What is an "electronic stockholders' meeting"?
How can a company benefit by holding an electronic-only stockholders' meeting?
How can a company benefit by supplementing its physical stockholders' meeting with an electronic component?
What risks does a company face if it holds an electronic-only stockholders' meeting with no physical counterpart?
How much does an electronic supplement to a physical stockholders' meeting cost?

B. Legal Considerations for Electronic Stockholders' Meetings

Can a company hold an electronic stockholders' meeting in lieu of a physical meeting?
How do state laws restrict companies from holding electronic-only stockholders' meetings?
Which states have modernized their laws to permit electronic-only meetings?
Can stockholders submit ballots by telephone at an electronic-only meeting?
How can a company's corporate governance documents restrict its ability to hold an electronic-only stockholders' meeting?
Do the stock exchanges require that listed companies hold physical stockholders' meetings?
Can companies use the discretionary authority provided by record holders in their proxies if the holders "attend" electronic-only meetings to submit a ballot?
Can beneficial owners "attend" an electronic-only meeting and submit a ballot if they already executed a proxy?
Do the federal securities laws restrict companies from holding their stockholders' meetings online?
If a company allows electronic voting, can it still electronically receive proxies while the stockholders' meeting is being held?
What are the administrative procedures in conducting an electronic-only meeting?
Can a company limit online participation in a supplemental Webcast of its stockholders' meeting to stockholders only?
Should companies lobby their state legislatures to be able to conduct electronic-only stockholders' meetings?
Why might a company not want to allow remote electronic balloting at its stockholders' meeting?
Can stockholders submit a binding bylaw amendment to force a company to conduct an electronic-only stockholders' meetings?
Should companies archive their electronic stockholders' meetings?
Can companies electronically deliver notices of stockholders' meetings?

C. Use of Electronic Access to Physical Stockholders' Meetings

Are companies holding electronic-only stockholders' meetings?
Can stockholders force companies to provide supplemental electronic access to physical meetings?
Which companies have provided supplemental electronic access to physical stockholders' meetings?
How does a supplemental Webcast to a physical stockholders' meeting work?
Which service providers assist companies to provide supplemental Webcasts of their physical stockholders' meetings?

A. Understanding Electronic Stockholders' Meetings

What is an "electronic stockholders' meeting"?

A meeting where stockholders and management are not in the same room - but yet they meet.

They can be separated by thousands of miles, connected electronically by telephones and/or the Internet - and typical stockholder meeting business is conducted.

For Delaware companies, electronic stockholders' meetings can be "electronic-only" (which means that there is no physical counterpart and that balloting can be accomplished electronically via e-mail, through a Web form or telephonically) or companies incorporated in any state can use them as a supplement to their physical stockholders' meetings.

How can a company benefit by holding an electronic-only stockholders' meeting?

Save money and time (including the valuable time of senior management and the board) - as well as project a tech-savvy image. A stockholders' meeting is a costly and time intensive process that can be streamlined if conducted electronically. See more @ how much does an electronic-only stockholders' meeting cost.

In addition, it may enhance the effectiveness of a company's investor relations - since more stockholders likely would access an electronic meeting compared to attending a physical meeting. However, there also are risks of negative stockholder reaction and media coverage. See more @ risks of holding electonic-only meetings.

Source: An article advocating the use of electronic-only stockholders' meetings is Mark Britton, "Electronic Stockholders' Meetings - Delaware Begins the Next Chapter," Corporate Governance Advisor (Sept./Oct. 2000).

How can a company benefit by supplementing its physical stockholders' meeting with an electronic component?

Project a tech-savvy image - as well as enhance the effectiveness of the company's investor relations.

Since more stockholders likely would access an electronic meeting compared to attending a physical meeting - supplemental Webcasts enhance the relevance of stockholders' meetings. For example, the popularity of these Webcasts has skyrocketed during the past year in the analyst conference call context - both for investors and companies. However, so far, the interest of investors in supplemental stockholder's meetings is not as strong.

The high level of interest by investors to gain access to company events is reflected by the thousands of investors who submitted comment letters to the SEC regarding access to analyst conference calls. See more @ background of Regulation FD.

What risks does a company face if it holds an electronic-only stockholders' meeting with no physical counterpart?

Increased shareholder activism is quite possible - as well as potential negative media coverage based on the scorn of disappointed stockholders that like to have the opportunity to attend physical meetings.

