I just finished reading the whole thing for the first time. The first half made sense, then I kind of lost the flow. These are my observations:
- for someone that is supposed to have such a high IQ and is so smart, JB does not seem to be able to recollect too well the share counts and amounts owed to his various creditors (investors) and shareholders. I find this odd. I know that if it were me, I would remember the financial matters to a tee. Practically photographic. Other things, maybe I would miss, but not financial. It is interesting how his memory suddenly sharpens up for the latter half. There is no real reason why. And what they are talking about gets a bit obscure.
- The subject matter is obvious. It is a legal matter and I cannot comment. It seems to be a matter of who owes who what... and truthfully I am not sure. I think that anybody in the position of being owed money or shares by JBI would want to get them out asap, and also would not want to hurt the company in the meantime.
- One section stood out, JB's attitude towards shareholder employees:
"459 Q. 2006, 2007 to 2008?
A. You can't say 2006. The company was not
incorporated until 2006. So we are talking 2007 and '08
it started paying salaries. So a year and change, a
couple months maybe.
460 Q. So she was providing services in that
time without being paid, right? Isn't that a debt to
her?
A. No.
461 Q. No? Why?
A. Well, because you have to document it.
You have to set it up as such. Then you also have to
report it as income to Revenue Canada. She was not
doing any of that.
"
JB is taking the attitude that without any documentation, a shareholder would not get paid for working. Well, I would say that in the absence of any documentation to the contrary, any worker should get paid for time worked. That is labor law. Yes I am sure that there are shareholders that voluntarily work for the company and do not get paid. Well, if there is an agreement to that effect, fine. But, anybody working should still get paid. The company can still pay for that time worked. The statement that the employee hs to report it as income to Revenue Canada is ridiculous. That reporting is after-the-fact. Unreported, does that mean it did not happen? Not likely....
