InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 68
Posts 5584
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/13/2012

Re: 4toSchool post# 208730

Tuesday, 01/07/2020 6:52:43 PM

Tuesday, January 07, 2020 6:52:43 PM

Post# of 330578
Not quite 42S . . . . please reference post 208513

You suggest - "This is where I get lost: If we removed 35 billion shares from the potential of 62 billion shares that would be 27 billion shares owned by non-insiders. If my logic is correct, I don't see there being 27 billion shares, or notes convertible into shares, being owned by non-insiders."

I suggest - "1. Immediately revise the outrageous shareholdings of the Whelan/IBEX/St. Johns master plan that resulted in total shares, on conversion of all Promissory Notes securing convertible loans, of around 62 billion shares. It seems the Whelans would own around 35 billion of that 62 billion or 60% +-. By reducing their shares by 28 billion, to 7 billion, the new total becomes around 34 billion and they would then own 25% +-. No questions, no buts, no nuthin, it has to be done. Some say it should be reduced to 3.5 billion, max, that's a judgment call, whatever it takes to repair the previous damage. The question becomes, would you rather own 60%, 35 billion shares, of a crippled company worth nothing and going nowhere fast, or 25%, 7 billion shares of a company under restructuring, that gives a toilet dweller half a chance to scratch and claw its way out of that toilet?;"

Difference?
You say - 62 billion minus 35 billion equals 27 billion owned by non-insiders

I say - same 62 billion minus 28 billion of the Whelans 35 billion leaves them with 7 billion..... and leaves the AS at 34 billion and a great likelihood of success, when potential investors and current shareholders look at 34 billion versus the current absurd 62 billion...... It would be easy for the Whelans to protect themselves from any moves on them by getting on board with other large shareholders. You can't see more than 27 but they are there in Street Form. . . .

Please keep in mind this is but one element of 7 suggested that would create much respect and confidence in BIEL management and eradicate the name toxicity from the past. Kelly Whelan would immediately emerge as a folk hero in the media as someone with integrity and courage who got out from under many years of difficulty and did the right thing for her shareholders . . . .

OK? Sorry for any confusion I caused you.