Some investors have expressed concerns that electronic-only meetings would deprive them of the opportunity to meet with company representatives face to face. They believe that these physical meetings allow investors to better express their positions - and that management and the board listen more closely when communications are made in person.

After Delaware changed its laws in 2000, the Council of Institutional Investors wrote letters to the CEOs of all companies incorporated in Delaware urging them not to conduct electronic-only meetings. Unions also are concerned about the changes in the Delaware law.

Particularly for matters that are contested at a stockholders' meeting, electronic-only meetings pose the risk that a company can be surprised by large stockholders who vote at the meeting or change their vote - thereby making the outcome of meetings less predictable. See more @ predictability of electronic balloting.

A risk for management is that an electronic-only meeting likely would result in greater attendance with more questions asked compared to a physical meeting - since attending an electronic meeting is fairly easy. This is a risk for those companies who like their meetings small and intimate (i.e. the fewer questions, the better) - but an advantage for those who don't mind the attention.

Since only one company has held an electronic-only stockholders' meeting (and it received no press coverage), it's difficult to predict how these meetings truly would be accepted by stockholders and the media. See more @ administrative hurdles in conducting electronic-only meetings.

Source: An article criticizing the possible use of electronic-only stockholders' meetings is Ann Yerger, "Cyberspace Stockholders' Meetings: No Substitute for the Real Thing," Corporate Governance Advisor, Nov./Dec. 2000.

How much does an electronic supplement to a physical stockholders' meeting cost?

Webcasts range from $600 to $1000 depending on whether it's audio only - or has a slide show and other bells and whistles.

For companies that only want stockholders and their agents (e.g. proxy holders) to participate, it may cost more to exclude non-stockholders from remote participation for an electronic-only meeting (by implementing a password-protected system) compared to a physical meeting (bouncer at the door).

B. Legal Considerations for Electronic Stockholders' Meetings

Can a company hold an electronic stockholders' meeting in lieu of a physical meeting?

Only if they are incorporated in Delaware.

The state law of the state in which a company is incorporated dictates a company's ability to hold an electronic-stockholder's meeting. Most states have laws that require stockholders' meetings to be held at a physical location. Delaware recently adopted amendments to its law that would make an electronic-only meeting possible. See more @ Delaware amendments.

Another consideration is whether a company's corporate governance documents - particularly the bylaws - require that stockholders' meetings be held in a physical location. See more @ corporate governance considerations.

Note that most state stockholders' meeting laws also require that meetings be held once a year - which is reflected by a similar bylaw requirement for most companies.

How do state laws restrict companies from holding electronic-only stockholders' meetings?

Normally by having a law that dictates the location of stockholders' meetings. In some states, the law may be silent as to the required location of stockholders' meetings.

For example, Section 600 of the California Corporations Code requires that meetings may be held at a place chosen by the Board, either within or outside the state. It's unclear whether a "place" requires a physical meeting. Before interpreting silence as allowing electronic-only meetings, a company should verify that not having a physical location would prevent it from obtaining a quorum - since most state laws require that a quorum be met by "person or by proxy" (of course, companies almost always have sufficient proxies in hand, so this is not a real issue).

If a company believes that a law is sufficiently flexible to conduct an electronic-only meeting, it probably should obtain a legal opinion to protect itself (particularly since holding an electronic-only meeting would be a groundbreaking event and attract a lot of attention).

A company also should confirm that the applicable state agency and exchange (on which the company's stock is listed) have no problems with an electronic-only meeting - this should be done as a precautionary courtesy, even though they do not have regulations that appear to interfere with the ability to conduct electronic-only meetings.

Which states have modernized their laws to permit electronic-only meetings?

Only one state, Delaware, has adopted amendments that would permit companies to hold electronic-only meetings (although other states, like Massachusetts, are reported to be considering it). Although not the product of modernization, some other states are silent about the location of stockholders' meetings and possibly could allow for electronic-only meetings. See more @ state law's silence about location.

Under Delaware law, a company's Board of Directors has the sole discretion to conduct an electronic-only meeting - but must consider its fiduciary duties in making this determination. See more @ fiduciary duties in conducting an electronic-only meeting.

Under Delaware law, remote stockholders and proxy holders would be considered "present" for quorum and voting purposes - if the company has the ability to reasonably:

verify the identities of stockholders;
verify voting results;
allow all remote participants to "attend" the meeting on a substantially concurrent basis (see more @ how street name holders need to revoke their proxies before submitting ballots online); and
allow all remote participants to participate and vote despite their remote location.

