Excellent question...
All there is here is the single "asset" in the patents...
And, given they're clearly not trying to make the business a success, rather than doing all they can to try to destroy it and make their residual risks go away... the only potential sources of $ that leaves are takings or rents. Rents could be paid for the use of the assets, legitimately... but, that's what should be happening, not what has been happening... so, payments in rents would have to be for the non-use... which would be flagrantly illegal...
I don't have any reason to suspect that lack of legality would pose any problems at all for the CLYW insiders...
You see the effort made all the time, by management's supporters, trying to convince others that there's nothing really wrong with accepting a little bit of fraud...
And, as you said... IP suppression efforts happen all the time.
CLYW isn't unique in that regard... save in the that the effort here is apparently going to be being exposed...
The only thing that makes any sense here... is payments being made based either on takings, or rents, but, either way, with a focus on payments for enabling non-use.
Either way... it's stealing from the shareholders.
Otherwise, there's always the issue with the connections that you assume that must exist re equity and assets... which often don't exist, or aren't real. So, Turrini might happily give up any real connection that exists now between the shares and the assets... and not find that creates any inhibition to the operation of a stock scam. Most stock scams do operate that way... posturing phony assets, or, posturing real assets that have phony connections between assets and shares...
The utility of having CLYW be a stock scam... and having it be an obvious stock scam... is obviously that it provides an array of suitable excuses to use in justifying the company's failure... and if Turrini can turn a buck on it while providing that element of cover useful to enable the thefts of the assets ? Who cares ?
But, there's that problem with the obstruction of the legitimacy of the corporate governance, again... the contempt of the courts' ruling requiring elections be held...
The company's former management, and their efforts and the products of their efforts, have not ever been legitimate...
Looks to me like Turrini has not ever been an "adversary" of Daic. Instead, management appear they are Daic shills... making the "conflicts" between them that have been postured in the courts... frauds on the courts...
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
