I think it's a bad deal and if we as greens can vote to stop it we must. This is my own opinion and this is why I think so: 1. If my math is correct, and I admit I am not sure, then as a percent which is based on 100, a 1:20 ratio the day after the split equals 5%. Therefore you've had your shares reduced by 95%. Think of it another way and you get the same result. Out of every 20 shares you go down 19. That's the same 95% reduction. Not good. 2. The share price, sometime after the day after the consolidation, would need to appreciate to offset the 95% dilution. That is wishful thinking I think. There is no rule that I know of which says the s/p has to go up after a consolidation. 3. You get one vote for every share. In the above scenario your voting shares are decreased by 95% after a consolidation. Summary: I don't see any monetary benefit or purpose that strengthens the company and shareholders by doing a 1:20 consolidation. What I do see, in my opinion, are two other purposes for management trying to do this: 1. It allows people with money on the sidelines, after a consolidation, to buy up lots and lots of diluted shares and for each share they buy, they get a voting share and 51% and more of the voting stock and control of the company. This sidelines the greens and shuts us out. 2. It would dramatically drop shareholder, (green), value and voting shares.