As an alternative to electronic-only meetings, a company incorporated in Delaware can still hold a physical meeting that has an electronic component - but this component is not "supplemental." These companies can allow remote participation (that would count for quorum and voting purposes) in addition to physical participation. See more @ why companies supplement their physical meetings with electronic access.

Source: The Delaware changes included a new Section 232 of the Delaware General Corporation Law as well as wholesale amendments to Sections 211 and 219 and minor amendments to Sections 222, 224, 228, 230 and 231. An excellent article on the new Delaware law when it was first proposed is Jesse Finkelstein, "Shareholder Meetings in Cyberspace: Will Your Next Meeting Location Be a Web Site?" Insights (June 2000). Another excellent article is Gregory Varallo and Richard Rollo, "Developments in Shareholder Meetings" Insights (January 2001).

Can stockholders submit ballots by telephone at an electronic-only meeting?

Probably under Delaware law. The Delaware law allows "remote communication" - which arguably includes telephonic balloting. Inforte, the first company to conduct a pure e-meeting allowed voting by facsimile.

Of course, any telephonic system needs to meet the conditions of holding an electronic-only meeting. See more @ conditions of electronic-only meeting. As a practical matter, companies probably prefer Webcasting and e-mail use since these are cheaper than setting up a large teleconference. See more @ costs of electronic-only meetings.

Source: Section 232 of the Delaware General Corporation Law allows electronic balloting by "remote communication." This is contrasted to Section 212(d)(2) that allows proxy submission by "electronic communication," not "remote communication."

How can a company's corporate governance documents restrict its ability to hold an electronic-only stockholders' meeting?

A company's bylaws probably have a "Place of Meetings" or similar provision that dictates where its stockholders' meetings must be held.

Even if a bylaw is flexible, such as allowing meetings at any place in the U.S. or as may be designated in the meeting notice - it probably still is too restrictive and would have to be amended to specifically allow for an electronic-only stockholders' meeting.

If the bylaws delegate the power to select a meeting place to the Board of Directors, they must use their business judgment to choose a location. Some cases hold that inconvenient or non-related locations may be challenged under the business judgment rule - so a Board should deliberate and be comfortable that it has fully considered these issues before requiring stockholders to electronically access a stockholders' meeting.

Do the stock exchanges require that listed companies hold physical stockholders' meetings?

It's not clear - even though there does not appear to be any restrictive regulations, a company probably should verify that its exchange does not have a concern as a precautionary courtesy.

The NYSE and Nasdaq require that listed companies have annual stockholder meetings - but their regulations do not specify where they should be held.

Note that the NYSE once reportedly threatened to delist a company that claimed that it would discontinue holding its annual stockholders' meetings altogether. However, complete abandonment of holding meetings arguably can be distinguished from replacing physical meetings with electronic-only meetings.

Source: Section 302 of the NYSE Manual requires that listed companies hold annual meetings - but does not address the location of the meetings. Similarly, the NASD Manual and Notices to Members includes a 1987 Notice to Members (87-46) that approved amendments to Schedule D to the NASD By-Laws that require listed companies to hold annual meetings - but does not address the location of the meetings.

The NYSE threatened to delist Fuqua Industries if it stopped holding annual meetings as reported in "Annual Meetings Gather Criticism; Some View Them as a Waste of Time, Money," Chicago Sun-Times (May 15, 1994).

Can companies use the discretionary authority provided by record holders in their proxies if the holders "attend" electronic-only meetings to submit a ballot?

Probably not. By voting at the meeting itself, the proxies probably are deemed to be revoked and the discretionary authority granted null and void.

Source: Rule 14a-4(c)(1) of Regulation 14A sets forth when companies have discretionary authority under proxies.

Can beneficial owners "attend" an electronic-only meeting and submit a ballot if they already executed a proxy?

It's somewhat uncertain due to administrative issues. Perhaps only if they either are able to timely revoke the proxy - or get a proxy from the record holder that "runs" back to them.

As required by state law, most companies normally allow proxies to be revoked at their physical stockholders' meetings. However, the administrative burden of handling potentially large numbers of revocations at the meeting itself could lead companies to set earlier cut-off dates - this would require street name holders to get proxies running back to them from their record holders. For example, ADP-ICS has a cut-off for electronic voting the day before a meeting (this precludes electronic revocations as well). See more @ administrative hurdles of conducting an electronic-only meeting.

