|
|
Hearing Chaves Vs Westland D-202-CV-200609140 , 2/1/2007, 8:30 am
Posted by: "atriscoheirs@yahoogroups.com" atriscoheirs@yahoogroups.com
Hearing Chaves Vs Westland D-202-CV-200609140
Thursday February 1, 2007
8:30 am - 9:30 am
Location: ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT COURT 616 - With the Blue Roof
Street: 400 Lomas NW
City State Zip: Albuquerque NM 87102
Phone: 505.841.7434 or Jerome Padilla 505 385 1788
Notes:
Lets have all that voted no come support Ricardo Chaves in his fight to correct
the sale of our lands for $4000 per acre.
02/01/2007 9:00 AM CAL: MTN HEARING CAMPBELL CLAY P ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT COURT
616
Join us Feb 1, 2007 830am 400 4th Street room 616 Judge Campbell
We
need all Shareholders and Heirs to join us at the hearing Feb 1 ,
2007 830am Hearing in front of Judge Clay Campbell 400 4th Street NW
(Blue Roof) to continue our fight to correct the injustice of the sale
of our lands to Suncal. We need to support Ricardo Chaves at this
hearing.
Our fight continues.
Jerome Padilla
ALBUQUERQUE
JOURNAL REPORTS
November 22, 2006
Westland Sold to SunCal of Irvine, California
Rory McClanahan, of the Albuquerque Journal reported
on Wednesday, November 22 (echoing another day that lives in infamy)
that the management of Westland Development Co., Inc. announced that
". . . shareholders have agreed to sell the company to a California developer."
Westland claims that
72.4% of the 709,827 shares of (class A) common stock was
voted in favor of the sale,
while 97.75% of the 85,100 class B stock was voted in favor.
They needed nearly 67% of each class of stock to be voted in favor of the sale.
WHAT REMAINS?
SERIOUS QUESTIONS THAT WON'T GO AWAY
1. Does the election
really reflect the true will of Westland shareholders?
2. Did the Westland Board and SunCal ignore a clear directive of the
shareholders at the June 8th Shareholders Meeting that SunCal not
communicate with shareholders, solicit proxies by mail, telephone, and hire
runners to repeatedly pester shareholders for their votes?
3. Were shareholders told on the telephone by agents of SunCal that if they voted against the sale that they would receive less money for their shares than those who voted in favor?
4. Were shareholders who mailed in their proxies indicating their vote against the sale, repeatedly harassed by SunCal agents attempting to get them to change their vote, and how did they know how people voted in advance of the vote counting?
5. Did shareholders receive multiple copies of the proxy and proxy statement in coordination with an aggressive serial mailing campaign in a costly attempt to get them to change their votes?
6. How did Westland's directors and their SunCal partners know the running totals of the vote in advance of the official release of results?
7. Why were agents of
SunCal allowed to attend, and even run the functions of the "Shareholders"
meeting on November 6th? Even to the extent that they
directed the operation of the microphones provided for shareholders questions
and comments, shutting them on and off at will?
8. Although the vote was counted by Moss-Adams according to tailor-made
procedures mandated by the Westland board - was it counted accurately? Were the
votes that were counted altered in any way?
9. Why was SunCal
allowed to solicit, handle, and have in their possession,
the private proxy votes of Westland shareholders?
If a crime was committed, did they have means, motive, and opportunity?
Means: They are an ambitious multi-million dollar corporate entity
Motive: The fulfillment of one of the biggest land grabs in New Mexico history
Opportunity: SunCal agents and their Westland partners had possession of, and handled shareholder proxies without supervision of a disinterested party for various periods of time before they were delivered into the hands of the vote tabulator, Moss-Adams.
9. Who was allowed to
observe a vote count that would result in the historic
transfer of more than 55,000 acres of land on Albuquerque's west side?
Who? SunCal perhaps, but definitely not the shareholders!
10. According to the Journal article, SunCal's
land acquisition manager,
(in an exultation that might have been uttered by Peter Minuit of the Dutch West
India Company in 1626, as he
swindled Manhattan Island from the Lenape Indians)
said, "Today is a very good day!"
Now, as then, the question remains; for whom?
Hermanos Atrisqueños, oigan:
¡Atrisco Vive!
WESTLAND SPECIAL MEETING A STAGED AFFAIR
The Board of Westland Development
Company, determined to quash any opportunity for shareholders to participate in
their own "shareholders meeting," created a "rules" list and agenda that would
have made Benito Mussolini proud. The agenda and rules effectively rendered the
shareholders to little role other than sheep who were there not to conduct any
shareholder business, but only to vote. They were not allowed to share
literature with their fellow shareholders, and were confined to two microphones
available for only 45 minutes of "questions." The microphones were turned on and
off at will, as the "moderator" engaged in extemporaneous ongoing argument with
questioners, thus wasting precious time and depriving those lined up behind any
opportunity to speak to their fellow shareholders.
Those in favor of selling their birthright were treated with tolerance when they interrupted speakers on the other side of the issue, while anyone speaking against the sale was held to a strict 90 second rule and responded to with condescension and frequently cut off. Predictably, this angered many of those present, who expressed their frustration with shouts and boos. At the end of this seemingly interminable fiasco, the Chairperson, Barbara Page declared the meeting adjourned and about half of the approximately 1200 to 1400 people present left the meeting. Awhile later it was announced by the moderator that Barbara Page had misspoken and that the meeting would reconvene in 40 minutes to hear the preliminary count of the proxies. Approximately half of the shareholders never returned, possibly missing their chance to vote or to change their vote after witnessing the iron-fisted conduct of the meeting..
When the meeting reconvened, Mr. Brandon Fryer of Moss Adams LLP, addressed the remaining shareholders. In a voice that was detectably quaking, he explained that Moss Adams had been contracted by Westland Development Company, Inc. to conduct the vote count in a specified manner and had not participated in any way in any other aspect of the solicitation or conduct of the proxy statement or of the meeting. He then announced the preliminary results of the proxy vote:
As of
Saturday, November 4, 2006,
83,094 of the Class B Shares (those created by and owned predominantly by the
Westland Board members) had been cast, with 96.7% being in favor of the
merger with SunCal of Irvine, California..
As of
Saturday, November 4, 2006,
approximately 492,000 Class A Common Shares
(those owned by the majority of Atrisco heirs) had been cast, with 69.3% of
these in favor of the merger with SunCal of Irvine, California.
There being something in the area of 710,000 Class A Shares in total, there are approximately 218,000 shares that have not yet been counted or have not been cast. Failure to return or vote proxies is the same as a vote against the merger. A good number of the uncounted votes are going to be “No” votes since these comprise votes that were actually voted as “No” and those that are non-voting (those who are purposely not voting and those who are not voting for some other reason). Based on these figures we need only about 40% of the vote to defeat the sale. Thus, the jury is still out. Our hope is for an honest and fair final count. Stay tuned.
The Moss Adams representative, Brandon Fryer, said that proxies received on the day of the special meeting, Monday, November 6, would be counted and the final totals reported in the next two weeks, probably by November 15, 2006. It seems clear, that, unless we get the needed 40% of the remaining vote, that SunCal of Irvine, California, may have just accomplished a major coup that will join the annals in the history of post-Mexican War land grabs, right along with those of the Santa Fe Ring of the 19th century in New Mexico.
Petition to Call
a Special Shareholder Meeting
For the Purpose of Calling for the election of a new board of directors
HELP US GET THESE SIGNED AND SENT BACK TO US
|
Did you What's the truth |
|
© Concerned Heirs of Atrisco |