This makes no sense to me. Unless, possibly, does this go back to the discussion on here awhile back that, if the disputed certs were valid, then it meant that AP did not have control of the company because the control shares he issued himself were invalid? So then maybe by stipulating/admitting in the settlement that the certs were validly issued, AP was basically admitting he didn't have authority to issue those debt notes or something without Victory Partners signing off on it?
Could use some help here. I'm looking for the discussion threads but they're hard to find. Somewhere around here though: