Replies to post #19503 on Bourque Industries Inc (BORK)

[gotmilk]

Perhaps your reference is contained in the BAM Offering documents, of which I'm in possession of, and as I stated, its just words, for where did Kryron Global (aka John Bourque) terminate these rights from Bourque Industries obtained from the Global merger and transfer them to BAM, and even if so, no company update spoke of this transfer, which if done would have made BI less worth than Global.

BUT it matters NOT since the 09/29/2011 Acquisitions were a "Packaged Deal" where Bourque Industries upon acquiring Kryron Global held all Kryron-related patents which consolidated all facets of Kryron technology into Bourque Industries of sales, distribution, manufacturing, future product development, and intellectual property comprising all global Kryron patents and licensing rights.

GOT IT ?

[abcde2]

BAM incorporated in May of 2011 as i read. JBIT had 1.2 Million shares of Bourque supposedly given to it 1 year prior to the merger with GPGI ( 2009 ) from my last share presentation which is easy to view.

So did BAM get the JBIT shares when it was a private company and in effect sell them earlier on in May of 2011 or sell them prior to the merger in Sept of 2011 and come over to Bourque naked?

Has anyone ever seen financial reporting not only for the fact that it would be the right thing to do but----to see where 1.2 Million shares of BORK from Alloys, Kryron Global and BAM actually went.

Naked is an appropriate word as to where did the shares go- is it not? Don't you think, from the readings of the previous to Oct of 2011 financial activity that the thought was clear to see that the Bourque shareholders assumed they would be receiving assets in exchange for the purchases? And those shares were obviously free trading at that point 2 years after their issuance date of Oct of 2009?

There should be no argument on this but a shareholder question that needs an answer and there was an action done that we would like an explanation of at this point?

Here it is again
08/06/2009 John M Bourque 600,000 Part of License consideration
08/06/2009 Carol J Condon 600,000 part of License consideration
08/06/2009 Russell Twiford 200,000 $30,000
08/06/2009 Ryan Owens 200,000 $12,500
08/06/2009 Randy Welden 20,000 $2,500
10/21/2009 JBIT Corporation 1,200,000 License Agreement
10/21/2009 Bourque Alloys LLC 1,200,000 License Agreement
10/21/2009 Kryron Global LLC 1,200,000 License Agreement


Bourque and Condon had, in fact , free trading shares when BORK was created after the merger with GPGI.

So did Alloys and Kryron Global and JBIT shares perhaps were transferred to BAM---the shareholder registry can answer the disposition question and should be called!

And if you count these shares and the dollars brought in from them to BORK you will balance out your expenses for machinery and building costs as previously noted:

10/21/2009 Andreas Siegmund 200,000 $20,000
01/2010 Russell Twiford 275,000 $41,250
02/22/2010 Albert J Doran 30,000 $10,000
Issuances During Year ended 05/31/2011
06/23/2010 Mark Lindsey 100,000 $20,000-Services rendered
06/23/2010 Christopher Hoach 40,000 $8,000-Services rendered
06/23/2010 Joseph Malyniak Jr 5,000 $2,000
07/26/2010 Albert J Doran 50,000 $7,500
07/26/2010 Charmaine Caruso 50,000 $7,500
07/26/2010 Mike Leece 50,000 $5,000
09/03/2010 Myron F Klinkman 20,000 $5,000
09/03/2010 Michael G Leece 50,000 $5,000
09/03/2010 Charles Herrim 40,000 $4,000
09/03/2010 Albert J Doran 100,000 $15,000
09/15/2010 Russell Twiford 400,000 $90,000
09/15/2010 Robert J Nielson 400,000 $18,000-Consulting fees



11/29/2010 Michael G Leece 40,000 $8,000
11/29/2010 Ramona K Stephens 26,000 $-0—Klinkman pd for Stephens
11/29/2010 Myron F Klinkman 18,000 $1,500
12/02/2010 Michael G Leece 80,000 $8,000


Bottom line-----BAM came in naked.

