Doesn't matter. Read the MOA. By definition, because a wire transfer did not occur the subscription agreement was never "fully executed". No money traded hands, no shares traded hands. The MOA governs.
Look we can argue the details all day....and I am certainly willing to continue ;-)
But the situation Chad is in at this moment appears to be entirely of his own making. Starting with the crap terms of the note which I have to believe (and I think others do as well) he could have done much better.
He then tries to do an S-1 offering...no go. So he has to then look for some other "deal" to get some cash to stave off the note default. Along comes this Nic Quiles guy with this brand spankin' new "Head North LLC"...that has ZERO history or footprint and the guy says he can get him the $375K. Would not call his "background" stellar, and certainly there were some red flags with this Nic fellow...but now he is blaming his bad "DD" on being deceived by them?
Each step of the way, Chad's actions or lack thereof have fallen short.
So now he is suggesting that there was "fraudulent misrepresentation" and that he has a civil claim for damages.
Putting aside the rather high threshold needed to prove civil fraud, beyond mere negligence, and the apparent challenges to meeting that standard and the form of contract that the MOA is presented in...its actually somewhat meaningless to fixing or mitigating the situation he is in now.
So now we see if he is going to continue down the penny playbook road and use this potential lawsuit as some seed for the imagination of potential future $$ that will come flowing into INQD's coffers...or stop talking about it and let his "lawyers deal with it" as you say.
The reality is, he has put his shareholders in a pickle. The stock hit a record low today on record volume...and the conversions haven't even started.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
