RE:RE:RE:Do we have a legitimate complait?
MTSuit: it behooves me as to why the preferred shareholders could not band together for the formation of a class action lawsuite-for the basic and reasonable position that the preferred shares were issued for participation of said proceeds from successfull litigation not from any
contigency on the company's inability to collect on a successfull award...in other words the plaintiffs herer...SSN was successfull in its bid for reparation-payment of damages and court award for the cancelled bought deal financing that the defendant-the hedge fund pulled out and renegged upon causing material harm to the company and its ability to subsequently raise capital in the secondary markets...so the premise-the sol reason for the preferred shares being issued to common shareholders as participation units-was based on a successfull court ruling in Stetsons favor whereby any and all shareholders of record of Stetson preferred shares would participate-those shares issuance and the preferred shareholders or record participation in the winfall of a court award was not contigent on the company's ability to collect..it was ONLY PREDICATED ON A SUCCESSFULL COURT RULING IN STETSONS FAVOR WITHIN THE SPECIFIIED TIMELINES STATED ON THE PREFERRED SHARES-SO THE COLLECTION OF PAYMENT ON THE RULING IS SECONDARTY TO THE COURT RULING OF AN AWARD TO STETSON OF CLOSE TO $20MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE DEFENDANT...THE HEDGE FUND....OTHERWISE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS WOULD HAVE NO RECOURSE FOR IRRESPONSIBLE AND PURPOSEFULL STALLING AND DELAYING TACTICS AND IF THE COMPANY ITSELF HERE...THE PLAINTIFF...HAD SECONDARY GAIN IN THE NON COLLECTION OF COURT PROCEEDS FROM THE PLAINTIFF...IF THIS SECONDARY GAIN IS EVIDENT-STETSON ITSELF COULD BE RULED/DEEMED AND DETERMINED TO BE COMPLICIT-OR COMPLACENT IF NOT DERELICT IN THE RESPONSIBLE ACTION AND EXPENDITURE REQUIRED-IN THIS SITUATION I HAVE SEEN NOTHING BY STETSON TO IMPRESS ME THEY WERE AGRESSIVELY MOVING TO COLLECT THE MONIES OWED DESPITE THEM SAYING SO IN A NEWS RELEASE-ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDE THAN WORDS HERE AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN MEANINGFULL UPDATES THAT COLLECTION OF SAID MONIES AND COURT AWARD WAS VIGOROUSLY UNDERTAKEN AND I FOR ONE WOULD HAVE TO QUESTION WITHOUT ANY HESITATION-BOTH STETSONS AGENDA IN NOT EXTENDING THE WARRANTS THAN-WHEN THEY HAD THE OPTION TO SO IF THE COLLECTION OF MONIES FROM THE HEDGE FUND DID NOT AND HAD NOT OCCURRED WITHIN THE EXPIRY TIMEFRAMES ON THE WARRANTS-AND INSTEAD THERE IS A PAYOUT OF .01 PER SHARE-PREFERRED SHAREHOLDER-I BREAK EVEN ON THIS THING..BUT THE COMPANY WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE LIKE SOMETHING CLOSE TO ,17 TO 18 PER COMMON SHARE RETIRED-WHEN COLLECTION OF THE MONIES AS PER THE COURT AWARD-IS COMPLETED...SO THEY PAY US OUT FOR NEXT TO NOTHING AND POCKET THE CHANGE-SOME 1700% PROFIT-FOR NOT EXTENDING THE WARRANTS.
I RIGHT AWAY IF HAD THE TIME-AND ENERGY WOULD FORM A CLASS ACTION LAWSUITE GROUP AND CHALLENGE BOTH STETSONS ACTIONS IN NOT EXTENDING THE WARRANTS AND THE DEFENDANT-HEDGE FUNDS STALLING ACTIONS IN PAYING OUT THE COURT ORDERED AWARD IN THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR AMOUNT AS INSTRUCTED...CUZ THERE IS CLEAR GAIN HERE FOR STETSON IN THE WARRANTS BEING RETIRED-ONCE COLLECTION OF THE COURT AWARD OCCURS AFTERWARDS.
THESE GUYS IF THEY CARRY THRU ON THIS AS THEY ARE GIVING NOTICE TO PROCEEDA AND REMAIN UNAVAILABLE FOR CONTACT PURPOSES CUZ LORD KNOWS i HAVE TRIED TO GET HOLD OF THEM ON THIS MATTER WHEN I HAVE HAD TIME TO DO SO...ARE IMO PURE SELF SERVING SCUMBAGS AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED-AND I WOULD NOT INVEST A SINGLE DIME IN THEIR COMMON SHARES OR ANY OTHER THING THE PRINCIPALS HERE HAVE THEIF FINGERS IN OR FOR THAT MATTER FORBES AND MANHATTAN EITHER.
SOMEBODY ELSE SHOULD TAKE THE REINS ON A CAL BEING FORMED...CUZ I JUST DON'T HAVE THE TIME THESE DAYS TO DO SO MYSELF BUT SOMEONE SHOULD CUZ ITS BEGGING TO BE UNDERTAKEN IMO.
SS