seriously or sarcastically? would anyone accept being a director without first knowing about solvency? would anyone accept becoming a director if basic corporate functions (audit, compliance reporting, website) are NOT funded from ongoing revenues?
I think everyone realizes that MAYBE experienced investors somehow failed to plan or complete due diligence; yes, but, anyone credible as a director to represent investors would have answers BEFORE being seated, right?
Just how much information was from the plaintiffs is a mystery. Someone, who spent tens of thousands of dollars ABOVE any sums for purchasing shares, suspects some core revenue producing operations to be restructured.
How many expect no reporting, just a dark company as a footnote to history for written off investment?
How many on this board expect dark until different entity, maybe tri-way or some other reverse merger going public through SIAF?
How many on this board expect reporting within a few months with ongoing reorganization?
I am hopeful for reporting quite soon.
We are expecting that "trading" continued at a profit, right?
We are expecting that rent from leasing former operating farms continued to be received, right?
We are hoping that some ponds were producing and selling fish at a profit, right?
We know that at least one farm was lost to creditors, right? Related to that, we are expecting some accounting nightmares to be disclosed, right?
We are expecting notice of annual shareholders meeting to confirm the director being added, right?
