Replies to post #44606 on Secure Point Technologies Inc (fka IMSCQ)

[int10a]

On April 6 the current loan was extended, but no new money was provided. Then at some point that extension was deemed not to be effective due to them being in default of the agreement ending March 31. There were revisions as a result of that, which weren't announced until July.

Perhaps the reason they were determined to be in default as of March 31 should be investigated. It sounded like there was some disagreement about that, and they were not determined to be in default until some time later which then caused the agreement signed April 6 not to take effect. Did PP force them into agreeing they were in default?

This is what they 8-K says as to them being in default:

"However, despite the best efforts of the Company, DMRJ and the Assignee, certain post-closing effectiveness conditions to the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to the delivery of an opinion of counsel and payment of the fees and expenses of DMRJ and the Assignee were not satisfied, and the Fourteenth Amendment was, therefore, never deemed effective, resulting in the Company being in default of its obligations to DMRJ and the Assignee since March 31, 2016."

All of that may somehow play into why they were not paying rent.

[artang]

They gave the company money, how is it they did not keep their end of the loan agreement? The time for the company to pay back the loans kept getting extended. If anyone did not keep their end of the agreement it is the IMSCQ, not Platinum.

The criminal case is all about the Platinum defrauding their investors by overstating the value of their hedge funds, and not about the loans they made. It is a big stretch to see how the criminal case is going to help IMSCQ investors. If anything it is going to make Platinum more desperate to get their hands on the money due them, now that they are facing SEC charges which may carry heavy fines.