Posted On: 12/11/2013 9:43:09 PM
Post# of 7153
There has to be more to this. A 400m common share payment into an 800:1 r/s as result of the same issuance? Even if that is legal the motive behind it is highly questionable. Did they then trade them in immediately for preferred? Could they? How could any of that not be improper?
At one point former CEO Natalie Bannister had mentioned that she had turned down several shady shill deals in favor of seeking a legit deal that would preserve or enhance shareholder value. Is this the kind of deal that was supposed to "preserve" shareholder value?
AIl can say is that the only hope here is to not sell, do not give up the current PPS range. Selling here at best helps the gd vermin scum cover their deep short, at worst it creates a grab play for Jervis to buy out the float. In both of those cases sellers will be losing money guaranteed. Can't lose money of you hold your ground. When the r/s comes it would be significantly better to see $.64/sh than $.08/sh
Oh by the way, wouldn't a r/s require that all open short positions be covered? Wouldn't open short positions have to be covered and all certs be accounted for to properly satisfy the accounting of the R/S? That could be an interesting twist here.
What if this is all just a set up? And not against the longs?
Somebody help me out.
At one point former CEO Natalie Bannister had mentioned that she had turned down several shady shill deals in favor of seeking a legit deal that would preserve or enhance shareholder value. Is this the kind of deal that was supposed to "preserve" shareholder value?
AIl can say is that the only hope here is to not sell, do not give up the current PPS range. Selling here at best helps the gd vermin scum cover their deep short, at worst it creates a grab play for Jervis to buy out the float. In both of those cases sellers will be losing money guaranteed. Can't lose money of you hold your ground. When the r/s comes it would be significantly better to see $.64/sh than $.08/sh
Oh by the way, wouldn't a r/s require that all open short positions be covered? Wouldn't open short positions have to be covered and all certs be accounted for to properly satisfy the accounting of the R/S? That could be an interesting twist here.
What if this is all just a set up? And not against the longs?
Somebody help me out.
(0)
(0)
