You are missing the point of what I said, he didn't convince them of anything, if anything they convinced him. The entire thing appears to be set up from the start strictly to benefit them. The money didn't come from them, it came from ordinary shareholders. Feel free to interpret the 2013 10-K subsequent events section as you wish but this is what I see happening:
1. Several notes that originally totaled ~100K are converted into shares at a price of .338 post split.
2. These shares are sold on the market for a little over $850,000.
3. That proves that the market was capable of providing that amount of money without pulverizing the share price.
4. The funds from the sale of those shares were rolled over into new notes totaling $850K (100K + 750K)
5. Days later Sunworks is purchased with these funds being used as the cash portion of the deal which also included another toxic note.
6. The toxic conversion price allows these notes to be converted at $.338 a share, netting a healthy 8000% (depending on share price) return on the original ~100K invested.
Again, this is my best interpretation of the events surrounding the purchase of SUNworks I could come up with by synthesizing historical data, press releases, filings, and discussion.
Conclusion: Ordinary shareholders effectively contributed the funds by buying shares sold just days prior to the purchase of SUNworks. These funds were then immediately used to create a new toxic note to fund the purchase as I have described in my articles.
There wasn't any real risk for them because they were betting with the houses money, your money. They only put up ~$100,000 of their own money as far as I can tell, the rest has been from reinvesting YOUR money by rolling over the toxic notes. I bet several people here have invested more than $100,000.
Are those of you who have happy with the performance the stock compared with what you would have gotten if you had the same sweetheart deal they had?
Why should they be rewarded for the risk but not ordinary holders who may have invested more?
Nelson has always been a poor steward of your money at best, and the implicit trust he is given by his shareholders allows him to do this.
There is value in this company but shareholders will have to seize it for themselves, it will not be handed to you as a result of patience or blind loyalty. Failure to do so will result in the same kind of perpetual disappointment many of you have felt years now. The dependence of the company on a small core of retail investors gives you power. Will you use it?
