Replies to post #51370 on iQSTEL Inc (IQST)

[Boiler_Master]

Read the filing again...

"The Seller agrees to use these funds for the amortization of the payments that it owes to Voyce in relation to the goodwill acquisition contract between Lynk Holding and Voyce Telecom."

"The payment of this loan will be guaranteed with the portion of dividends that correspond to Lynk Holding LLC when the Company makes a dividend distribution."


So he is legally obligated to put the 1.5M IQST is paying him towards that debt repayment. There are also provisions to use any of his share of profits (dividends) towards debt repayment as well. So he won't get a dime of the profits if he isn't repaying the loan to Voyce. IQST as majority owner has control over dividend payouts regardless, and included those stipulations up front in writing. Hypothetically, if he doesn't pay, he won't make any money from Lynk Telecom, will be in breach of two contracts and be sued by Voyce and IQST both, and will be in breach of his obligations as CEO losing his job too. He would have nothing to gain, everything to lose.

It's a very interesting scenario that took me a bit to consider. But I cannot see how he would have any motivation at all not to repay that debt. And considering he is legally selling 51% of Lynk Telecom, his contract with Voyce must have legally allowed him to do so. Therefore, even if he defaulted and they tried to go after his assets, they should only be able to take his 49% ownership and not effect us. That would be a lawsuit between Link Holding (not Link Telecom) and Voyce. That's why I emphasized in my video that the debt belongs to Lynk Holding.

Again, not financial advice. Well, not legal advice either bc this is more lawyer and business law stuff than financial.

[Boiler_Master]

I will also add, the car title analogy is flawed since a car only has one title. One person possesses one title. For a company, it's broken into multiple shares of capital stock. IQST will own 51% of those capital stock shares, Lynk Holdings will own 49% of the capital stock shares. So in court, it's not like arguing over who gets the 1 and only car title. It would be arguing over who gets how many of the shares of capital stock. Voyce wanting Link Holdings to give back their capital stock shares if they default is one thing. But Voyce wanting IQST to hand over their shares that they paid for in full is an entirely different scenario. That would be more like you buying a car from a dealership with cash, and say 6 months later a random bank calls and says the dealership didn't make their loan payments so they want you to hand over your car to them... You didn't borrow anything from that bank, and you didn't sign any agreements with them, the dealership did. So fuck that bank, they have no ground to stand on wanting anything from you.
There were no agreements between IQST and Voyce mentioned in the filing.

Again, not a financial advisor.