Followers | 508 |
Posts | 76341 |
Boards Moderated | 19 |
Alias Born | 10/14/2009 |
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:15:44 PM
This is what I call a Section 3(a)(10) exemption hijacking, as the exemption as written into law by Congress was intended to relieve "bona fide" debt obligations.
I cannot fathom how any forward-looking operations can be considered bona fide debt owed, although I have recently seen this maneuver attempted by another company we are both familiar with.
In this instance even private individuals are the recipients of shares that are not restricted from directly free trading in any fashion.
For what is my question?
The shoddy language in the Section 3(a)(10) exemption has me doing the Linda Blair dance move in double time.
I cannot fathom in any fashion how any of this constitutes bona fide debt owed to anyone.
https://app.box.com/s/833u9k6u6n81p8ejzc83t11vcp02kx3x
https://app.box.com/s/3zjz7smtranwias5lhrlvurhnpf3d6nf
North Bay Resources Announces Mt. Vernon Gold Mine Startup, Sierra County, California • NBRI • Aug 5, 2024 9:00 AM
Fifty 1 Labs, Inc. and All-In-Extracts Announce Joint Venture to Develop and Release New Testosterone Boosting Supplement • BLEG • Aug 5, 2024 8:30 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Announces Strategic Initiatives and Corporate Direction Changes • KGKG • Aug 2, 2024 2:00 PM
POET and Luxshare Tech Expand Product Offerings for Artificial Intelligence Networks • POET • Aug 1, 2024 9:28 AM
Management Discusses Financial Filings of Global Arena Holding Inc., for 10-K 2023 and 10-Q, 1st Quarter 2024 • GAHC • Aug 1, 2024 9:14 AM
VAYK Announces LOI to Acquire $1 Million Home Service Company to Support Airbnb Business • VAYK • Aug 1, 2024 9:00 AM