InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 18
Posts 1184
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/19/2014

Re: ronshappy post# 11310

Sunday, 07/05/2015 10:32:30 AM

Sunday, July 05, 2015 10:32:30 AM

Post# of 32163
That's not what is at stake here.

First of all the main complaint is indeed valid since the loan was made when the company was private and as a public company, Steve Saleen lost control of the company. The proof of that is that he had to increase his stake 200% to get back to a 53% majority. Meaning he has lost control at some point.

But regardless of that, the bank first made this claim after SLNN went public and it got settle because SALEEN AGREED TO PAY IN FULL. So again, Saleen already agreed to pay back the loan in full to settle the claim that they had to pay back in full because of the change in control.

Now a settlement is not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing, but it looks bad that SLNN already agreed to pay back the loan in full last year for the same claim.

The only thing that changed is that Saleen never paid back the loan. Even with multiple extension.

It looks like SLNN is going back on its word because they simply can't pay.

I really can't see a way to spin in a way that can make SLNN look good. It's just bad business.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.