That's not what their saying. They are saying if t
Post# of 15187
(Total Views: 368)
Posted On: 01/03/2018 9:09:15 PM
That's not what their saying. They are saying if they kept the Colorado Corp. Allowing the toxic lenders to convert would require a majority vote of shareholders to approve an increase in the authorized shares. This would be hard to get the necessary votes. But even harder to get the SEC's approval of a proxy statement to do it. Instead they will negotiate a settlement with the lenders under the ico plan.
but when it trades on the otc how will it keep toxic lenders from converting?
Any conversion of the Colorado shares is going to require Joe's to obtain a majority of its shareholders to approve an increase in authorized shares, which is going to be challenging, but even more difficult would be getting an SEC approval of a proxy statement to do that. We think, it's going to be easier to just negotiate a settlement under the ICO plan proposed.
but when it trades on the otc how will it keep toxic lenders from converting?
Any conversion of the Colorado shares is going to require Joe's to obtain a majority of its shareholders to approve an increase in authorized shares, which is going to be challenging, but even more difficult would be getting an SEC approval of a proxy statement to do that. We think, it's going to be easier to just negotiate a settlement under the ICO plan proposed.
(0)
(0)