It's actually a legitimate idea. We are the share holders and can comprise the board. If we so choose to we could also call a shareholder meeting to discuss events, chiefly among them being BC being given 900M shares to perform duties which he's abandoned/forsaken/never performed and vote on his removal, rescinding of shares, or other. (He has 900M out of 1.6B means everyone's payment would double if rescinded) I'm not against him getting paid, but if he's putting the pipe to us, we should put the pipe to him.
I read on here earlier that the TA has is informed of UnitedOnline, nothing about a shareholder waterfall mentioned yet. However if the TA hadn't heard of United online by the end of the week, then I would've hand delivered BC's file to the Delaware's DA's office complete with sworn affidavits, screenshots, and company timeline. Full send!
I'm still not completely relaxed on the matter. I'm waiting for the TA to have in his hands a distributable waterfall payout model that's favorable to all share holders as an official communication that'll be sent to the brokerages on record...then I'll begin standing down.
