncheeseomlet.com
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Ashleigh,
You suggest changing the amount of time. What would you like to see? That we abandon the policy, or lengthen the days or provide a feature that attempts survivorship, such as verified email, skype id, etc.
Thanks,
Ham |
Apr 9th 2009, 23:02
Ashleigh Wade
ACE trader since 2007/10/23
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Hey Ham,
I'm not sure that abandoning the policy is a good idea. Companies are already doing it. So ACE needs something in place to protect itself now, and your draft is a good start.
The time limits do seem a bit short. And you would definately be a notch ahead if you have a feature that attempts survivorship and RL contacts. That would further protect the exchange from any liability because you are doing your best due diligence. The policy does seem to do a good job in making sure the company does the work but the exchange controls the process. So that's a big something.
Honestly its something I have to think about more. I would also like to see if other people have thoughts on the matter and are willing to speak up. Aside from my clear ethical issue lol I can see merits in both sides of the argument and I am torn.
And this is really something that seems to have surfaced in the last year. I don't recall SL companies doing this before, at least not publically that I can recall. So we are at the beginning of it.
Let me think more and we can discuss. I would really like to see ACE Board thoughts on the matter as well.
Ash |
Apr 20th 2009, 10:12
Bagz Zapedzki
ACE community member
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
I myself don't see why it would be a problem of float shares. When someone owns something they own it forever. And these shares would not anyone else to lose because all of the shares are worth the same amount. So maybe we need to add something to protect the ones where something happens and they do in fact come back. Someone is SL could have a lot invested and have the right to come back maybe a year later even. Know I am mentioning an extreme case. But things do happen in our lives and such a case is when someone has to drop everything and and go to war for example. Or maybe to visit and help someone in their lives. Like others I feel many would feel better if the shareholders would be better protected. The idea that a company can confiscate your shares because you are not active is a little to unlike anything in first life. But if something like this happened in someone's first life it would be a period of longer than 45 days or so and more rights to the shareholders. But all in all it is a tricky situation. However like mentioned above some would never invest with a feeling that a company/exchange can just take back what you own then the question arises of weather we really own our shares. If shareholders don't own there shares and companies then sl exchanges will never reach their potential.
Bagz Zapedzki
CEO Virtual Growth Funds |
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:12
JayT Axel
Capital risker
|
Re: Authority to take away shares? |
Thank you Bagz for your point of view Bagz,
You are not wrong whith what you say.
However, we are talking about people who left SL and will never comeback. For example Maltos sosa, Wombat or Atlas, they are all people who have scamed, caused the bankruptcy of companies, etc. They will NEVER comeback on SL.
And then we are talking about a very small amount of shares. For sure one share is one share, but one share does not have any value at all. You need at least 200 shares to have 0.01L$ rl value.... is this wrong to take back shares which has no value from someone? Its as if I am taking a share of ENRON from you.
One of the solutions I have proposed to save the current shareholders, during the election campain, was to ask shareholders to bring a little support to finance ESN's activities 10% of thier holding. This way, we would have kept only shareholders who whish to save the company and not only rely on others and act in a selfish way.
We need to act like one group, those who does not wish to save what they have are free to quit and many have done so by selling their shares once ESN was on trade again.
"When the boat sinks, the rats are the first to get off." many have done so, but not all those who still belive that we can save this company. I am one of those who belive we can do it. This is why I am still here!
All companies which is falling needs restructuration, human, technological, processus and also financial. Not everyone will be happy with this, but frankly can we manage a company with everyone being happy?
I said it previously, even if there are some unpopular measures that should be taken for the best of the company, it will be done to save the company. Its not a pleasure for me, but sometimes someone has to do what we call "the dirty job".
Best regards. |
