Replies to post #25719 on APT MotoVox Group Inc. (MTVX)

[diannedawn]

There is still one more UNKNOWN that no one is factoring into anything here...
FROZ had 2 different agreements with Tangiers that included anti-dilution clauses; requiring that Tangiers be kept at 9.5% until 2017.

WAS APT ABLE TO GET RID OF TANGIERS??? AND IF SO, HOW??? WHAT DID IT COST THEM???
People say follow the money??? Great... so tell me WHY Tangiers would give up their 9.5% stake in a company that's "going to DOLLAR LAND"! LOL!!!

Maybe they didn't give it up??? Oh...wait...better recalculate the outstanding shares then!!!

"As additional consideration to Tangiers for entering into this transaction, for a period of five years from this date, if and/or when the Company issues additional shares of its capital stock to any other party during said term, as additional shares are so issued by the Company, the Company hereby agrees to concurrently issue to Tangiers without further consideration beyond the $75,000 cash payment paid by Tangiers pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, additional shares of the Company’s restricted Common Stock in sufficient number such that in the aggregate, when the shares issued under this Agreement to Tangiers initially and the shares issued to Tangiers subsequently pursuant to this provision are combined, equal in the aggregate at least 2% of the Company’s Common Stock, calculated after all such issuances"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486526/000135448813001964/froz_ex1017.htm

"As additional consideration to Tangiers for entering into this transaction, for a period of five years from this date, if and/or when the Company issues additional shares of its capital stock to any other party during said term, as additional shares are so issued by the Company, the Company hereby agrees to concurrently issue to Tangiers without further consideration beyond the $50,000 cash payment paid by Tangiers pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, additional shares of the Company’s restricted Common Stock in sufficient number such that in the aggregate, when the shares issued under this Agreement to Tangiers initially and the shares issued to Tangiers subsequently pursuant to this provision are combined, equal in the aggregate at least 7½% of the Company’s Common Stock, calculated after all such issuances."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486526/000135448813001964/froz_ex1015.htm";

Oh...and the baloney that keeps getting spewed that the 2.7 BILLION commons the APT shareholders got are
"restricted for 12 or 18 months"???

Yes...they ARE restricted...but the TRUTH is no knows (yet) HOW LONG they are restricted for!!!
It does not say in the filing:
"the Company will issue 2,735,501,964 shares of restricted $0.00001 par value common stock to the shareholders of APT"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486526/000135448814001465/froz_8k.htm
The shares that are suppose to be "restricted for 12 or 18 months"; are the PREFERRED SHARES:
"As consideration for the sale of their APT Shares by the APT Shareholders to the Company, the Company shall issue to each APT Shareholder, a unit (an “Exchange Unit”) consisting of
(a) shares of the Company’s Common Stock on the basis of 282.97 Exchange Shares for each APT Share sold by an APT Shareholder;
(b) an equivalent number of shares of the Company’s Preferred Stock, which Preferred Stock shall be convertible after twelve (12) months by the holder thereof into shares of the Company’s Common Stock; and
(c) one (1) share of the Company’s Series C Preferred Stock, which Series C Preferred Stock shall be convertible after eighteen (18) months by the holder thereof into shares of the Company’s Common Stock equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486526/000135448814001321/froz_8k.htm

ISN'T IT A HOOT, THAT ALL THIS MISINFORMATION IS FLOATING AROUND??? NO ONE WILL FIND THE TRUTH IN THE IBOX, THAT'S FOR SURE!!!
BALOGNA FOR EVERYONE!!!

[diannedawn]

Anyone PROVEN that APT Group includes APT Real Estate LLC???

As I pointed out when I FIRST brought this up
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99130018
it would be smart if APT Group did NOT own the building...
but then people shouldn't be including it in asset calculations!

Oh...and how about that POWER BOAT company that the ibox claims is part of this...

GOT ANY PROOF???

BALOGNA FOR EVERYONE!!!