Regarding EMA's claim against VYST, reading the Conversion Notices, they specifically and clearly state right up top in the standard language that they "elect to convert principal". It specifically does not say anything about the possibility of converting interest. Is this relevant? Does this mean as VYST claims, that they cannot convert interest?
Also, how do we know that interest was prepaid? Has anyone seen reference to such in the documents themselves verifying such? What's the standard or norm with such notes, if there is a standard or norm? And how do you prepay interest if interest is accruing at 12% per annum but you do not know upfront when the conversion would take place thus when interest would stop accruing?
And lastly, EMA applied for this summary judgement. Can the judge if she chooses rule summarily in favor of either party, thus eliminating the need to go to full hearing? Or is it more a question of the judge either rules summarily in EMA's favor, since it was EMA that applied, or chooses not to rule summarily and the whole thing proceeds to full hearing? I thought I read in one of the documents that VYST didn't ask for summary judgement in their favor, rather stated that substantial facts were in dispute and simply asked that no summary judgement be decided and the whole thing goes to full hearing, did I read that wrong?
I am not clear on these. The first above would appear to favor VYST, the second EMA, and the third/last point I don't know. Can someone explain and provide evidence referenced in the actual documents somewhere? Thanks.