Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
I am afraid I don't really understand the term integrity of the share structure. I know that at the end of the day, CF et al ended up with at least 90% of the stock in the corporation formerly known as BERX. My memory is that most if not all of the remaining shares went to creditors in order to release debt that would not have otherwise gone away when BERX bought Breitling Oil and Gas with BERX shares. Now, the creditors exchanged worthless debt for a stake in BECC and perhaps sold some of the shares.
I am not going to re-read the agreement because it hardly matters if I get it exactly right, but what shareholders got protected? Since CF got real value for the leftover stock, the release of debt, why would anyone assume his motive was anything other than getting rid of said debt? HE "went public" by giving up about $15,000 worth of equity. That is certainly lower than your estimate of a typical cost of $50,000.
I must say, I have hardly any experience with reverse mergers, so I have a genuine uncertainty. Part of the agreement, I assume negotiated by the creditors, was a no-dilution agreement. The BOD agreed to a dilution that never took place. If I were a creditor, I would have been long gone by the time that clause expired. Because the creditors loaned money to BERX, I have my concerns about their business acumen, so I don't know what they did.
So who got protected? Shareholders who bought in at a market value of $500 million?
Admittedly, CF could have diluted the shares, but the dilution would have affected himself. Back in June you suggested, by implication, that the lack of dilution indicated that CF believed BECC was or could be a viable company. I think you were correct. CF also on two occasions bought around $5000 of stock (number is from memory, anyone who wants the exact number can look on Edgar or on my earlier posts). You suggested that that indicates CF thought BECC had value. I tend to agree with you, except that it is an extremely small amount. At the time and to this day, CF owns millions in market valued stock, so was that a genuine effort to increase his stake? IF so, why the de minimis amount? I truly don't know, so I have no problem stipulating that CF thought BECC had value through March of last year. On the other hand, CF has done such odd and ill-advised things in promoting himself and his company, I have to acknowledge that he may have been generating an SEC filing for promotional purposes. I am not talking about stock promotion so it would be off subject for anyone to go there.
