Thank you. You have made my point for me.
Why would something which has been known since, say, use the January 2016 article which was posted. allow two parties to make a contract performance deadline of 90 days when they both knew this was virtually impossible to accomplish.
The purpose was to insure that the shareholders voted approval for the massive dilution.
HELLO.
Doesn't take rocket sciencel
If they had used the December date now proposed on the extension in the first place, NOBODY would have voted for the new shares if they knew that the monies collection date was 9 months off.
It doesn't take much to see that this was a totally deceptive maneuver to get new shares authorized. Period.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
