Your post seems reasonable. Though the hole they/
Post# of 9144
(Total Views: 432)
Posted On: 10/06/2023 4:15:20 AM
Re: rayludwiczak #8993
Your post seems reasonable. Though the hole they/ve dug re the ability to post/be transparent on the otc board/exchange will require a lot more than 5k at this point.
It would be reasonable for somebody who is 72 and is recovering from a heart attack to find a way off the treadmill.
I havent read the other board re NNLX for a long time but quickly found post 15798- I assume thats your reference.
Unusual. My immediate thoughts are standing could be a battle- A lot of discovery would have to be made to prove more than negligence.
Boards are usually afforded a substantial degree of shielding from personal liability in order to encourage people to serve.
If fraud has to be proven to break that shield thats a mountain to climb- -intent is difficult to prove -let alone the 9 elements of fraud.
I have not researched Ohio law but many states only require 3 board members-which could be filled by Bret and his 2 lawyer brothers.
Fiduciary duty -accountability for other peoples money- is usually stated to be the highest responsibility under the law- but usually more directly refers to trusts-more direct responsibility/ control of other peoples money.
NNLX has done everything intelligent to my knowledge to raise money.
Of course I have no idea what stance Bret and others take in negotiations-which a hostile takeover group could argue is unreasonable. But proving that is another matter and would require a substantial retainer to a lawyer/lawyers.
Unusual in my experience to have a direct public appeal to stockholders except for a tender offer.
I have wondered what Bret's superlawyer brother and the Faros are doing and why our resident emergency doctor has not posted for a long time. (Not indicating he has anything to do with this hostile takeover bid).
Though as I've said the securities powers that be issue restrictions re PR's for companies whose operations are not transparent/current reporting under an evermore tightening noose over the years -especially since the political greenlighting which began in 2009 by powerful political figures who wanted to destroy stocks-and not having the ability to do so against large stocks- set their sights on the otc category of relatively defenseless stocks/companies.
Presumably the other boards followers are more antagonistic to NNLX as an explanation why I 've never heard anything either publicly or privately re this matter on this board until now.(except maybe a post or so i did not understand- dont remember.
I dont know the jurisdiction of the court which required the CEO etc to comply- but courts opinions in other jurisdictions are not compelling upon other jurisdictions.
It would be reasonable for somebody who is 72 and is recovering from a heart attack to find a way off the treadmill.
I havent read the other board re NNLX for a long time but quickly found post 15798- I assume thats your reference.
Unusual. My immediate thoughts are standing could be a battle- A lot of discovery would have to be made to prove more than negligence.
Boards are usually afforded a substantial degree of shielding from personal liability in order to encourage people to serve.
If fraud has to be proven to break that shield thats a mountain to climb- -intent is difficult to prove -let alone the 9 elements of fraud.
I have not researched Ohio law but many states only require 3 board members-which could be filled by Bret and his 2 lawyer brothers.
Fiduciary duty -accountability for other peoples money- is usually stated to be the highest responsibility under the law- but usually more directly refers to trusts-more direct responsibility/ control of other peoples money.
NNLX has done everything intelligent to my knowledge to raise money.
Of course I have no idea what stance Bret and others take in negotiations-which a hostile takeover group could argue is unreasonable. But proving that is another matter and would require a substantial retainer to a lawyer/lawyers.
Unusual in my experience to have a direct public appeal to stockholders except for a tender offer.
I have wondered what Bret's superlawyer brother and the Faros are doing and why our resident emergency doctor has not posted for a long time. (Not indicating he has anything to do with this hostile takeover bid).
Though as I've said the securities powers that be issue restrictions re PR's for companies whose operations are not transparent/current reporting under an evermore tightening noose over the years -especially since the political greenlighting which began in 2009 by powerful political figures who wanted to destroy stocks-and not having the ability to do so against large stocks- set their sights on the otc category of relatively defenseless stocks/companies.
Presumably the other boards followers are more antagonistic to NNLX as an explanation why I 've never heard anything either publicly or privately re this matter on this board until now.(except maybe a post or so i did not understand- dont remember.
I dont know the jurisdiction of the court which required the CEO etc to comply- but courts opinions in other jurisdictions are not compelling upon other jurisdictions.
(1)
(0)