Do the federal securities laws restrict companies from holding their stockholders' meetings online?

No. The federal securities laws do not bear on where a stockholders' meeting is held or whether it is held electronically - the SEC regulates only the solicitation of proxies to be presented at a meeting.

Note that the SEC staff has stated that companies that provide material nonpublic information at physical stockholders' meetings that are not widely accessible do not comply with Regulation FD. This has led to more supplemental Webcasts of stockholders' meetings. See more @ information provided at meetings under Regulation FD.

If a company allows electronic voting, can it still electronically receive proxies while the stockholders' meeting is being held?

Probably not. State laws normally limit the ability of companies to receive electronic proxies once the polls are open at a stockholders' meeting - since stockholders must be "present" in person or by proxy at a meeting to vote using a ballot.

However, Delaware has amended its laws to allow stockholders to remotely electronically vote on a ballot at a meeting if a company allows it. Although electronic balloting is different than electronic proxies, the result for the stockholder is the same. See more @ Delaware amendments.

What are the administrative procedures in conducting an electronic-only meeting?

It's difficult to predict since only one small company has conducted an electronic-only meeting.

However, it could be difficult to timely collect and count electronic ballots at most meetings since the meetings typically last less than an hour. Another hurdle would be how to handle a large number of proxy revocations - and new ballots - at the meeting.

Until technology is developed so that a meeting can be conducted online seamlessly, companies and their agents may decide to forego electronic balloting - and continue cutting off electronic voting of proxies a day or so before a stockholders' meeting is held. This cut-off practice is permissible - but the cut-off should be disclosed in the company's proxy material.

Can a company limit online participation in a supplemental Webcast of its stockholders' meeting to stockholders only?

Yes. Technology can be used to require that stockholders input data to verify their status as stockholders before gaining access to a Webcast - but in practice, restricting meeting access may be a poor public and investor relations move since investors have been quite vocal about accessing information that is restricted. See more @ why investors like Webcast analyst conference calls.

Should companies lobby their state legislatures to be able to conduct electronic-only stockholders' meetings?

Perhaps - the state laws that require physical meetings were enacted well before electronic-only meetings were possible.

Caselaw addressing meetings note that the purpose of holding stockholders' meetings is to elect directors and allow stockholders the opportunity to raise business matters and ask questions - as long as stockholders can easily take these actions on a Webcast or telephone conference call, it's possible that these concerns can be addressed in favor of electronic-only meetings.

In fact, there are arguments that electronic stockholders' meetings can enable more stockholders to access a meeting - since no travel is required. Today, most stockholders' meetings are sparsely attended. In addition, stockholders would benefit if electronic-only meetings cost less to conduct than a physical meeting - since the company's bottom line would benefit.

On the other hand, major institutional investor groups, unions and other market participants have expressed concerns over the ability of companies to conduct electronic-only meetings. These parties may lobby state legislatures to maintain the status quo - as well as directly pressure companies to not use electronic-only meetings. See more @ the risks of conducting electronic-only meetings.

With some lobbying, states may be swayed to allow electronic access to supersede physical attendance - much like the recent trend for states to modernize their laws to allow electronic delivery of notices for a stockholders' meeting. See more @ electronic delivery of notices.

Note that Delaware has adopted amendments that would permit companies to conduct electronic-only meetings. See more @ Delaware amendments allowing electronic-only meetings.

Source: The idea that physical stockholders' meetings are antiquated is not new. In 1994, an editorial co-authored by former SEC Commissioner Philip Lochner and then CalPERS General Counsel Richard Koppes raised the awareness of this issue in "Stop Us Before We Meet Again," Wall Street Journal (March 18, 1994).

Why might a company not want to allow remote electronic balloting at its stockholders' meeting?

This may not be desirable for companies who have contested matters that are being voted upon at the meeting - since management's opponents may be able to have supporters vote (or change their vote) at the last minute and surprise management.

Even though electronic proxy voting has permitted stockholders to vote closer to the time when a meeting commences, state laws had not allowed remote electronic voting at the meeting itself until Delaware's recent amendments. Under the traditional meeting framework, management typically knew the voting results well before a meeting was even held - because few stockholders attended a meeting to vote, even at a contested meeting.

