the memo i saw on the attorney general's site was dated 1987. We were a converted co-op at that time, yet we were never informed of this ruling. I would have thought the managing company would be responsible for letting the board know,even though it was not in the managing company interest., it would still be their responsibility. Every time there has been a piece of legislation that would affect their interest, and the co-ops every shareholder received s letter explaining who and why we should contact the legislators to vote no, all at out expense. There was a more recent incident when there was was planned construction nearby and every co-op, condo in the neighborhood was out in force to fight the project, except for this building, i think i was the only one that put up flyers informing the shareholders of the planned project. Which were removed , the only shareowners at the community meetings from the building were myself and one other long time neighbor., none of the board members were i attendance .
The owner of the managing company is on the board of a bank that i believe was planning to be heavily involved in this project, plus the president of the board is an investor in this bank. Of course our recent 5 year mortgage was obtained through them

has every other coop been kept in the dark about the unsold share and the rights of unsold shares were not automatic?
I just saw that a board member bought a so called unsold share apartment, i am sure he plans to rent it out, the building was converted in the early 80"s
i am just wondering if this will be another issue , where the fiduciary responsibility of the board members will not be followed. I am sure he bought it without any credit checks as it was treated as unsold shares.