Diluting the shareholders in a 1 for 2000 reverse split is not conducive to the company "having something going for it". It is only conducive to a select few insides having something going for them.
If this was a share dividend it, they would have said so initially. since it wasn't, and it clearly does nothing but steal the shell from the shareholders, it results in court action. Get it?
I think it's misleading to say "Each time this company has had something going for it, there has been a complaint filed against it in court." That's just my opinion. But to answer your question, "why is this?", I would maybe restate your comment as.. "The last few times this company has tried to dilute EXBX shareholders via a reverse split, there has been a complaint filed against it in court."
Think about that. Shareholders voted against a reverse split at the last shareholders meeting. But then the company announced on its Website that the Board could reverse split anyway if the Board saw the need for one I believe. What happened? A complaint was filed against the company in court.
Then a few years later, the company tried to force that 2000-for-1 share exchange agreement without common shareholder approval. What happened? A complaint was filed against the company in court.
The answer in my opinion is quite simple. For knowing so much Gee Guy ADVFN_notsomuch, I'm pretty surprised that you couldn't figure that one out.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
