News Focus
News Focus
icon url

BruceLake

10/11/21 8:06 PM

#19281 RE: I-Glow #19276

By the way there is nothing hilarious when you choose to twist and misrepresent statements.

That isn't true - a notice of conversion that isn't properly formatted doesn't mean the contract is Null and Void


Here is what I wrote:

Failing that it could render it null and void.


By putting the word "could" means that it's not definitive how a court would rule on it. Furthermore my statement was meant to apply to contracts in general.
icon url

starstx

10/12/21 12:52 AM

#19288 RE: I-Glow #19276

I think it is hilarious a CEO is standing up to a predatory toxic lender making millions on a peanut loan from 2015 by diluting the company into oblivion like Adar Bays has done to hundreds of other companies and the SEC has charged over a half dozen toxic lenders as unregistered dealers with the penalty of disgorgement of all ill gotten gains ... ill gotten ... civil penalties, cancelling all shares AND voiding all debt notes plus a penny stock bar to boot.

I hardly feel sorry for the toxic lenders ... so when the SEC says what they are doing is illegal and the recent court rulings agree ... they have an option. If they get charged I would not pay them a cent.

If they have not been charged yet ... the debt is still valid ... and they could renegotiate the terms which does not allow them to convert debt to shares for nothing ... make millions to the detriment of the company, the shareholders and anyone else other than themselves ... and have an opportunity to get repaid plus all the interest that had accumulated.

That is going to be their choice or they can wait for the SEC to charge them which could be any day and lose everything. Poor toxic lenders have a tough decision to make.