Cyberland and Firechick Merge!

I know it doesn't make much of a difference on what its called but I still think it should be labelled correctly. You can't say a company is a publicly owned company when there is only one owner. If there were 2 owners and one has 90% votes and other had 10%, that would constitute as a publicly owned because now more then one person actually owns a part of the company. Definition of public in this case is more then one person.

I disagree with your definition of public because I have no idea how you can link a company being labelled as public only because it has issued some securities that are actively traded. Just because the public actively trades these securities does not imply they have any ownership. If a private company issues bonds that are actively traded in the market, that would not change that company into a public company.

A publicly owned company has to be owned by the public. Is this incorrect logic? Its in the name for crying out loud, publicly owned. So I don't see how you can imply that by focusing only on ownership I'm somehow incorrect. This discussion should be all about ownership because that is all that matters as to how this company should be labelled. Ownership to me entitles ppl having an interest in a company (either investor or creditor), which these shares have, as well as some sort of control, which these shares do not have therefore this company fails to be publicly owned.

There are currently around 40 owners.



Disagree all you want, that is the definition. The shares, which ANYONE can buy, have liquidation value against the company's assets. They are equity. Thus the company is publicly owned. The shares are traded on an open market at Second Life Solutions. The shares are publicly traded.



Again, see above. The company is publicly owned and publicly traded. It is MANAGED by me, but this in itself doesn't even imply ANY type of ownership. Only my ownership of stock makes me a part OWNER of Cyberland.