If a company now allows remote electronic balloting at a meeting (as permitted under the recently amended Delaware law, either for an electronic-only meeting or for a supplemental electronic component of a physical meeting), management's ability to predict voting results could diminish. See more @ newly amended Delaware law.

Note that companies probably want to ensure that they have a bylaw requiring advance notice for matters to be raised at an electronic-only meeting - otherwise, last minute matters can be raised that may be able to muster sufficient votes at the meeting itself. In other words, there is less significance for a stockholder to have its proposal disclosed in the company's proxy material - so long as a matter can be placed on the ballot. However, almost every public company has advance notice provisions in their bylaws.

Can stockholders submit a binding bylaw amendment to force a company to conduct an electronic-only stockholders' meeting?

Not in Delaware - the Board of Directors has the sole authority to decide to conduct an electronic-only meeting for companies incorporated in Delaware

Source: Section 211(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law gives the Board sole discretion to hold an electronic-only meeting.

Should companies archive their electronic stockholders' meetings?

It's a sound investor relations' practice since more investors have access to the information - but there are some risks, such as information being outdated. See more @ safe harbors for archived Webcasts.

For companies that decide to archive their electronic meetings, if they have a policy regarding how to archive their analyst conference calls - it probably should be applied equally to archiving stockholders' meetings. See more @ policy of archiving conference calls.

Can companies electronically deliver notices of stockholders' meetings?

It depends on the state law of the state in which a company is incorporated.

Most state laws require companies to send "written" notice of stockholder meetings. Some of these states have modified their laws to acknowledge that an "electronic" notice is a "written" notice so that electronic delivery of the notice complies with the law.

If it's questionable whether a state law can be interpreted to include electronic notice in the definition of "written" notice - a company can have investors add a provision in their consents to electronic delivery to address electronic notice (i.e. waiving a right to a "written" notice) - but this still may not be enough to satisfy state law.

Many state laws presume that stockholders received notice if postal mail is used - it's unknown if the same presumption would apply to an electronic notice. If not, a company likely would have to prove that a stockholder actually received notice of the meeting - so it may want to add a bylaw designating the time at which an electronic notice is deemed to have been sent and received.

If stockholders don't get proper notice of a meeting, they may be able to challenge the actions taken by a company at its stockholders' meeting.

Note that the E-Sign Act arguably could impact how these state laws are interpreted - or these state laws could be entirely preempted by this federal law. See more @ E-Sign Act.

Source: Under Section 232 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, any notice may be delivered electronically so long as the shareholder consents. To provide some level of protection for shareholders, the law requires that a shareholder's consent is deemed withdrawn if a company is unable to deliver two consecutive electronic notices and such inability becomes known to the company or its agents. The notice for an electronic stockholders' meeting must specify the means of remote communication by which shareholders and proxy holders may be deemed to be present in person and vote at such meeting.

Similarly, the Model Act provides that notice to stockholders of the date, time, and place of annual and special stockholders' meetings "may be communicated in person; by mail or other method of delivery; or by telephone, voice mail or other electronic means." Model Bus. Corp. Act Ann. � 141(b).

C. Use of Electronic Access to Physical Stockholders' Meetings

Are companies holding electronic-only stockholders' meetings?

Just one - mainly due to state law restrictions.

In April 2001, a small company incorporated in Delaware - Inforte - became the first company to take advantage of Delaware's year-old laws to conduct an electronic stockholders' meeting - with no physical counterpart! Now, states other than Delaware, such as Massachusetts, are reported to be considering changing their laws to allow e-meetings.

Despite Delaware's modernized laws, many practitioners had predicted that no companies would attempt a pure e-meeting because of the concerns raised by many groups, including the Council of Institutional Investors and the AFL-CIO. These groups seek to preserve the ability to directly confront management as they feel that there is no comparable substitute for in-person contact. They don't take issue with supplemental Webcasts of annual meetings, and over 100 companies have done so this year.

Inforte found considerable cost and time savings in conducting an e-meeting (this was the company's first annual meeting since its IPO) - spending only $2k (for such things as the Webcast and an inspector of election), rather than the $20k budgeted. The time savings consisted of simpler planning and no traveling for management and the board. Inforte has approximately 5500 registered and beneficial holders.

Under new Section 211 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the board can hold a meeting "by means of remote communication" and allow remote stockholders/proxy holders to be considered "present" for quorum and voting purposes, if the company has the ability to:

implement "reasonable measures" to verify that each person is a stockholder or a proxy holder.

