InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 135
Posts 11285
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/05/2013

Re: copperpennies post# 62844

Thursday, 05/04/2017 3:51:51 PM

Thursday, May 04, 2017 3:51:51 PM

Post# of 81742
"Why else would they need to sell 800m shrs in one day other than to raise much need capital for past debt obligations and future growth plans."

Because they have a $100k judgment against them pending in Indiana state court, and the court has ruled that ISBG (and Wells Fargo) have to answer some very revealing interrogatories that include key questions about ISBG's finances, bank accounts, inventory and the ownership of the brands.

See here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130330186

Basically, ISBG has to put its cards on the table to show whether it has enough assets to satisfy the judgment, in which case they might very well become property of Joel Adams.

The deadline to answer those interrogatories was originally 4/10, with a hearing on ISBG's bank accounts scheduled for 4/17, in which Pierce (or some other company representative, if there is one) was going to be required to answer questions about all those matters -- and ISBG's ability to pay the $100k -- under oath.

On April 11 ISBG filed a motion asking for an extension to answer (and a postponement of the hearing) because the parties were involved in settlement discussions. The new deadline set for ISBG to respond to the interrogatories was May 1.

So, if I had to guess whether Pierce would rather answer all those questions under oath, or strike a deal to shell out a bunch of shares in a settlement offer, I wouldn't bet on the former option. In fact, that's exactly what he did previously to settle the DKTS lawsuit (in which he was accused of literally breaking into the offices of former partners and stealing stock certificates). See here: https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DKTS/news/Court-signs-off-on-Top-Shelf-Brands-Suit-Settlement?id=88029&b=y

In that one, they used an exemption for unregistered shares issued in a court-approved settlement to get around the Rule 144 holding period and dump them immediately. Not sure if that applies here, so it may be that the company itself is dumping shares to pay off the lawsuit.