The analogy used earlier of a bank robbery in plain view is not too far off then is it?
Why bother messing around with the formalities of using the shares of stock as a pretext for this transfer of wealth - why didn't they just come demand all the cash from shareholders wallets at gun point instead. In the final analysis it has the same effect. Is there somehow the misconception that if capital is taken in this manner while sporting the fancy suits and white collars that it is somehow even remotely acceptable? While an armed robbery is a bit more direct and to the point, at least the victim knows immediately that they have been violated.
Mantra shareholders were majority shareholders - NOT minority owners - before this crew were gifted the majority of the shares and took control of the company. As mentioned previously, even if that transfer was somehow accepted by the majority shareholders, then the now minority shareholders still have rights and the officers and directors have a fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders as well. Somehow I sort of get the sense that this was either lost on them or they simply don't give a sh*t.
I hope the company does really well in the future because the following class action suits will really be something to watch.
Of course this is just one person's opinion. Perhaps others share it as well?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
