So here we see an argument presented that these four wells were not drilled because of animosity between the land owner and the CEO Mikolaczk.
But that is not the issue. The issue is that an invoice for five drilled wells was submitted for payment in the settlement. If indeed only one well was drilled then the invoice for four wells drilled totaling 668K is fraudulent.
Why would the CEO agree to pay 668K out of XNRG shareholder equity for services not provided?
This defies all logic and I would think that shareholders with skin in the game would be outraged that this 668K is to be paid out of shareholder equity for services not even provided.
Who stands to benefit from this 3(a)(10) exemption settlement, shareholders, or insiders and promoters?
This is but one solitary example of a fraudulent debt being settled out of shareholder equity in this sham lawsuit "settlement" via application of a 3(a)(10) exemption.
Appears to be an insiders enrichment scheme at the expense of the common shareholders IMO.
A clear cut insiders enrichment scheme. Shall we challenge more questionable billing in the settlement like the $ 387,275 the CEO claims he is owed for non detailed services provided to XNRG immediately before Mikolaczk took over as CEO?
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.