I really don't understand your question Tarqwa. The objective is to get below 500 shareholders of record, and what control do you have over that?
As far as it being that "simple" to avoid the RS, you have to ask Orie whether that is the real reason for announcing a RS. With this morning's tweet, he seems to have doubled down on this explanation for the RS. However, we do see how much he cared about the existing shareholder base in that he offered a WHOPPING $5 for these individuals with tiny shareholdings to surrender their shares. That means he was willing to devote a whopping less than $300 to save our butts or $1500, even if all 300 shareholders had accepted his "GENEROUS" offer. Geez....$5 is hardly an incentive to open the envelope or email. Just like in his handling of publicity to enhance the share price, he is equally inept at communicating with a few undoubtedly disgruntled shareholders. I wonder if Orie even bothered to communicate with the SEC and ask the question, "If most of his shareholders of record own less than 100 shares, can he get some exemption from the 500 shareholders of record maximum?" And if not, then did it ever occur to him to raise the incentive for the tiny shareholders to sell the shares? Wouldn't it have been worth say $1500 to avoid all this subsequent turmoil and huge losses to existing shareholders and loss of shareholder good will? There would have been a logical time down the road for a reverse split to go to a higher exchange, but this seems like a very bad decision, and needs to be reversed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
