Bly, you pointed out to me the contractual perils that await SaVi Media, according to the SB-2 filing that describes Cornell Capital's debenture loan to SaVi Media Group, if SaVi defaults:
"In connection with the securities purchase agreement dated July 10, 2006, we executed a security agreement in favor of the investor granting them a first priority security interest in all of our goods, inventory, contractual rights and general intangibles, receivables, documents, instruments, chattel paper, and intellectual property. The security agreement states that if an event of default occurs under the secured convertible debentures or security agreement, the investors have the right to take possession of the collateral, to operate our business using the collateral, and have the right to assign, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of and deliver all or any part of the collateral, at public or private sale or otherwise to satisfy our obligations under these agreements."
However, I have new information for you, I want you take a look at the quote I have below, that comes from the last 10-KSB, SaVi Media filed with the SEC in Part II, Item 7 Financial Statements, page F-21, Sect 3., Agreement For Acquisition For Patent Rights:
"In the event the Agreement is rescinded, the Patents and related technology will be returned to Serge Monros. Further, under the terms of the Agreement, the Company is required to build a $5,000,000 research and development lab and a manufacturing plant and Serge Monros will also own those assets, free and clear, in the event the Agreement is rescinded or the Company dissolved."
Doesn't the agreement with Serge Monros for his patents, filed with and already accepted by the SEC conflict with the new agreement with Cornell Capital, recently filed with the SEC in the SB-2 and quoted by you above? In the likelihood of a default, you can't give the assets to two entities. I think, the agreement with Serge, takes precedence over the SB-2 filing, for Cornell, because it was filed first.
Knowing this exists, how could the SEC accept the Registration Statement for the Cornell Debenture Loan? Wouldn't it be too bad (LOL) if this voided the 2.9 billion SVMI warrants already given to Cornell? I think, that if the SEC doesn't accept the Registration Statement, it voids the agreement. And why would the warrants be any good, if the agreement is not any good? And if the glove doesn't fit, you can not convict. Oops, sorry. But that's why Cornell included a damage claus triggered by a date certain, that you pointed out Bly as December 7th, an infamous day for Cornell Capital because of the unsecured millions of dollars that SaVi Media still has of Cornell Capital's money now.(And SaVi probably spent most of it already, on production machines)
Is this the real reason why the 10-Q is delayed and DFW continues to basically say on this Board "Trust me, All is well with SaVi and the Vegas Party, I'll be ... gulp ... paying for, may be sooner than you all think!"(Although to be an accurate quote from DFW, a few of those words should be misspelled. LOL)
Furthermore, maybe that's why Blockman told us in Post #6624 this morning "I have been in contact with Bob regularly but have not spoken with Greg." Of course he hasn't spoke with Greg because, I think, Greg is in Texas right now talking to his friends getting a half million here and a million from over there, to get Cornell paid off and a rid of once and for all sans(without) warrants.
Aren't you glad, I can sit down here in Florida Bly, right before Christmas, figure all this stuff out, at a distance, tell everyone on the SaVi Board and not violate any NDA? (cause I don't have one) Merry Christmas. Ho-Ho-Ho.
What do you think Bly?
FlSun
AI
