Replies to post #194566 on Eternal Image Inc (fka ETNLQ)

[frank69]

On November 8th it was decided that the R/S was needed.
Was it announced then? Seems to me that if they were in a big rush to get this done then they would have filed the paperwork at that time.

I wonder why?Maybe cause insiders were still dumping shares.Of course the faithful were in denial of this.I guess we have to update the truther list.



11-4-2010 update:

Dear Shareholders,

Eternal Image management would like to inform everyone that after careful consideration, we have decided to pass on the previously mentioned funding scenario. This was done for two primary reasons: First, cash flow from our industry partnership announced earlier this year and cash flow from additional products we’ve brought to market are together helping us grow the best way possible: internally from sales. Second, the loan facility being discussed with us was very costly in terms of interest and closing fees.

This slower but steady organic growth is more desirable than taking on a debt instrument or funding the company through the dilution of stock. Management believes it has made the right decision.

Following our announcement declaring September, 2010 as the best month of sales to date, is the anticipation for more product debuts as well as the forthcoming announcement of a new Licensing Agreement.

Thank you for your continued support,

Eternal Image Management

Basser


Common Stock 11/5/2010 679,000 dumped @ .0016 by Nick popravsky


Common Stock 11/8/2010 4,709,484 dumped @ .0025 by Donna Shatter




NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO
WRITTEN CONSENT OF STOCKHOLDERS
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE
REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
To the Stockholders of Eternal Image, Inc.:
This Notice and the accompanying Information Statement are being furnished to the stockholders of Eternal Image, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), in connection with action taken by the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding voting securities of the Company,
approving, by written consent dated November 8, 2010, the amendment of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation (the “Amendment”) to
effect a reverse split of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”) based upon a ratio of one-for-20
shares, so that every twenty (20) outstanding shares of Common Stock before the reverse stock split shall represent one share of Common Stock
after the reverse stock split. The Amendment also reduces the number of authorized shares of the Company’s common stock from 750,000,000
to 100,000,000. The actions to be taken pursuant to the written consent shall be taken at such future date as determined by the Board of
Directors, as evidenced by the filing of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, but in no event earlier than the 20 th
day after this Information Statement is so mailed or furnished. In addition, notwithstanding the approval of this proposal by the stockholders, the
Board of Directors may, in its sole discretion, determine not to effect, and to abandon, the reverse stock split without further action by our
stockholders.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE
REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
Your vote or consent is not requested or required to approve these matters. The accompanying Information Statement is provided solely for your
information.
Dated: December ___, 2010
2
By order of our Board of Directors,
Clint Mytych
Chief Executive Officer



These stocks were dumped after the R/S was decided and the investors won't be told until 12/2/10



Common Stock 11/12/2010 1,447,800 dumped @.0014 Nick Provasky



Common stock 11/24/2010 750,750 dumped @.001 Nick Provasky

1 for 20 R/S filed on 12/2/10

form 4s filed on 12/2/10

[frank69]

Let's go over a little time line here ok?

I'd love too......


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57358638

[frank69]

Were any SEC rules broken by this announcement?

Interesting, the company portrays itself to be growing internally from sales, no loan needed, and the defense is we didn't break any rules?

If not then the only thing that I see that people have a legitimate beef about are the form 4 filings by company officers
Even on the form 4's nobody here really knows if there were any SEC violations or if these were done legally and will carry no penalties.

So if they get away with what they just did it's OK? Hmmmmmmm
sorry even a hint of defending those actions legal or not is a sure sign of ...............



IMO