Xun Energy, Inc. (fka XNRG)

[Huggy Bear]

I have already stated them many times. To recap then:

Jerry Mikolaczk. 387.275K owed for three months of services in the prior period directly before he became CEO. 415 hrs in three months @ $350 per hour.

CM Research LLC. 365K for Investor Relations and Marketing beginning in May 2014.

Vencedor. 865K for five wells drilled when only Rice #15 has actually been drilled, and that was supposedly already paid off via CPN's according to Mikolaczk.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108954238

I do not think any of these invoices warrant a legitimate selling of further shares to the public to monetize.

It is a hijacking of the Section 3(a)(10) exemption for insider enrichment in my opinion with the lesser amount claims for actual services provided by some of the actual drillers for non-payment.

A further stipulation of the a(3)(10) exemption, as it is written to the word of law, is that it must be "fair" to the common shareholder. Does this apply in this instance?

A statutory analysis of section 3(a)(10) and the 1933 Act suggests
that the current administration of section 3(a)(10) is improper.
Although section 3(a)(10) requires notice, a hearing, and an
opportunity to participate in that hearing,51 closer examination
reveals that section 3(a)(10) requires the court to do more than
assure mere procedural rights. Such procedural guarantees may assure disclosure, yet section 3(a)(10) does not rely on disclosure as its primary method of investor protection. Proper construction of the 1933 Act demonstrates that section 3(a)(10) relies upon, and therefore requires, a judicial determination of fairness to assure investor protection.

The registration exemptions found in sections 3 and 4 of the
1933 Act reveal that the 1933 Act looks to some means other than
disclosure to assure investor protection.5 2 Congress provided exemptions for securities to be issued without full disclosure because something in the nature of the security or the transaction adequately protects the potential investor.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2276&context=wmlr

This is also worth a thorough read with plenty of precedents referenced.

I don't think that XNRG invoking a 3(a)(10) exemption for the settlement of debt is legitimate in any fashion whatsoever.