"Your suggestions are excellent but they are based on your assumptions and they may be wrong.

Who claims that Lori holds a part time position. Full time is defined as 28+ hours per week by many unions. If she works 28 hours per week on SLI and 12 on IGD then she deserves a full time salary from SLI. In addition, I doubt very much that she only works 40 hours.

In addition, it seems to me that IGD requires minimal work. The real work is done at TTAGIT. Lori would simple be responsible for care an maintenance duties for IGD. As I recall she draws a minimal salary from IGD that is reflective of the actual hours worked there. Someone else can verify that if they wish.

There may have been a conflict of interest in the past but IGD seems to be making a shift to a technology company. Any conflict that exists will resolve it self in due course. Regardless, the exchange and regulators were not concerned with potential conflicts of interest so why are you?"

First off the only assumption I made was that Lori is being compensated by both SLI and IGD for her positions with each company. All other claims are not assumptions they are factual statements. The number of hours a person works in any given day is 100% of their work efforts. If that person works for more than one company that 100% is divided. Plain and simple whether it be 100%/0%, 75%/25%, 50%/50%...no matter how it is divided...someone or both are getting short-changed. Those are mathematics that cannot be rationalized away or conveniently dismissed.

The suggestion that it is expected let alone acceptable for a President/CEO/Board Chairman of a large corporate entity which is publicly traded to work 28 hours per week because some unions deem 28 hrs a full work week is beyond preposterous. Even a minimum waged 17 yr old is only entitled to overtime after 44 hrs.

Anyone who has spent a minute in the corporate world at any level knows that the expectation even at lower levels for salaried employees is to put in far beyond 40 hrs and the expectation only becomes greater at the executive level where it is very common for CEO's to work regular 70-90 hour work weeks.

It is incredible for you to suggest that Lori's responsibilities to IGD shareholders as President and CEO are "care and maintenance duties" and that effectively the company is being run by a tech company led by a low level coder. Can you imagine if Lori suggested to IGD shareholders at their AGM that she really only checks in on operations 12 hours a week to make sure the guys at TTAGIT are doing their thing...IGD isn't something to be treated as some pet project with its future left to be determined by a tech company with no pedigree or history of any accomplishments whatsoever. Utter nonsense.

Lori drawing a minimal salary is no justification for not doing her job as expected to maximize shareholder value, nor is it any solace to IGD shareholders who would be rightly under the assumption that their company is being run by a committed full-time President/CEO. Again Utter nonsense.

Regarding conflict of interest...I am dumbfounded that as a shareholder you are not concerned when a conflict of interest exists within the executive of a company you are invested in. It truly defies all logic. The fact that the authourities were either unaware or chose not to do anything does not determine whether the conflict exists. If someone speeds and it goes unseen...it doesn't mean they didn't break the law, furthermore if someone speeds and is pulled over and then let go with a warning it doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken.

S.