1) Those Preferred C shares were purchased by Mr. Sinkule for $110k, and they did give him control over the shell. The rights/benefits/privileges of those shares are fixed by resolution of the board of directors, which is Mr. Sinkule. Current voting rights were noted as 10,000 votes per share, so he has 10B votes. He also owns 129,501 shares of the Preferred B's according to the company's financial disclosures, so he'll get his payday, eventually, about 35% of the $60M would be his.
2) That's why it's important to note that the change to the corporate charter for the reverse split was filed with the state of Wyoming in conjunction with the reverse merger. With respect to the ANEW corporation, it's changed already, and the corporate charter and related documents as they are is the business being combined. I expect Redwood already knows that, and they wouldn't care provided the $60M buys the equity of ANEW, no matter who holds it. That clause isn't to prevent changes already shareholder approved, it is to prevent new ones. If you really think they won't RS the common stock and that this CEO and the folks who owned ANEW prior to the RM are going let the bagholders have 99% of the $60M, I'll suggest you read Article 7 of the BCA, and specifically the part where it would be terminated if either shareholder vote doesn't approve, remembering that Sinkule owns the vote for LEAS.
3) See #1 above, and I'll add the Preferred C's are currently for voting control only, and are not subject to the RS.
I appreciate the thought provocation and seeing someone actually reading the documents. I really expect the Redwoods shareholders to take issue with this proposal and a contentious process, since what they see is an OTC company whose asset value is $2.5M, and $2.2M of that is self-valued IP, no revenue, hardly any cash, stock was dead until the pump started, and had a total value of $600k. If they're paying attention, they'll have a tough time handing over $60M for that.
The preferred B shareholders, including Sinkule, will also disapprove if there's any issue with the RS, but there really isn't a reason for FINRA to say no as long as it is properly filed.
I won't comment on the math, since it really isn't going to go down that way.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
