PD, I am curious as to where you got that balance for HLNT,
what is your source. If you used the last balance sheet that
was posted on Oct 26 for the Sept 30 ending quarter, the cash
accounts were a little under $14 K, on Sept 30, 2010. That
information is out of date if your are using it for the basis of
your opinion. Do you really know what HLNT was capable of in
the making a cash offer? If you do, please let us all know.
Second question, did you talk with Whalehaven and ask why they
rejected the cash offer? Who did you talk to and when, and can
this conversation be confirmed. If there was no conversation,
then you are simply stating your opinion as to what Whalehaven's
motives were, but you have no real proof, right?
Something that you neglected to mention, Whalehaven wanted more
than 4 billion shares, but settled only for 105 million. Let's
see, started with 2 $100,000 notes, earned interest some where
in the neighborhood of about $95,000 per note. This amounts to
$390,000 in interest and principle. The price of HLNT's stock
was trading between $.0035 and $.0045 when the negotiations were
going on, so lets assume it was based upon $.004, which times
105 million shares is $420,000. That amounts to a 2.2 return
on investment, but when you look at it over at least 6 years, you
are talking about an 8% annual return. Things sure look a lot
different when the analysis is done correctly. But one last
thing on this, during the last week, the PPS for HLNT was at
or above $.0055, which for 105 million shares is $557,500. It
certainly seems to me that Whalehaven's motive was to take stock
instead of cash, just for this reason (they made more than another
$100,000 during this last week).
It seems to me that the NIR suit was initiatied before the Whale-
haven suit, and that HLNT filed a response with Counter Claims,
and was also done before any action by Whalehaven. In addition,
the Whalehaven debt was considered to be valid, otherwise I don't
believe that HLNT would have settled on it. What is similar
between the NIR and Whalehaven suits is that both asked for total
control of HLNT, and for damages, and so on. But there the
similarity ends. It appears that Whalehaven knew that they
wouldn't get what they asked for, so they took what they could
get. In the Counter Claims, HLNT, after Humphries stepped down
from SSEV, alleged that there was fraud in the assumption of the
Notes from NIR, on the part of Humphries, and with knowledge of
the same by NIR's employees and management. What makes this
Claim plausible is that Humphries, while still the CEO of SSEV,
tried selling the asset that was coupled with the NIR notes in
the assumption by SSEV, attempted to sell the same asset, from
the company that supposedly sold the asset to SSEV. This is the
heart of the Counter Claim, that SSEV never got the asset in
question, supported by the subsequent attempt by Humphries to
sell the asset a second time, not by SSEV, but by the other
company of which Humphries was the CEO. It has been stated that
HLNT doesn't want Humprhies to testify. Quite the opposite is
true, NIR doesn't want Humphries to testify, because all of NIR's
claims are based upon SSEV's assumption of the notes in question,
because without the legitimate transfer of the asset, NIR's claims
are baseless. Should this be decided in the course of the cases,
then NIR will have recourse against DealerAdvance, and Humphries,
but not SSEV/HLNT.
One last thing, you stated that this "new groups history is to
create debt with lawsuits and settle with shares." That doesn't
make any sense at all. I can't think of any company in the world
that would want to create debts by lawsuits, and the companies
like NIR and Whalehaven are the ones who want the shares.
AI
