InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 660
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/12/2018

Re: noreen post# 8824

Wednesday, 11/28/2018 10:02:55 AM

Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:02:55 AM

Post# of 18220
I don't know Dwarren, how are you positive that the warrents that were issued are not protected?
Have you read the language in those? You ask why would the larger investors like RJ agree to this. In the shareholder letter, it told us the reverse was coming. We all knew that. But I do not think any of us could have anticipated that it was going to be 1:1000.
After the shareholder letter was issued, warrents were being issued. This is of course, only my opinion, but, I do believe these warrents are RS protected and that's why they were only being issued to the major shareholders and contractors for service.
I think that is why the major shareholders will vote for an enormous stock split.

Devils advocate here...while the unprotected IMUN shareholder ends up with only 1000 shares per 1M. The RS protected shareholder will be left with 100,000 shares.

Now let's say, hypothetically, since we don't have any proof one way or the other whether these warrants have protections.

Would it not be hugely beneficial to Noreen, the board, etc if all of them were issued warrents that would protect them. Is it not at least a possibility that those warrents do have 1:10 protections, and that's why these warrents were only issued to certain key contractors and the larger shareholders over this last year?

Noreen has kept us in the dark about everything...is it not at least a possibility....maybe