News Focus
News Focus
icon url

lowman

07/15/12 10:31 PM

#74399 RE: BayouBengals #74393

"I'm confused..."

You and me, both.

If the full 434M were unrestricted, then why has the float remained at 555M for quite some time now?

This tells me that while 434M were issued on 7/19/11, not all were issued free-trading. This is where unaudited filings suck, since they don't elaborate more in depth, regarding issuance of new shares.

It would not be any stretch of the imagination to believe that a by-law existed where the principal of the CD, once converted, was free-trading, but not the interest and penalties.

And this, now becomes, the fifth speculation (though actually, only an addendum to #1 speculation).

Murphy's Laws alive and well!





icon url

llh222

07/15/12 11:55 PM

#74416 RE: BayouBengals #74393

"debt shares were not restricted...if others were...they didn't make the filings...???...
but would have to be part of the 434,420,100 for O/S to be accurate...which is current
on OTC Markets. "

But the difference between O/S and float is about 54M which is where the "restricted" shares comes from.

But there is no mention of restricted shares, so why the difference?

I also am confused.

GLTA

LLH