My problem with your statement is that there is absolutely NO support given for it. When you use statements like it is "likely" or "apparent" that EDIG (and here is the crux of the matter) is selling shares on the cheap, I think I can legitimately expect some evidence to back it up. As it is, at MOST based on the "facts" you present, you can state that we don't know what was the exact value of the debt retired or the shares, you go to far by saying it was less than stated.