I thought I'd help out those who might not have any experience with contracts or business law. There seems to be a TON of disinformation on here, or what is now called "fake news."
Someone has to corral that Yogi Bear because he lost his mind.
Once an LOI expires, the "binding" part that Jerry throws around, is null and void and the terms of said LOI no longer apply.
Imagine that it vaporizes and no longer exists. Because it doesn't. Just like hitting the delete button. POOF! Gone!
If a new agreement or any other material event occurred on this so called "Li deal" then RMHB would have to file an 8-K to reflect a material event. Believe me, if Jerry had anything he could twist into a new 8-K, he would. He wrote in an email that he hasn't/didn't.
Look up the LOI yourself, it's where I got my info from. Look up "expiration date."
What people don't get is I was working on some projects with RMHB at one time, so I don't need to listen to Yogi Bear to get my info, I got it direct.
The proper way to do this deal past the LOI expiration, if Li exists, is to either add an extension addendum or a new LOI. Jerry wrote that there was no new documentation at all. Let's assume that Li even exists for a moment.
Lacking proper documents at this stage is a very bad way to move forward on a sale for the following reasons:
1) The initial terms of the sale are no longer valid, so anything Li uncovers in DD can be used as a bargaining tool with a new LOI or a purchase offer to lower the price or terms (rightfully so, if she discovers something that lowers the value of what she's buying). Bad for RMHB.
2) If Li is really interested in buying the shares at the price initially offered, she would have locked that in again with a new LOI or addendum to lock that in.
3) It shows that Li's interest isn't as strong as when she submitted the LOI because she didn't extend it, offer a new LOI, or submit a PO in the time frame the initial LOI was valid.
4) Li also potentially loses her first position on buying the shares if another buyer comes into play. She knows this and would lock her position in if she was that interested.
I have never let an LOI expire on a deal I wanted to close. I either extended the LOI before it expired or submitted a PO during that time. The only time I've EVER let an LOI expire without further action is when I was walking away from the deal. That's the only reason.
Think this through guys. Li has many options to choose since the LOI expired and she chose only one, to not act further. She chose the only action a person can take who is walking away.
Someone has to corral that Yogi Bear because he lost his mind.
Once an LOI expires, the "binding" part that Jerry throws around, is null and void and the terms of said LOI no longer apply.
Imagine that it vaporizes and no longer exists. Because it doesn't. Just like hitting the delete button. POOF! Gone!
If a new agreement or any other material event occurred on this so called "Li deal" then RMHB would have to file an 8-K to reflect a material event. Believe me, if Jerry had anything he could twist into a new 8-K, he would. He wrote in an email that he hasn't/didn't.
Look up the LOI yourself, it's where I got my info from. Look up "expiration date."
What people don't get is I was working on some projects with RMHB at one time, so I don't need to listen to Yogi Bear to get my info, I got it direct.
The proper way to do this deal past the LOI expiration, if Li exists, is to either add an extension addendum or a new LOI. Jerry wrote that there was no new documentation at all. Let's assume that Li even exists for a moment.
Lacking proper documents at this stage is a very bad way to move forward on a sale for the following reasons:
1) The initial terms of the sale are no longer valid, so anything Li uncovers in DD can be used as a bargaining tool with a new LOI or a purchase offer to lower the price or terms (rightfully so, if she discovers something that lowers the value of what she's buying). Bad for RMHB.
2) If Li is really interested in buying the shares at the price initially offered, she would have locked that in again with a new LOI or addendum to lock that in.
3) It shows that Li's interest isn't as strong as when she submitted the LOI because she didn't extend it, offer a new LOI, or submit a PO in the time frame the initial LOI was valid.
4) Li also potentially loses her first position on buying the shares if another buyer comes into play. She knows this and would lock her position in if she was that interested.
I have never let an LOI expire on a deal I wanted to close. I either extended the LOI before it expired or submitted a PO during that time. The only time I've EVER let an LOI expire without further action is when I was walking away from the deal. That's the only reason.
Think this through guys. Li has many options to choose since the LOI expired and she chose only one, to not act further. She chose the only action a person can take who is walking away.
3
