InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 5
Posts 488
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/27/2016

Re: rawman post# 38535

Sunday, 06/18/2017 4:58:24 PM

Sunday, June 18, 2017 4:58:24 PM

Post# of 54032
Rawman

You FACT(s) posted about Tauriga are materially wrong yet again
'
'"FACT: CONTRARY TO JOHNNY C'S ORIGINAL POST, TAUG SHOWED ONE BILLION COMMITTED AND/OR OUTSTANDING SHARES AS OF MID-JULY 2015. THIS WAS PRIOR TO LEARNING OF THE COWAN INDEPENDENCE ERROR! IT IS ONE BILLION OUTSTANDING SHARES, PERIOD! SOME WERE "RESTRICTED" AND NOT "TRADING", AS THESE SHARES WERE "RESERVED" FOR CONVERTIBLE DEBT COMMITMENTS! THESE CONVERTIBLE DEBT AGREEMENT TERMS WERE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO COWAN AND WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE LITIGATION OUTCOME!!!"



CORRECT INFO BELOW:

The convertible debt terms for Union and Group 10 Notes (05/28/15 and 07/14/15) were set prior to Cowan issues

HOWEVER

There were default and penalty clauses triggered by Delinquency in maintaining Current Status. These defaults affected the conversion terms, liquidated damages, default interest rate, and significant increase in Share Reserve requirements.

And I'm sure that Tauriga entered into these two notes without even the slightest inkling that the Company was at any risk of being delinquent with its periodic SEC Filings. That's the issue at hand here

I also wanted to correct two more of your recent errors/mistakes:

1). You assert that Tauriga completed its July 2015 proxy, while hiding the PCAOB Censure info from the public

Correction: This is False. The PCAOB Censure was a public press release available for all to read on the internet. Anyone could have read this, simply by maintaining a Google Alert for "Tauriga". Tauriga did not even obtain this info a SECOND before the public market place

2). You assert that Tauriga was already in imminent danger of being delisted from OTCQB due to minimum bid price requirement deficiency

Correction. This is False. The Company was never at any imminent risk of being delisted from OTCQB due to stock price below a penny. This is because there was still time to cure deficiency and of course as a last resort, the Company could have enacted a Reverse Split (at that time) to cure minimum bid price deficiency issue. In fact the one issue that a Company can almost always control, is NOT being delisted due to minimum bid price issue

Hope this corrections help!

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.