I agree that shareholders paid the loans.
I have no reason to believe that Nixon got a kick-back from dilution money. Toxic dilution typically only benefits the toxic lenders. I've yet to see a case where the companies' themselves get kickbacks from the lenders. Toxic lenders want all the dilution-money for themselves.
The SEC is != FINRA.
The SEC has not charged Nixon (WCVC) with anything other than being a delinquent filer, which is why they revoked WCVC. Neither the SEC nor FINRA will require Nixon to "step away" in order to re-file to go public if his only 'crime' -- from their perspective -- is that he stopped filing.
That Nixon still has operating restaurants is proof that he did not "drop everything and just leave." (I'm not a big fan of how sloppy his 'social media' department is in managing his web-pages, his Facebook pages, and other social media. He has dropped a few balls on that front.)
I don't defend Nixon from the heat he deserved to bear the brunt of, but it doesn't do those wronged any good to make up charges and/or otherwise get the facts wrong.
If Nixon should be 'burned,' it's because he weighs as much as a duck, not because someone gave him a false nose and hat. [<- MPATHG reference.]
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
