InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 253
Posts 2747
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/15/2006

Re: catty post# 52578

Sunday, 01/21/2007 4:23:54 PM

Sunday, January 21, 2007 4:23:54 PM

Post# of 92056
catty, what disturbs me is the lawyers who reviewed or drafted the ba note and convertible terms. A lawyers job is to make sure the language is unambiguous so there is no lawsuit in the first place. If Frank was still at the helm and instructed the lawyers not to change anything, well it is still the lawyers fault. They represented the company not Frank. I have not seen the contract itself, so I do not definetly know whether ba just filed a meritless lawsuit which contradicts the contract term. But if there is an ambiguity, I would hope hisc makes the lawyers eat their time to defend this or file a malpractice claim. As I have stated in the past, I am very unhappy with the fact that 30,000,000 shares in evans were issued (I could use stronger language) to those currently at the helm. I suspect this action disturbed FM and BA just as much as all of us, and perhaps was the catalyst that caused ba and fm to file suit. They certainly did not earn it. Where are the sales? In any other company if little or no sales were generated they would have been fired by now. In my view Fred's honeymoon is over. Produce or step aside. Don't make this lawsuit an excuse for non-performance.