"malfeasance and a breach of fiduciary responsibility" many occasions I've tried to view documents from every angle & try to view carter's actions through a neutral filter but seemingly I keep coming to the same conclusions as brokeagent and others on the board
there needs to be someone sitting at the negotiating table representing the shareholders with legit share counts after an extensive archeological dig of the books/ledgers to date ~ who got paid what, when & why.. .
appropriate ratios distributed, aligning with legitimate legal documents ~ Bentham, CBV/inventors, attorneys and common shareholders _________________
BrokeAgent ~ Leane's agreement was in the contract. But it was rescinded immediately after the lawsuits were filed. So cutting her back in at this point would be fraud. Carter was never given 20%. Giving himself 20% now would be fraud. Bentham was mentioned in the purchase agreement; however, the terms were not disclosed to the public. This would be a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Rob Howe if he was made aware of the terms at the time of signing. I can't believe he would sign the agreement without a clear understanding of the waterfall. Though, again, the percentage was not mentioned in the SEC filing. The increase in the amount owed to Bentham on additional money borrowed is malfeasance and a breach of fiduciary responsibility on the part of Carter.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
