The answers to the two questions are very simple.
Under oath, during testimony before the SEC, the Whelans testified they could not recall and there was no bookkeeping, accounting, financial or banking records to support the initial Whelan "nominal amount" loan.
There was also testimony that member(s) of the Whelan family benefitted in the multiple millions of dollars in profits. So, until there is evidence produced illuminating the initial loan "nominal amount", it should be appropriate to use zero.
There is no question, in anyone's mind, that companies and banks all keep accurate records, by law, that go back many years, as do human memories.......so the accurate number exists. Why there are "no records" anywhere and totally blank memories, of such a signing transaction is anyone's guess......
As to the second question, the answer is more simple. Unless and until the initial "nominal amount" and the Whelan interest shares accounting trail is provided and independently substantiated, the amount non-Whelan interests invested in BIEL should be 100%, Whelan interests, zero..
The simple analogy is this - walk into a bank, your bank. Tell them you know you deposited funds with them that they invested for you. Explain that you have no record or evidence OR memory of when or the amount of the deposit and investments, and that you would now like to withdraw all your funds, including accrued interest and capital appreciation, should be about $25 Million.
Slightly different analogy? "Well, ya see, I had this lottery ticket and I can't find it, but I'm positive that ticket was a winner!
Make sense? Get ready for a quick ride to Bellevue Psychiatric over on 1st Ave in Kips Bay, for a thorough assessment. The answer is still zero, until proven otherwise. Oooops.
