Sometimes, toxic lenders are patient and crafty.
And sometimes they are patient, and not very crafty at all. Try to figure out how a debt note holder made money in TRII after 2015 onward.
He roped in a toxic debt group mid 2015. They would've been ready to dump in Jan 2016. Just in time for TRII to become delinquent for their 10K. Previously claimed to have received $45K in cash for some notes. So with a CEO going dark in Jan 2016, delinquent, and no volume to dump into, the toxic lenders better bee patient. Because they shur ain't crafty! They can't even go after the claimed $200-300K of assets. They already have Liens attached. Ontario awaiting payment of pending back fines. The CEO holding a huge debt note (the very first one issued), so that he can stand first in line for any asset craw back.
Sometimes the slime lenders lose. Obviously they win more than lose, else they wouldn't be doing it. Crafty only means their ability to gauge how many times the CEO can successfully pump the stock.
As far as penalties, and discounts as toxic debt becomes more toxic, why should it matter? Given a good pump angle, the SH dreamers "investing" in the stock don't care. Neither does the CEO care while receiving cash up front, and dumping his 1%/Q on the side.
Also if it involves a Pinky, with no transparency, then there is no insult to injury, or penalties. Why report things that don't need to be reported. See BAYP. They never admit to ever issuing convertible debt notes. Guess they handed out 500M shares in the last 2 months for FREE!? Just more dilution, which someday will run into a R/S of 1:100, and bee forgotten 2 yrs later. The BAYP O/S went from 1.5B to 15M in late 2014. Currently at 1.2B.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
