Sorry,
FWIW
"Veltex says the issuing of the 18 mil shares didn't occur because the BOD decided against it."
The fact is that the resolution was removed from the agenda BEFORE the BOD meeting. The reason for that is the uproar of many of us. As an example I did personally alerted all my contacts (In cluding Paul from E & E and a lawyer owning a lot of shares) about this "intent to buy something we were suppose to own" and I know they got Matin in a situation where he had to remove the resolution.
"Matin was issuing the shares to put the money in his pocket?"
As I often mentionned, being affirmative on almost anything right now is impossible. Only Matin and his very close ones (insiders) could be.
This being said, everything (including your hypothesis) is possible.
What I THINK (based on discussions with sources of mine) is that for the last 3 years or so, Matin has tried to build the USA based leg of the business with a lot of optimism and real shortage of cashflow (still an issue).
Having many flops along the way (read his business plan of December 2002) he needed to borrow funds and he would have given back our ownership of Veltex Mills to garanty his loans (securing the right to buy it back later).
My understanding (Note I am not affirmative) is that the 18,000,000 shares were intended to hide (???) this situation, before normalizing the company thru normal auditing and reporting.
My assumption (alluded to before herein) is that 3 or 4 months later, the PPS having changed significantly, he could now do it using a smaller number of shares.
"The SEC would want to know why the company cliams to own the mills, and then the company issues more shares to "purchase" the mills."
If thru, the above explanation could aloow Matin to walk thru the situation in a not necessarely ILLEGAL contex:
- He effectively owned Veltex Mills
- He "honestly" used this asset as a garanty for loans used to buildup yhe American operation
- He secured a "right to buy it back" later
This being said, if my view of Matin (incompetent more than dishonnest businessman) is right, the above "scenario" makes quite a lot of sense, considering the difficulties he had to go thru with less than honest partners and ventures such as the transportation one.
FWIW
