I alluded to it a few months ago, but what I find

I alluded to it a few months ago, but what I find troubling is the view of situation in terms of Sambliss gain vs loss. A known fact is that he entered into an agreement with Collins and as a result of that agreement people invested quite a bit more money into ic places/punch. Collins is said to have been paid in "shares"and technical improvements to"punch". Then something happened one thing according to Sambliss and another thing according to Collins. Regardless of what happened the result was the agreement was rescinded. What this rescission essentially meant is Collins kept the structural things he had before the agreement, the technical improvements, and his shares went back to someone or somewhere. However the money that was invested as a result is,well doing whatever Sambliss wanted to do with it. So essentially sambliss got an infusion of cash for nothing, and no-one really knows what happened to the shares he got back from Collins, other than him saying that he will retire them one day. Does that not sound at least a bit fishy to anyone else. The net of what happened is Sambliss gained, and Collins gained. There were a lot recriminations hurled at both parties by each other,BUT when it was all said and done they were both in a better position than before the agreement. Also did sambliss say that he would not or hadn't sold the shares he "got back" from Collins. They were worth x amount when Collins was given them and x-y when he got them back. If he were to have sold them at x-y he could then buy the same number of shares back at later date for literally a fraction of the cost and then retire them. Probably would not have been legal, but...