if you read all posts, including mine, you would know how I stand on this note or other. As it relates to the banks and lending ability, its not a matter of amending per say but rather a matter of understanding where the 2 current lenders "stand with" things and "requirements." This was part of the slide of being delisted and in part the communication mis-step strategy that the company started on in the OTC. Look at Q3 transcripts to see what I mean but the spirit is simple.. major banks require liquidity and "higher exchanges." Short of that and your lending options are more "limited." They can get an existing debt term change but more than that will require something bigger, creative, and require another player most likely.
Debt instruments are not always easy to understand and this co is no exception with some creative deals to include re-shaping equity. It doesn't make it worse than other companies but does add it's own wrinkles. Being an international filer adds more to the requiredness and disclosure side of things to boot.
So now to your vouching... No issue whatsoever with someone interpreting a note or terms. However, when someone suggests, being kind here, market reaction, than you/one would think that some fundamental analysis would be used in those thoughts and contradicts both your comments and some being vouched for. Please re-read the comments of the said voucher to know what I mean ;)
This isn't some vape shop run by a brother and cousin that don't have revenues nor a plan or model to be profitable for shareholders. Rather it is a highly capital intensive business that has spent more on just audited financials and pirate insurance over the last year than the complete market cap of most tickers u likely traded combined.
If I offend you, I apologize upfront, but hopefully there are nuggets of something that might be helpful to you in your own decisions on this company.
All my opinion and best of luck to you either way of how you feel
TEUFF
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