[gotmilk]

Mike, Prior to the 09/29/2011 Acquisitions the only value, as in assets, Bourque Industries had were those Kryron licensing rights, that while folks here valued this company with a pps towards $6 when this company existed no more than a Global rename.

Exclusive rights can't be in two places at the same time, as in BI and BAM.

fraud

[truetrue]

"KZ"- Thanks for more FACTS !! It seems "worst case scenario" speculation is the rule and FACTS are few these days.

The history is simple. I'll submit a short primer to the unitiated and speculators.

FACTS: BAM was a separate business oppportunity started by John Bourque for mfg. certain KRYRON-based products. e.g. It had exclusive licensing rights (for ballistic armor) per KG,LLC.
The forms included a Private Placement Memorandum, a Business Plan and a Pro Forma agreement = NEARLY 50 pages of documents filed with the SEC. BAM, Bourque Alloys (BAL) and Kryron Global,LLC merged with BORK Sept. '11. The merger combined all separate entities w/ separate licensing agreements and /or separate KRYRON patents under one entity: "Bourque Industries."

As a result BORK Shareholders now OWN ALL mfg.rights and patentsof John Bourque business entities. In return, John Bourque, the inventor, will receive a 5% Royalty for 20 years - til 2031 - for the use of his KRYRON technology patents.

BACKDROP: All KRYRON tech. and patents were the sole property of JB and his corporations.

BAM's Plan was detailed and ambitious. The idea: sell 3.4 million shares, raise $5 million dollars for a facility.

BAM was not very successful. Some could argue it's lack of success precipitated or acclerated the downward spiral of Bourque Industries, depriving it of much needed operational funds. Others argue that a successful BAM would have filled JB's trust funds faster and contributed to his narcisism and got us nowhere with new markets since he was still the main impediment to successful contracts.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

EXCERPT

"Dear Bourque Industries Investors,

John Bourque has recently formed a new company by the name of Bourque Alloys Manufacturing, Inc. (BAM) to become the exclusive manufacturer for Kryronized alloy products. Said license gives BAM the worldwide exclusive rights to manufacture Kryronized alloy products for all ballistic armor products and other defense related products for the Military, ballistic armor for law enforcement and all other ballistic applications, the mining and agriculture industries and any other industry as agreed to in writing by Kryron Global, Inc.

The Shares are being offered (“Offering”) pursuant to exemptions from federal registration contained in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. This offering is being made to certain investors (the “Investors”) in Bourque Alloys Manufacturing, Inc., a Nevada corporation that was formed to manufacture proprietary alloys developed by Kryron Global LLC.

Upon completion of the audits and disclosure statements of Bourque Industries, Inc., it is the intention of the Company to merge with Bourque Alloys Manufacturing, Inc. at a minimum of a 1 to 1 share price. The details of this Offering are attached to this email in the form of a for your review."


We are where we are.

The reverse merger resulted in a 60% + increase of shares to 296 million.


As of April 12, 2013 - 4 weeks ago - the NEW, extremely capable members of the BORK BoD and new CEO have NEW "Task Forces" assigned to tackle various aspects of reviewing BORK's troubled history and riding herd on the FULLY REPORTING process which, per the SEC, REQUIRES A FULL AUDIT.

The main questions at this date, (on my list) about the merger that an AUDIT should reveal upon completion and SEC / DTCC acceptance of the AUDIT paperwork sometime in the next 4 months:

Were JB (and others) awarded shares disproportionate to a “reasonable valuation” of the companies BAL, BAM, KGL and especially Basalt Fiber Technologies? Where is the valuation accounting, due diligence review and second opinion of the share valuation for BAL, BAM, KGL and Basalt Fiber Tech.? The PPS of BORK on the 9.26.11 merger date was $2.00. Is that the valuation upon which the share qty. was based on + for a minimum of $226 million ?

Until the AUDIT is complete and the DTC Chill is removed, I'm of the mind that we will have to wait for the answers to the above questions. Legally speaking there are likely to be actions pending that it's best to remain with the attorneys and the BoD.

They have their work cut out for US - the BORK shareholders.