Inforte was prepared to receive e-votes by fax (but none were faxed) and the inspector of elections would have verified the name and control number on any faxes against the transfer agent's and ADP's records.
implement "reasonable measures" to provide remote participants a "reasonable opportunity" to "participate" in the meeting.

Inforte allowed any investor (not just stockholders) to e-mail questions before - or during - the meeting (but none did).
allow to "attend" the meeting on a substantially concurrent basis, including an opportunity to read or hear the proceedings of the meeting.

Through PR Newswire, Inforte used a live audio Webcast and the meeting chair was prepared to read any e-mailed questions to the audience.
maintain a "record" of the votes or other action taken at the meeting by means of remote communication
Since Inforte collected e-votes by facsimile, this was fairly easy to do; next year, Inforte hopes to allow for online voting and recordkeeping should be even easier.

Some companies supplement their physical stockholders' meetings with Webcasts to allow stockholders (and other interested parties) to have access to the meeting without physically showing up - but stockholders have not yet been allowed to remotely vote at a meeting (but note that this was not permissible until Delaware's recent amendments).

Over 100 companies during the 2001 proxy season provided supplemental Webcasts, including permitting participants to ask questions via e-mail. See more @ who has conducted supplemental Webcasts.

Can stockholders force companies to provide supplemental electronic access to physical meetings?

Probably not. The only legal avenue to achieve this is a stockholders' mandated bylaw, which is difficult to obtain under state law.

However, stockholders are allowed to communicate online and gather grass roots support towards persuading a company that supplemental electronic access is good corporate governance.

A more likely scenario would involve pressure from institutional investors to open up meetings - since these powerful investors are becoming accustomed to electronic access to road shows and conference calls (which saves them travel time and costs).

A stockholder probably cannot even include a precatory shareholder proposal on this topic in a company's proxy statement. There has been one case of a stockholder submitting a proposal on this topic - but the proposal was excluded due to its failure to follow the SEC's proposal process. See more @ shareholder proposals that require companies to take action on the Web.

Source: The SEC staff allowed a company to exclude an "electronic access to a meeting" shareholder proposal because it was not submitted timely in the no-action letter, Sabre Holdings Corp. (available January 31, 2000).

Which companies have provided supplemental electronic access to physical stockholders' meetings?

In 1996, Bell & Howell became the first company to supplement its physical annual meeting with a Webcast version - including allowing online visitors to e-mail questions to management.

Since then, over 100 public companies have conducted supplemental Webcasts, primarily blue chip or technology companies - such as AT&T, Dell, Intel, Yahoo, and Texaco.

Source: In 1995 and 1996, the Tribune Company conducted supplemental satellite broadcasts of its annual stockholders' meeting - mainly to employee-stockholders.

How does a supplemental Webcast to a physical stockholders' meeting work?

In most cases, companies have simultaneous Webcasts and telephonic conference calls with their physical meetings.

Webcasts are audio "streamed" (in a few cases, video streamed) to computers that have Internet access and the appropriate free software - predominantly either Real Player or Windows Media. The Webcasts are streamed "live" - and normally are archived for a period of time (30 days is typical). See more @ what is "streaming."

A few companies allow investors to e-mail questions for management to respond to during the Webcast.

Source: For example, Dell Computer Corp. allowed online participants to e-mail questions during its supplemental Webcast to its annual meeting as noted at Webevents.broadcast.com/dell/stockholders99.

Which service providers assist companies to provide supplemental Webcasts of their physical stockholders' meetings?

Most of the same service providers that assist companies to conduct Webcast analyst conference calls, including:

CCBN's StreetEvents (www.streetevents.com) has a TalkPoint service that allows companies to present slides to investors listening to a live Webcast, and to convert the presentation into an archived version in which the audio and visual portions are synchronized and can be accessed via the Web or the telephone.
Investor Broadcast Network (www.investorbroadcast.com) has Investorconference.com (www.investorconference.com), which allows investors to listen to stockholders' meetings and investor conferences, including the Red Chip Review and CNBC Investment Conference.
StreetFusion (www.streetfusion.com) Webcasts supplemental stockholders' meetings and special events. For example, Cisco Systems Webcast a ten part speaker series about its products and services.
Yahoo! Broadcast.com (www.broadcast.com) offers a wide variety of Webcasts, including stockholders' meetings and other events.