NO, thats not how I interpretted the purchase agreement. But War Eagle you got my mind thinking, I believe that if I am being fair and analyzing the contract on its face then your interpretation may hold true as well. As I read the agreement I believe that you could interpret it the way you are and it would make sense.
I dont mind admitting when I interpreted a clause wrong, but the statement would lead to a nice law suit. The option is not clearly written and now that you have made me aware of the recorded agreement, I can now see how the .03 cent minimum would be applicable.
Your analysis is another possible interpretation and this accounts for some of the confusion we have as shareholders. That is why it needs to be explained to us, because if this is the case then I believe it is one of the reason PBLS has to recognize the possibliliy that the outstanding common shares was much higher than expected, they may have to account for the possibility of conversion to fully disclose their possible share structure.
So I may have be headstrong in my interpretation but I think your version or application of the contract language it plausible.
Well this will be fun following this. I hope your interpretation is the correct one as it makes much more sense and would allow for the holder of the note to exercise more options.
Thanks for your comments.
AI
