look at today's free in-house counsel plaintif
Post# of 13415
(Total Views: 105)
Posted On: 05/03/2024 1:08:34 PM
look at today's free in-house counsel
Attorney JK1 may need to ask James if he's ever seen a copy of any supposed contract? Maybe try and determine if the company has ever revealed any details of such contract(s) in private or public?
IMHO (what do I know?) Not having seen the language/terms & conditions, of any such company promoted contract, would not prevent anyone (especially investors or shareholders) from asking (due diligence) questions about, first, the existence of a contract, and other questions relating to any part of the agreement's terms & conditions, that were made public (i.e. "territory/U.S.", "exclusivity" or "term/24 months"
. Keep in mind, the company, also party any contract/agreement, does not have to answer any questions for parties outside of the contract. Did the company ever reveal the terms & conditions of Any agreement with Foxess other than being labeled a "distributor of Americas" in digital photo on twitter? We have found out that the Foxess agreement doesn't appear to be exclusive. Were any terms relating to SPP getting compensated, by Foxess, revealed to the public/shareholders? No they were not. So, why can't a company inquire with an OEM, to qualify and confirm, their partner's information made public, to make sure they are not interfering with any existing agreement?
On another note, were shareholders informed of any contract with the Dillon, SC property owner or their agent? Did the company volunteer to post photos in the public domain to promote the property when the company was not under contract with the property owner or listing agent (no 8-K so we know there is/was no contract)?
The company has a much bigger problem of its own, with its tweets and paid for press releases, than anyone would have doing diligence through phone calls or emails, to qualify the accuracy of the company's information, made public.
Conclusion: Stop the threats on a message board and put the binky down for a few minutes. Then, nicely, tell your boss to stop keeping serious "conflict of interest" information from shareholders and start fulfilling his "fiduciary obligations"
in my opinion
cheers
Quote:
plaintiff's contractual or business relationships.
Attorney JK1 may need to ask James if he's ever seen a copy of any supposed contract? Maybe try and determine if the company has ever revealed any details of such contract(s) in private or public?
IMHO (what do I know?) Not having seen the language/terms & conditions, of any such company promoted contract, would not prevent anyone (especially investors or shareholders) from asking (due diligence) questions about, first, the existence of a contract, and other questions relating to any part of the agreement's terms & conditions, that were made public (i.e. "territory/U.S.", "exclusivity" or "term/24 months"
. Keep in mind, the company, also party any contract/agreement, does not have to answer any questions for parties outside of the contract. Did the company ever reveal the terms & conditions of Any agreement with Foxess other than being labeled a "distributor of Americas" in digital photo on twitter? We have found out that the Foxess agreement doesn't appear to be exclusive. Were any terms relating to SPP getting compensated, by Foxess, revealed to the public/shareholders? No they were not. So, why can't a company inquire with an OEM, to qualify and confirm, their partner's information made public, to make sure they are not interfering with any existing agreement? On another note, were shareholders informed of any contract with the Dillon, SC property owner or their agent? Did the company volunteer to post photos in the public domain to promote the property when the company was not under contract with the property owner or listing agent (no 8-K so we know there is/was no contract)?
The company has a much bigger problem of its own, with its tweets and paid for press releases, than anyone would have doing diligence through phone calls or emails, to qualify the accuracy of the company's information, made public.
Conclusion: Stop the threats on a message board and put the binky down for a few minutes. Then, nicely, tell your boss to stop keeping serious "conflict of interest" information from shareholders and start fulfilling his "fiduciary obligations"
in my opinion
cheers
(0)
(0)Sun Pacific Holding Corp. (SNPW) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