LOL...
Thats exactly what I told the attorney friend of mine....actually, to set the stage for the discussion I told him I'm a failure..I'm a loser...I don't get it...I make mistakes...since he knows me, he agreed enthusiastically....
Since the proxy came out, my mind has been swirling about the workings of contracts and stock and warrants and what are the SEC rules that relate to that whole topic.....I figured there is way more I don't know and should try to get some answers to put me more at ease...
I told this guy that under no circumstances can he use legaleze...like caveat emptor or dominus vobiscum or e plurabus unem or any of that crap...keep it simple..
One of the things I found out is that there is an SEC rule
(dont remember the number)that would potenially allow for a company like CXO be paid warrants for services that could be exercised and the stock sold with some type of 6 month stipualtion the trades would be exempt under this rule under one very important condition..that condition is if it were a contract that was APPROVED by the board of directors of the company..ie..Torvec.. I was shocked that this was possible...I am not saying anybody sold anything..I am relaying to this forum that I found out it is possible for stock aquired via a conract like that could be potentially sold ....again the critical element is that it is the result of a contract approved by the BOD....
There-in lies the heart of the whole CXO Torvec lawsuit over the contract...none of us knows how a judge will decide that....
based on that info, I shift to a new set of questions..my opinion shifts toward the hypothetical possibilities that if all of those warrants were exercised and the converted shares were sold under the SEC rule that saysit ok with a BOD approved agreement, then those sharesget sold with an understanding that it's OK to do so....
So then I fast forward to the recent lawsuit which is centered on the conract....a judge could say it's valid.....
I ask my friend what happens if the judge voids the contract. He said that the consultants may have to give the money back to the company.
I told him about the proxy indicating the company has asked the SEC to investigate the trading practices of the indivduals in connection with their failure to file. He said that the high risk nature of the consultant here is that if the judge rules in favor of the company and voids the contract, the protection of the SEC rule that may have allowed for the shares to be traded under no longer exists..that would be bad....he indicated that the discovery and deposition aspects of the situation would most likely be very long and brutal ....(he was smiling.lawyers like long and brutal...cha-ching..!!)...he also noted that the byproduct of a long drwan out deposition and discovery on the contract lawsuit would produce a "mountain of documents" that the SEC could use against the consultant....(he was smiling again...dreaming of more happy lawyers I assume)..I repeat, I'm not saying anyone sold anything.....
I just couldnot stop wondering why with all that on the line, the CXO guys still pursue the whole legal battle....??
I know most of you are sick of me talking about this stuff, but as an investor, this is agonizingly important. I am still
very high on the technology, frustrated that it takes years to get commercialized, anxious for the legal bull shxt to end...personally I hope CXO and Torvec figure out a way to settle and move on...I wish no ill will on anyone and have never meant to offend anyone, but I will always have an opinion...it's America ....even if no one agrees with it..
Have a nice evening everyone...
