On4 Communications Inc (ONCI)

[reader3]

You're arguing with someone with an MFA in writing, an IQ over 160, and a firm understanding of the English language.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement approved by the LAM Order, the Company agreed to issue to LAM shares (the “LAM Settlement Shares”) of the Company’s common stock, $0.0001 par value (the “Common Stock”) at a forty five percent (45%) discount to market. The Settlement Agreement provides that the LAM Settlement Shares will be issued in one or more tranches, as necessary, sufficient to satisfy the LAM Settlement Agreement through the issuance of freely trading securities, exempt from registration, issued pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act, with the first tranche of Common Stock to be issued to LAM being 40 million shares.

Unfortunately, this paragraph has at least 3 different tenses, which means that had it been run by a high school English teacher, it would have been marked with red. But it is actually 1) structured correctly, and 2) completely devoid of meaningful information regarding issuance date

So here's the thing:

1) The company agreed in the past tense.

2) The settlement agreement provides in the present tense, because the agreement is a written document, and exists, to a certain extent, outside of time. This is the correct verb tense to describe a legal document.

3) However, while the agreement provides in the present tense, what it provides is in the future tense because THAT IS HOW IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN when the document was agreed to, in the past, because it was governing future actions.

4) You can not assume that the future actions described at the time the document was agreed to (in the past tense) were still future actions when the terms were summarized 2 weeks or more after the document was agreed to.