Didn't JT state that he did not authorize those shares? If so, did the TA do something illegal? I wonder if there was some kind of funny business. Only JT could have legally authorized the release those. Maybe the TA F-ed up, and JT has them by the junk? Interesting.... anyways I want to see some fins and let's get the man hiking up the mountain.
Okay, my last on this cuz this has turned out to be far, far more than my old brain can handle. :-(
You said:
and the TA not budging on this re org
Again, you're talking about the new NSAV Holding, Inc. corporation JT just formed as the "re org" correct? (I sure hope so otherwise I'm truly clueless. :-()
So here is a post around the time the "re org", NSAV Holding, Inc. started. It was a big debate about whether or not forming a "Parent" company and, thus, turning a former company into an "subsidiary" would eliminate their debt. Oh, the debt would still be at Net Savings Link, Inc., but NSAV Holding, Inc. wouldn't be responsible for it. Or so the argument went. I think. And there were plenty of other posts about this around this time:
There were arguments on both sides. Some saying the debt remained and the "Parent" company would be liable for it while others said only the (new) "subsidiary" (which was the "old" Net Savings Link, Inc.) would be liable for it. Thus we, as shareholders holders of the new "Parent" company wouldn't be liable for that debt and, also, NSAV Holding, Inc. was now "debt free." In theory.
I posted some Googled stuff (which I'm not doing again), but it seemed (according to one legal argument) that with the formation of NSAV Holding, Inc. we COULD avoid the debt of Net Savings Link, Inc. as they were, now, separate company's. And, so, whoever was owed money from Net Savings Link, Inc. was screwed as it was, NOW an insolvent shell (crap "subsidiary") which was broke and which had no source of future revenue. Why? Because any new revenue generated would be the revenue of NSAV Holding, Inc., period.
But there was also the argument that, in the case of fraud, and a couple other instances, the "parent" company COULD be held liable for the debt of the new "subsidiary". (Confused yet? lol...)
But, anyhow, according to you, and by what you said JT tweeted (I missed it) TA just plain said "Screw you" JT! And didn't approve this re org. Correct? But do they really have the power to do that?
Who the hell knows?
But, anyhow, if what you say is true then, well,aren't we are worse off NOW then we were on March 13 when this whole debacle started??!! :-(
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
