AUTHORIZING shares and ISSUING shares are two diff
Post# of 153880
(Total Views: 497)
Posted On: 07/08/2022 8:55:26 PM
AUTHORIZING shares and ISSUING shares are two different things.
It is unlikely that they are going to suddenly issue 350 million shares all at once. They say they need more shares to fund their commitments. If this were not true, they would be in big trouble with the SEC and potential ambulance-chaser attorneys who file "shareholder" suits.
Why might they need to authorize so many shares?
A couple of possibilities:
1) They are negotiating with potential partners, who are offering only horrible deals because the potential partner knows that CYDY can't fund the clinical trial on its own.
2) Amarex is dragging the settlement out as long as they possibly can, in the hope that CYDY will be so desperate for cash that they will take a horrible deal just to survive.
Do genuine shareholders want to cripple the company's ability to negotiate with a potential partner, or to buckle under to Amarex?
I don't think so.
Why would anyone who has money invested in a company decide to put the company on a path to bankruptcy at worst, or a terrible partnership deal at best, by voting "no" because they are mad at the previous management?
Genuine shareholders should want the company to be able to negotiate from a position of strenght, not weakness.
I expect to see lots and lots of bashers pretending to be shareholders and urging people to VOTE FOR BANKRUPTCY by voting NO. That serves the shorts well. Shareholders, not so much.
It is unlikely that they are going to suddenly issue 350 million shares all at once. They say they need more shares to fund their commitments. If this were not true, they would be in big trouble with the SEC and potential ambulance-chaser attorneys who file "shareholder" suits.
Why might they need to authorize so many shares?
A couple of possibilities:
1) They are negotiating with potential partners, who are offering only horrible deals because the potential partner knows that CYDY can't fund the clinical trial on its own.
2) Amarex is dragging the settlement out as long as they possibly can, in the hope that CYDY will be so desperate for cash that they will take a horrible deal just to survive.
Do genuine shareholders want to cripple the company's ability to negotiate with a potential partner, or to buckle under to Amarex?
I don't think so.
Why would anyone who has money invested in a company decide to put the company on a path to bankruptcy at worst, or a terrible partnership deal at best, by voting "no" because they are mad at the previous management?
Genuine shareholders should want the company to be able to negotiate from a position of strenght, not weakness.
I expect to see lots and lots of bashers pretending to be shareholders and urging people to VOTE FOR BANKRUPTCY by voting NO. That serves the shorts well. Shareholders, not so much.
(14)
(0)