Replies to post #58396 on Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp. (DKTS)

[loanranger]

Is this the conclusion that you think the imaginary ISBG auditor will come to as well?
"DKTS is contractually bound to fulfill its promise to repay the loans."

Do you think that the piece of the DKTS press released deal that said that the debt would go to ISBG has gone the way of the dodo?
Did ISBG ever acknowledge their acceptance of that term anywhere?

Is it hotter in the summer than it is in the city?

Does DKTS have to establish "adequate current information" via the restoration of Pink Current Information status in order to legally distribute the ISBG shares to DKTS holders? Since they haven't been distributed and aren't in the float, do you think that the current ISBG share price reflects the dilution that resulted from their issuance by ISBG? It wouldn't matter whether they were restricted if DKTS didn't distribute them, would it? Will they be restricted if they are ever issued?


Just kidding. No need to respond.


ps. Is this a good stock?

[hedge_fun]

DKTS is contractually bound to fulfill its promise to repay the loans. It doesn't matter if AP ran the company into the ground or sold its assets out the back door and now has no money to repay. The company still owes the money. Whether they will ever get it, or something in lieu of it, remains to be seen.

Can you explain in simple terms how the settlement caused the company to be Rule 144 ineligible?

Or is it that those notes are not valid?

I have seen both claims.

How is it your are CERTAIN DKTS owes the lenders money? I understand being bound by a contract, but if the contract isn't valid, what is DKTS bound by?

And wouldn't the lenders be better of going after ISBG/Autry anyway for "pain and suffering", etc?

They were claiming the sky was the limit, correct?

Oh, and had I not walked away, would my agreement for the Fitty Million options have been valid?