This is why the R/S didn’t take the 80% haircut we were all told. The new investors bought into the company (Equity) as opposed to a toxic note. No more toxic dilution at TXHDD.
$TXHDD - how to deal with mis-information? A real challenge
1) Einhaus isn't a Toxic Lender, the note was written by the company so if it appears as "Toxic" then blame the company.
2) Einhaus can't convert all at one time, read the note! He agreed to never convert more that 4.99% each time and he would love to make a boat load of money...so
You're claiming that he is something that he is NOT
You're thinking he's Asher or Auctus and he is not and in fact he put up his money to prevent Asher from converting as did the COO...
NOTE: when did the COO convert his note...stay tuned to be "discovered" at trial...going to be interesting...to see what happened...
TXHDD Right other than the fact that Einhaus is not a toxic note holder. He has never shorted one stock in 25 years of trading and he was an individual shareholder approached by the CEO for money. The money went to pay a REAL TOXIC noteholder Asher. In this deal Einhaus put up 25k and David put up 15k. Look in the filings and see Davids note was dated 9-22-15 one day before Einhaus. Davids note later negotiated to a 3rd party for .0001 at a 1000 percent discount. Of course we all know what 3rd party means. This is getting much deeper than anyone realizes.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
