Exhibit A - refers to salary 01/04/10 to 01/04/11
The 12/30/10 filing for the salary of the CEO states that "a settlement was worked out for one year past salary." Then in exhibit A states salary was $10,000 per month for the "period 01/04/10 to 01/04/11".
Same wording and similar perod for the $60,000 for the CFO.
So the company itself states salary was incurred in 2010 for services performed in 2010. What could be more clear than that ? Plus in June 2010 CEO employment agreement , though signed in January, was also filed.
What more proof could you want than an employment agreement between company and CEO filed by the company, and the directors and cfo specifically in exhibit A stating when the CEO worked, at what compensation.
Perhaps you just misread the filings BTDG made. Surely you recognize the expense was incurred in 2010. Actually even worse, since board agreed to issue the stock in December 2010 for January issuance, this would make it even harder to justify not to accrue the expense,i.e. board acknowledged in 2010 that the srvcies were performed and what was the compensation rate.
In defense of the CEO, this probably is the work of the CFO. Anyone who could prepare such silly financial statements is quite capable of making mistakes in preparing the filings. The CEO doesn't appear to have the knowledge or business/legal experience, or maybe the time considering how many different businesses BTDG is involved with, to double check the CFO's work.
The filings are always rife with such mistakes and may be a reason why none of the deals that are announced are implemented or succesful because of the achilles heel of the CFO. So CEO probably very frustrated he arranges deals then paperwork fouls them up.
Look at the Jan 5 HIP HOP deal. It says that BTDG to issue a 10% ownership position, 500 million shares, while claiming 3.1 billion shares outstanding. The math of course doesnt add up.500 million is not 10% of 3.6 million. So either just sloppy work, or a very novel business law theory at work, i.e. that 10% of authorised shares equals 10% ownership. It gets more silly. Clauses say company will incur no liabilities nor enter into any transaction. So if you look at BTDG press releases you can see whether you believe it is complying with this. Probably every other agreement BTDG does has similar clauses which BTDG ignores as it does business. So it is no wonder BTDG can't get any deal closed or implemented.
CEO must be tearing his hair out. He arranges all sorts of deals and none of them work. He is perhaps too loyal to the CFO. Anyone who can negotiate a $.04 buyout in a "definitive merger" must be praised, then secure an interest in the HIP HOP network as a follow up, with only $4,000 revenue, is doubly praised.Hopefully CEO will hire a CFO with experience to sort out these paperwork items.
AI
