Replies to post #58392 on Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp. (DKTS)

[2_poodles]

Under what statute(s) would the corporation required to repay loans in total?

Are u kidding me? I'll tell you what. Let me borrow money from you to pay for the mortgage on my house and build equity in my house. Then, not pay you back. Does that make sense to you?

The rest of what you wrote is completely inconsiquential and has nothing to do with the argument.

Lastly, debt holders get preference over equity holders in the US stock market. Based on your posts, I'm sure you know that. As of right now, debt holders have nothing, while shareholders are waiting for their dividend or distribution shares of ISBG. Does that make sense to you?

I'm not sure what you are arguing. If the brands sell creating strong revenue streams, this works all well for all concerned. So as an equity holder or a debt holder, that is all that really matters.

[Carini]

What in the world are you talking about? It's a matter of basic contract law and/or common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment.

The lenders gave Alonzo money. In exchange they received a promise to use the funds in a certain way and to repay the loan in some form at a later date. That's all the consideration needed to form a valid contract.

If I take out a loan from the bank and tell them I will use the money to put an addition on my house, and instead I go to Vegas, lose half of it and then get robbed of the rest from my hotel room, it doesn't mean I am not still legally bound to repay the loan. In Nevada or any other state.