InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

xxxxcslewis

10/31/13 4:40 PM

#248215 RE: loanranger #248210

I am going to work my way through this thing as time allows one little bite at a time.

It does appear Phillip Bradley, although independent, does not meet the definition of "Qualified", and therefore could not be included in the "gang of five".

It also does now appear to me there is a stipulation that John must offer shares for a nominal cost if the agreement is materially breached.

So would the "appointment" of five Qualified Independent Directors by November 15 satisfy and terminate the issue?

Also, if more than 60% of the "group" are no longer included in the "group", has that eliminated the issue?

I am certain Bordynuik, Heddle, Bacon & others have waded through all this with a fine tooth comb, have much more information and have developed a strategy. I am just trying to get my addled brain around the situation.

This whole escapade would make for an intriguing novel.
icon url

exogyra

10/31/13 4:51 PM

#248217 RE: loanranger #248210

It is easier to understand Finnegan's Wake than the language describing this situation. How many years do you think resolution might take if it went to Court? ex.