Appreciate the welcome gift — you clearly came prepared.
Let’s clear a few things up before you accuse me of “spinning”:
1. You're right: There’s no confirmed joint announcement (yet)
The Lionsgate/Starz separation went through — and SAPX hasn’t followed it up with a filing. That’s frustrating. But calling it “proof of fraud” is a reach.
Deals involving NDAs, IP licensing, or audits tied to litigation (like the Arrowhead case) take time — especially on the OTC, where legal baggage and compliance clean-up don’t move fast. Missing a soft PR window isn’t great, but it’s not a smoking gun.
You’re cherry-picking delays and calling them lies.
I’m saying: Could be lies, could be cleanup — and we’ll know soon enough.
2. You're omitting real context — maybe intentionally
You asked:
“Where are the audited financials?”
“Where is the Form 10?”
“Where is Lionsgate’s confirmation?”
Valid asks — but you’re pretending SAPX is a squeaky-clean NASDAQ-level operator. It’s not. It's a pink-limited, post-lawsuit OTC stock, run by someone who inherited Hoffman-era messes and is still unwinding them.
And don’t forget — even Starz CEO Jeff Hirsch just said:
“There’ll be a great shedding first, and then there’ll be a reconnecting of other things... I don’t think anything will happen for the next 12 to 18 months.”
That’s not a SAPX problem — it’s a sector-wide freeze while media giants shed old assets, clean up legacy liabilities, and reposition content pipelines.
So if you're expecting fast-track deal follow-through from a debt-restructuring pink sheet while Starz itself is on pause, you’re not being realistic.
3. The original comms never claimed finalization
You keep citing the deal as if it was declared done. It wasn’t.
The language used was: "pending material developments."
That implies forward-looking negotiations — not a closed transaction. Later posts suggested deal scope expansion, likely tied to the Lionsgate/Starz transition.
So yes: Delayed? Absolutely.
Dead or fake? Still TBD.
Twisting “in progress” into “proven lie” isn’t due diligence — it’s projection.
4. Still no evidence of forged SEC filings
If you have proof that Jason Black submitted falsified documents to the SEC or forged Lionsgate references, post it. Otherwise, you're just speculating — like everyone else.
I acknowledge the red flags.
I acknowledge the silence is a problem.
But I don’t twist that into certainty of fraud just because I’m impatient.
If this collapses, I’ll say: “You were right.”
If it doesn’t, and the delay was legal cleanup or NDA-related — what will you say?
AI
