RE:RE:Mitec ConsolidationIn my opinion, it is not the last consolidation that is only questionnable. It is all the give away that Mitec's directors did to favor Covalon and Schwartz from the biginning in 2012 and along the last four years : (1) investement of close to 3 M $ for 0.30$ a share while the market price for Covalon.s share was below 0.20$, investment that made Mitec without money left, (2) Borrowing specifically from Schwartz the money for operations (why not somewhere else?) (3) Giving back to Schwartz the investment in Covalon to pay the debt, (4) Buying from Schwartz the IP that was never used for 5 millions shares, making Schwartz the main shareholder of Mitec and preparing the consolidation to make Schwartz the unique owner of Mitec, and (5) Consolidate 1 share to 5.2 millions shares and eliminate all fractional shareholders to make effectively Schwartz the owner of Mitec, the owner of the IP, the owner of the investment in Covalon, and the owner of the 30 M$ of fiscal value of the accumulated losts in Mitec. In my opinion, these are what were planned and are innapropriate behaviors in this situation, not only the last consolidation.
It is never too late to complain against potential fraudulous behaviors. (I would advise all Mitec's shareholders to demand an investigation from their provincial legal autorithies. My demand, a single sheet, took me 15 minutes to complete.)
If the consolidation is done and proved inappropriate, the SEC Commission of Ontario will correct all that and potentially legally penalized the individuals involved in the situation. There are laws in Canada forbidding directors of a public company from doing whatever they want with investors' money.
I just received a phone call from the SEC of Ontario to let me know that my demand for investigating into the situation has been received from the AMF of Quebec, and will be looked at by their complaint department. The Commission will decide if there is anything wrong.
JMHO
PADAP23