Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: LAWSUIT QUESTION: Re Michael Hartleib

  1. #21
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    They should be gunning to get Mel on SiriusBuzz Radio. That is the guy that everyone, including disgruntled investors, want to hear. Hell, get one of their PR guys on if nothing else. Sirius is getting ready to move into holiday season. and may welcome the opportunity to talk with their customers and investors (except maybe Hartleib).

  2. #22
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    Here is a question. Why hasn't Michael submitted "Proposals Of Security Holders" under rule 14a-8 to be included in the Preliminary Proxy Statement submitted by the company under rule 14a-6??? I am not a lawyer, but if you or I were involved in ongoing litigation with the company during the merger, during the merger appeal period, and after, wouldn't you follow Proxy Statement Rules and assure that your concerns could be included in a timely filing to the company so that all shareholders would have access to the information when the company files its Proxy Statement.

    Rule 14a-8 provides shareholders who disagree, or agree but want other considerations voted on at the annual meeting, a way to have those issues included in the Proxy Statement.


    I was told it was too late. Was that another lie. Homer I dont think that calling your post spin is a personal attack. I would love to speak with you sometime.Give me a call at 714-927-5898 or maybe I can see you in person at the shareholder meeting. Let me know. I think if you and I could speak you would be able to understand things in a more correct light. If Sirius wants to file an action against me that is their right. It is interesting how you all said I had no impact whatsoever and now claim that I have damaged this company. Which is it. Also remember how you all said in the Brockwell case that I hade no chance of defeating that case I guess you under estimated my resolve.

  3. #23
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    Tread very carefully Michael.



    Much Much to late for that!! So now jmm wants to bring an action against me as well. Jmm you are free to speak to me at 714 927-5895 If you chose to bring an action against me that is your right . I am trying to protect all shareholders rights not just my own. I intend to make myself whole in the process as well , if not I want to see justice on behalf of the shareholders against management who has been less than candid to say the least.

  4. #24
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    In a brief summary, describe the basis for your suit. Is this a countersuit against the Brockwell plaintiffs? Is this a suit to prevent a R/S? Is this a suit to argue interoperability? Is this a suit to try to overturn the merger? Which is it?

  5. #25
    cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    You were told it was too late. Were they Lying? That's your response to this important question regarding shareholder rights. When was this? Any time after the merger and appeal process would have been a good time to generate shareholder support for these issues.

    Michael why would you need to be told anything by the company regarding such an important opportunity? If you have been pursuing your rights as a equity holder, I would think that if you have legal expertise advising you, that you would not have missed this window of opportunity to legally and rightfully express your concerns about incompetent management for all of us shareholders.

    It is true that under this filing that if the issues proposed are not filed timely which in the case of this annual meeting, being scheduled more than 30 days from the date of the previous annual meetings is loosley defined. Sirius' annual meetings were in April of 2006 and April of 2007. With the merger and FCC delays this is their 2008 meeting, which makes Dec 2008 fit the definition of the criteria for filing your proposals to be within a reasonable time prior to Proxy mailings to be released. Other reasons for denial of proxy statement inclusion, and there are a few, but the two that come to mind are, if the proposal or concern raised pertains to operations that are valued less than 5% of the company's total assets or if they represents personal grievance or special interest. The personal grievance or special interest criteria is met if the proposal relates to the redress of a personal claim or grievance against the company or any other person, or if it is designed to result in a benefit to you, or to further a personal interest, which is not shared by the other shareholders at large.

    It would seem that your intent is to continue moving your agenda through the court system and not to voice proposals or concerns at the shareholder meeting to affect any change to the current proxy statement which has most shareholders upset. Things like "public disobedience" bringing Media Attention is not going to do anything to effect the outcome of the shareholder vote or actions by the company that will immediately take place after the vote.

    The issues we as shareholders seem to be addressing is Share Dilution (8 Bil), Reverse Stock Split, and whether or not the company can be taken private and yeah sprinkle in there whether Mel lied. How is what your doing going to bring these concerns to a better understanding and resolution?

  6. #26
    TSavery is offline
    Head Honcho
    TSavery's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 524

    KeysMark

    Quote Originally Posted by Keysmark View Post
    Tyler,

    Why are you speaking for Mr. Hartleib?

    So now I must ask you. Other than attempting to present all viewpoints, what is you association with Mr. Hartlieb? Are you a part of his suit and actions against SIRI? What do you have to gain from his success?

