More important, why would you ever agree to a term in a settlement that you knew you could not fulfill? Why would you set the company up for failure with Diac a third time in a term that was not authorized by the board? Heck, why would Diac want another 7M shares? More of the enigma that was management.
My guess is that it was part of a gambit to ensure the shareholders had no choice but to authorize the additional 200,000,000 shares. A more reasonable alternative is that they would buy them on the open market once they had an investor. Or maybe DSU was right all along. I just don't see why it was so important to add that term if you already had an agreement.
It is not really important anymore. The receiver probably won't spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. He will spend some time figuring out how to maximize return which may mean suing management for embezzlement. Civil suits, not criminal. but only for what is easy to prove and not if there is nothing to get in return.
Not sure how much will change with Diac. Unless he can go all the way back and vacate the default judgement, which I seriously doubt he has the authority to do, he will be forced to try to modify the current agreement into something that can actually be paid.
I am curious if the shareholders can petition him to continue the T-mobile litigation via a contingency attorney with the argument that it would maximize returns and allow him to meet the companies obligation to Diac. I guess now we wait and see.
AI
