Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 7, 2009 / Notices 15787 

1Bridgeway Capital’s Articles of Incorporation do 

include one provision requiring a three-fourths 

affirmative vote of creditors or shareholders, as the 

case may be, to agree to proposed compromises or 

arrangements (including a reorganization) between 

Bridgeway Capital and its creditors or shareholders, 

as the case may be, over which a court has 

jurisdiction. 

2Since April 1995, when Leonora Montgomery 

became a shareholder in Bridgeway Capital, 

Leonora Montgomery has voted on each matter that 

has required a shareholder vote (whether at a formal 

shareholder meeting or by written consent) in the 

same manner as John Montgomery. Additionally, 

even if Leonora Montgomery did attempt to exercise 

actual control, John Montgomery is the majority 

shareholder, and as such, Leonora Montgomery 

could only have a limited influence on the 

operations of Bridgeway Capital. 

evidence presented in the application 

rebuts the presumption that Leonora 

Montgomery controls Bridgeway Capital 

as a result of her ownership of more 

than 25 percent of Bridgeway Capital’s 

voting securities. 

2. If Leonora Montgomery were 

determined to control Bridgeway 

Capital, the future transfer of her 

Bridgeway Capital Common Stock could 

be deemed to result in the 

‘‘assignment,’’ as defined in section 

2(a)(4) of the Act, of Bridgeway Capital’s 

investment advisory or subadvisory 

agreement with each RIC advised or 

subadvised by Bridgeway Capital at the 

time of the transfer (‘‘Fund’’), resulting 

in the automatic termination of each 

investment advisory or subadvisory 

agreement in accordance with section 

15(a)(4) of the Act. If the investment 

advisory or subadvisory agreements 

were terminated, a new investment 

advisory or subadvisory agreement 

would have to be approved by each 

Fund’s board of directors and 

shareholders pursuant to section 15(a) 

of the Act, even though there would be 

no change to the terms of the investment 

advisory or subadvisory agreements, or 

to the investment policies, personnel, 

operations, or actual control of 

Bridgeway Capital as a result of the 

transfer of Bridgeway Capital Common 

Stock. Bridgeway Capital wants to 

eliminate the need for a special meeting 

of the shareholders of each Fund and to 

avoid the burden and expense of 

soliciting proxies merely for the purpose 

of approving an investment advisory or 

subadvisory agreement that would be 

identical to the existing investment 

advisory or subadvisory agreement, 

which already has been approved by 

each Fund’s board of directors and 

shareholders in accordance with section 

15(a) of the Act. 

3. Since Bridgeway Capital’s 

inception, John Montgomery has solely 

‘‘controlled’’ Bridgeway Capital, as that 

term is defined in section 2(a)(9) of the 

Act, and has been involved in the active 

management of all aspects of the 

operations and affairs of Bridgeway 

Capital in his capacity as chairman, 

president, and majority shareholder. 

Additionally, the shareholder voting 

provisions of Bridgeway Capital’s 

articles of incorporation and by-laws 

support the fact that only John 

Montgomery controls Bridgeway 

Capital. For purposes of any meeting of 

shareholders, a quorum consists of the 

holders of 50% of the issued and 

outstanding Bridgeway Capital Common 

Stock entitled to vote, present in person 

or by proxy. Furthermore, assuming a 

quorum is present, any matter to be 

voted upon must be approved by a vote 

of a majority of Bridgeway Capital 

Common Stock present in person or by 

proxy.1 Each shareholder is entitled to 

one vote for each share of Bridgeway 

Capital Common Stock owned by such 

shareholder. As a result of John 

Montgomery’s current 65.21% 

ownership of Bridgeway Capital 

Common Stock, a quorum cannot be 

reached without John Montgomery’s 

shares of Bridgeway Capital Common 

Stock. Moreover, John Montgomery has 

sufficient voting power to control the 

election of directors as well as any other 

matter to be voted upon at a shareholder 

meeting.2

4. Applicant represents that Leonora 

Montgomery has never exercised, and 

will not exercise, a controlling influence 

over the management or policies of 

Bridgeway Capital and that John 

Montgomery does and will exercise 

control over its management. Applicant 

thus submits that the facts prescribed in 

the application rebut the presumption of 

control created by section 2(a)(9) of the 

Act. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7776 Filed 4–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: [74 FR 14829, April 1, 

2009.] 

STATUS: Closed Meeting. 

PLACE: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC. 

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED

MEETING: Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 2 

p.m. 

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Time Change. 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for 

Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 2 p.m. has 

been changed to Thursday, April 2, 

2009 at 3 p.m. 

At times, changes in Commission 

priorities require alterations in the 

scheduling of meeting items. For further 

information and to ascertain what, if 

any, matters have been added, deleted 

or postponed, please contact the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. 

Dated: April 2, 2009. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7848 Filed 4–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

In the Matter of Xino Corp. (n/k/a Asher 

Xino Corp.), Xstream Mobile Solutions 

Corp., Yellowbubble.com, Inc. (n/k/a 

Reality Racing, Inc.), Yes! 

Entertainment Corp., and Yifan 

Communications, Inc.; Order of 

Suspension of Trading 

April 3, 2009. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Xino Corp. 

(n/k/a Asher Xino Corp.) because it has 

not filed any periodic reports since it 

filed a Form 10–QSB for the period 

ended September 30, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Xstream 

Mobile Solutions Corp. because it has 

not filed any periodic reports since it 

filed a Form 10–KSB for the period 

ended September 30, 2006. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

Yellowbubble.com, Inc. (n/k/a Reality 

Racing, Inc.) because it has not filed any 

periodic reports since it filed a Form 

10–QSB for the period ended March 31, 

2001. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Yes! 

Entertainment Corp. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since it filed 

a Form 10–Q for the period ended 

September 30, 1998. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Yifan