(3) For the purposes of this table, the share amou
Post# of 7802
Posted On: 09/10/2015 8:57:43 AM
Quote:
(3) For the purposes of this table, the share amounts being shown as beneficially owned by Mr. Kennedy include: 35,500,000 shares legally owned by Credo Argentarius, LLC (“Credo”), an entity controlled by Mr. Kennedy’s wife. This statement shall not be construed as an admission that Mr. Kennedy is, for the purposes of Section 13(d) or Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the beneficial owner of any of the securities set forth in the preceding sentence.
The point is that he is NOT SELLING. I'm pretty sure I've seen this statement on all of his 10Qs. Officers and directors must file if they are going to sell any shares.
Quote:
The loans in default are a drop in the bucket compared to what's been paid out
Family holding on the $175,000 in loans for up to six years is not a drop in the bucket. You are trying to compare what FAMILY is holding on to to what EVERYONE has invested over the last 7 or 8 years. Not a legit comparison, nor is it meaningful.
Quote:
Actually in most cases they do.
Still no, they do not. Prices are fixed.
Quote:
since they are in default they can always be renegotiated. I assure you they will be used as leverage.
No, they can not be "renegotiated". It is a contract and the price is fixed. And how do you "renegotiate" when the conversion is up to you? What happened to 'Death Spiral' loans to family members? That argument just went out the window. These imaginary "renegotiated" loans would be in the 10Qs if they existed and why would some of them wait 6 years to renegotiate? A ridiculous statement.
The timing of when the notes are converted is up to the lender so
Quote:
the fact they are in default shows Kyle's mismanagement.
is also not true. These are lenders choosing not to convert. A Catch 22 you are trying to put Kyle into – Bad if he has the loan, bad if they convert and he gets rid of the loan.
Quote:
It would be nice to see family members with these loans in default pledge not to foreclose on the assets, as they could.
Who says that they could do this? You? Ha! I don't see anything that says these are privileged shares, they are not, they are convertible to common stock. Which means they lose them if the company goes down.
Kyle's attorney has already extended an invitation to you, twice in one letter. I can see why you don't want to meet if these are your arguments.
(0)
(0)