Good morning, HM, just a few thoughts this morning in response to your post:
1. First, there is no reason for you to be sorry that you are still "lurking" here post-sale, as you have a strong vested interest in how this drama will play itself out over probably years of litigation. For the moment this is the best venue for discussion, albeit a non-confidential venue (if Lori/Kyle and/or attorney isn't reading everything that goes in here, they've crossed back from corruption into incompetence as the predominant trait, as hard as that would be to imagine).
2. Heck, I'm here even though I never bought a share and was following the company initially only to see what happens to a company that is the subject of a pump-and-dump in which there was a failed attempt to victimize me back in Spring 2014. I have tried to be a good "analyst" and a good friend to this community so as to justify my existence here - and you truly have been the model of a good analyst and a good friend to this community.
3. Your comment about "selective ethics" is priceless, as selective ethics probably is the hallmark of the absence of ethics.
4. Presuming that the "Company B" offer was turned down because it was deemed unsavory (your word) and that the offer was deemed unsavory because Kyle/Lori might feel about marijuana even as negatively as I feel about it (which would surprise me greatly), nonetheless the offer should have been explored based upon the overarching criterion of what would be best economically for shareholders. If there is a price to be paid for being ethical - and there often is - the price cannot be shifted from the ethical person to innocent third parties, the rank and file shareholders in this case.
5. Everything above notwithstanding, it's a question beyond my capabilities to answer whether abstention from voting or voting nay to the proposals soon coming up for vote best will serve the economic interests of the rank and file shareholders. As a general principle, acting out of anger or spite generally does not accomplish the intended result. From a rational viewpoint, I would imagine that somehow one's "logical" vote might revolve around the question of whether the "shell" of VHUB has economic value for a reverse-merger scenario and what voting scenario would lead to the rank and file shareholder community deriving the benefit of the shell's being utilized, much like how the DogInn shareholders reaped the reward of VHUB running with their shell three-plus years ago. I'm sorry that I'm way out of my league here, and nothing above is intended to slight the righteous anger of the screwed-over masses who post here.
This is probably enough bloviation for a whole month, not just a spring morning, so I'll just wish you Godspeed and, like Snagglepuss of the Pixie and Dixie cartoons long ago, exit stage right.
