InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

fAtnhapy

08/25/10 2:20 PM

#18622 RE: ooag_long #18621

BS, You make a deal you keep your word. No exceptions.
fAt
icon url

Sheepdog

08/25/10 3:03 PM

#18624 RE: ooag_long #18621

Some people sure have an intimate knowledge of what Barnett thinks or doesn't think.

It looks like just another person stiffed by Barnett. Only this person isn't standing still for it.

People want a laugh? Read the agreement on the court website labeled as exhibit A to the motion by Nathan and come to your own conclusions.

Barnett signed it giving a minimum of 40% to Nathan the way I read it. After you add in all of the series D recovered etc, he likely has total control of the company, for what is left of it.

No wonder Barnett has been trying to rid the company of all of that stock. Anybody know if he has returned his remaining 50M shares yet as promised in the PR's?.

I didn't think so.
icon url

grapeman

08/25/10 3:09 PM

#18625 RE: ooag_long #18621

If AEB was smart he would have insited on the Judge trial instead of out of court settlement.
That way Lanza would have to disclose in court to judge the assets under penalty what and where the assets were.
AEB saved lawyer fees for trial,,but ended up with nothing reliable except more contact with Lanza.
icon url

kenco

08/25/10 5:40 PM

#18636 RE: ooag_long #18621

ooag_long, you obviously dont realize this, but the Judge already decided and granted the judgement against OOAG for their liability to Martin Nathan, ie. the original agreement $$$, more importantly, it was a no-show default judgement which means Barnett/OOAG didnt even answer with a defense, the hearing date is to consider further relief in the form of damages along with Nathans attorney fees for this Interlocutory action.