News Focus
News Focus
Followers 16
Posts 807
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/04/2013

Re: Zepellin post# 33989

Wednesday, 10/26/2016 11:12:08 AM

Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:12:08 AM

Post# of 61024
There is no proof whatsoever that the following is "plausible".

Kyte and Beggar could have sold to any number of overseas companies on annuities (remember all the Switzerland road stops on every warrant flogging party and Kyte/beggar getting sued over Swissguard?) and then liquidated without having to file a thing. Could have all been transferred back to north america into family names..etc.. any number of ways they would have done it. And it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to think that Sidmunson or Kyte didn't liquidate the week after they bailed prior to the Trans Canada failure. How much more obvious does all of this really need to be?



The SEC rules governing what must be reported on FORM 4 disagree. An insider must report any direct and INDIRECT beneficial ownership changes. Those indirect beneficial ownership changes include, but are not limited to, corporations, trusts, individuals that have a financial arrangement or understanding with the insider, and family members.

The intent of FORM 4 reporting is clear. Insiders must disclose any and all direct and indirect ownership changes. Any accusation that an insider is trying to circumvent those rules is making a criminal charge. There should be some proof for that.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent QSEP News