Investor: we don't know enough about what actually happen yet,but we can speculate various scenario's.You talk about how it will effect the officer referred to.
IMO,there in fact could be NO effect if the person cooperated with the investigation. In fact we don't even know how this investigation was started. It could have been started by a complaint from IPWG or the officer....could it not???
What if IPWG felt something was not right and they alerted the SEC?? It is possible.
The complaint says:
42. Under the agreements, International Power assigned to Signature Leisure about $270,000 of alleged debt that International Power owed to one its officers for loans he supposedly made to the company. Signature Leisure signed promissory notes in consideration for the assignment and thereafter paid the officer about $126,000.
IMO,the points of alleged debt and supposed loans do leave an open window where those actions/justifications will have to be proven it seems to exonerate the practice.
So, if the money was well spent on the company the company and the officer should be OK, that is how I see it. So far they are not named as defendants it seems...........so may be it is not a problem???
I don't know if the company had to report the stock sales since they did not themselves sell actually the stock. They only lent the stock. It may just be a fancy loop hole in the law where you can sell stock indirectly without reporting it, by borrowing against it????? That is what it looks like to me.
Now this also brings up the questions about those agreements made by the two largest share holders where they said they would not sell their stock if it was under a certain price??? I guess this kind of wrap around is not really a sell.......yet on the other hand it seems to be???? Yes......NO???
That is the problems with laws..............they are so stinking hard to figure out and so many ways to get around them. The disadvantage to us investors is that when you lend money out this way and no one reports it...............we have no way to factor this into the price of the stock.
May be the law needs to be reworked since it seems this was really creative financing with lots of room for abuse. May be that is all that will come of this, a new law and some warnings???
May be this is the purpose of all this to send out a public signal to others to watch out until the law is reworked..............???I wish I was smarter to figure these things out.