    Why are you championing his cause so strongly? It seems to me that you have gone far beyond merely allowing him to present his point of view!

    Mr. Hartleib's is acting only in his own self interest. His actions, by his own admission, are designed to get HIS money back.

    I believe that Mr. Hartleib's actions have caused, and are continuing to cause, harm to Sirius and my investment.

    Keysmark
    1. I am not "speaking for Mr. Hartleib"...I was simply trying to shed light with what I know because it is a topic that many are looking for answers on.

    2. I have no associatio with Mr. Hartleib other than knowing him for about 3 years.

    3. I am not part of his suit.

    4. I have nothing to gain from his success or nothing to lose if he fails.

    5. I am not "championing his effort". I simply put out the information because many had requested it.

    6. Whether his actions have harmed or will harm an investment is unknown. If he is correct, then investors will have been harmed in many other ways. If he is not correct, there are other things that have been the cause of the fall.
    Tyler Savery
    Satellite Standard Founder

  7. #27
    homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    Quote Originally Posted by cos1000 View Post
    It is true that under this filing that if the issues proposed are not filed timely which in the case of this annual meeting, being scheduled more than 30 days from the date of the previous annual meetings is loosley defined. Sirius' annual meetings were in April of 2006 and April of 2007. With the merger and FCC delays this is their 2008 meeting, which makes Dec 2008 fit the definition of the criteria for filing your proposals to be within a reasonable time prior to Proxy mailings to be released.
    Looking over the By-Laws, I agree. Sirius has a very specific timetable for counter proxies and/or bringing other business up at Annual Meetings. Even for meetings that are delayed more than 70-days beyond the previous years meeting.

    And as you also brought up, there is a strict protocol that must be followed -- beyond the timeline. If it is not, the company is within its rights to dismiss the request. I'd expect any request by Hartleib to the company -- to be following this timeline/protocol very closely -- knowing how he is.

    That said, blurting out statements insinuating that it was "another lie", IMHO continues to border on libelous statements made by him -- as he is obviously using such statements to incite more stockholders to join his cause.



    ------

  8. #28
    cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    homer985, I really hadn't looked at the by-laws of the company for this but just researched the minimum requirements as defined under the SEC rules. As I have said before, not being a lawyer, it didn't take much research, couple of clicks on Google, to find out what is available to shareholders in addressing Corporate Proxy Statement filings. I've been concerned about this whole movement and was surprised to find that if "discovery" and building documentation was a goal to Michael building his case, then why not exercise this process. I honestly, other than trying to provide info for others to decide, will not be giving this "movement" any attention. I too was surprised at his response.

  9. #29
    cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    Tyler, with all do respect for your hard work and ability to keep us informed, stopping at item #5 might have been a better idea.

    In your item # 6 you state:

    6. Whether his actions have harmed or will harm an investment is unknown. If he is correct, then investors will have been harmed in many other ways. If he is not correct, there are other things that have been the cause of the fall.

    Quite frankly not knowing what harm that Michael will cause to our investments is the whole point. He is not news on a National sense, other than his legal filings being in the public record as appropriate. Your Radio Show and your site, along with your 3 year "association", have provided Michael with access to a forum of avid investors in this company. Michael, other than explaining his interoperability objections and class action involvement, protecting shareholders rights from being adjudicated away (old news), has not provided any new information to for you to afford him all this attention, again.

    At a time when we are all seeing our investments vaporize, giving access to an individual who may harm those investments without proper vetting of his intentions, is also your responsibility. If readers and listeners were hungry for information because they didn't know who Michael was then providing historical facts and links should have sufficed. IMHO Additionally Michael is now using this site and links as an advertising platform for his lawsuit, whether it harms investors or not.
    __________________

  10. #30
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    I believe I agree Cos. While it may not be Tyler's intent, SiriusBuzz is being used by Michael to further his cause. Maybe it is best to let him post his intentions or relevant suit information to a sticky and leave it at that.

    From Michael's ramblings, I cannot make heads or tails of what he is doing exactly. I have no intention of calling him. All I have heard is his conspiracy theories about past suits and claims that there is collusion to take the company private. Where is his proof? Unless he has hard evidence to our current situation, he will open himself and those in his party to a countersuit from other investors and/or Sirius.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •