I disagree. more dilution can be done and likely w

I disagree. more dilution can be done and likely will. If A/S shares were cancelled (and let's put this in perspective-- the gagged TA will always allow Leonard to riase the A/S whenever he damn well pleases, and it forces shareholders to monitor the Secretary of Staet website so they don't get fleeced....But, I would, if I was a shareholder I'd rather monitor the state-site and have a heads up than have the CEO dump at will with a gagged TA and the A/S portion of the s.s. remaining as such with room to increase the O/S as you have NO WARNING).

In some ways, investing well imho, is like baseball - it is a game of inches. So, when CEO's imho "play dirty" you try to take back as much power, control, and info as you can. Especially if you are already stuck and invested with he/she.

Anyway, why more dilution? Because if Leonard is forced to make a go of the business here what would the dilutive downside risk be to shareholders? None really, price could go bidless but if he is improving the business you know say 2.5B is coming in but your back is against bidless. Shareholders would do well to accumulate there and pocket some of the shareholder equity you hope the CEO can bring to the stock.

However, Leonard will not likely ba ABLE to dilute there. So A) He hsa to get creative, find financing and pursue B) Off-balance-sheet options or C) Use the collatoral of equipment etc. Let's face it, credit has loosened and Tytan should be able to get some support in that regard as the Ag industry is BOOMING. And, if not, then his business plan sucks and others won't invest in him so shareholder downside again is minimized. Until he produces a workable plan that investors and finance experts can get behind.

Conversely the R/S creates false equity if the A/S isn't immediately reduced pre-split (to very near the O/S) and TA remains (gagged, unchanged, s.s. unposted daily) then expect the dilution to continue in secrecy, undetected by that avg shareholder. Why? Because a PIPE Funder will give Leonard 30% cash on the "lowest current" post-split pps and start selling right away. These PIPE Funding deals are so damn lucrative that they want to grab their money quickly so they can finance the next pipe deal. They don't give a rats nest about the company, pps integrity, or distributing in a manner that supports the long-term health of the stock. IT IS THE CEO'S responbility to get creative - find suitors and financing options so as NOT to allow this to happen to his shareholders. But Leonard has PROVEN he does not give a chit. He wants to claim working the hours, working hard for shareholders, putting in all the days and hours, making sure he answers your e-mail late at night, or on a weekend, but his actions do NOT match his words.

The PIPE deals btw remind me of Leonards F-U attitude (or at least how I read it). He sells them the paper at 60% or more discount (usually lowest 3-day pps for 3/6/12 mo -- whatever gives the pipe the lowest possible starting point, then they get the unrestricted shares at 40-80% off from that lowest 3 pps days over that lowest possible period). Some CEO's build good relationships and force selling parameters as part of their deal in which case the pipe may negotiate a bit less capital in exchange for the risks they assume - but in the end the pipe wants the shares converted to capital to put into the next very profitable deal, the faster the churn the better the return! The pps indicates this CEO just started dumping indiscriminantly. Go through filings, look at the increases, checkt he charts, you'll see what others have predicted about Leonards actions, NOT shareholder friendly one might say.

Anyway, that's just the start. Not here to fight folks! I am not the enemy. Take from my posts what you will. Excuse the insults upon Leonard, if you knew what I did about how he has been operating, what he has been told and the choices he has made, you might agree. For now, I'll just say that I would be very careful and more demanding of him as I don't believe he has earned any blind faith. It is my opinion that he has not, to this point in time, served shareholders well in any significantly measureable capacity that I can discern. I'll leave it at that.