RE:RE:This Ruling By This Judge Cost Us An Extra 200,000 Dollars
How anyone can rule in favour of the Board under the circumstances is beyond me. If anything I would have expected anyone with half a brain and the slightest bit of integrity to remain neutral and defer to the experts at the OSC, but alas, here we are. BC isn't exactly known for clean and transparent markets so I guess we shouldn't be all that shocked...the BC securities commission couldn't even be bothered to get involved and they have primary jurisdiction...in any event, and without seeing the actual court ruling, they've explicitly stated that the court ruled in favour of EOM on all matters. The decision does not necessarily usurp the OSCs decision though. They're basically just saying, because we're at odds on this, there's going to be no vote tomorrow. You guys go figure it out before the end of September or the OSCs ruling will stand, the conversion reversed and you can have your vote then.....what this does do is buy more time for the corrupt Board, or let's be honest, their billionaire puppet masters. More time to strategize, more time to waste money, more time to squander the company into default with their secured debenture holders; who would then be able to exercise their rights over the company's primary assets and take it private, leaving nothing to the shareholders. Cooincidentally, the secured debentures were issued under the tranche 2 when we voted not to hand over the company to those crooks. As they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat... and me thinks Tenor has stripped quite a few felines in their day. There's a reason they were brought in. We all know that this fix was in here from the get go. It started with those drip financings before the Trexs deal and then they loaded themselves up with layers upon layers of contingency plans if the first plot didn't pan out. All of their control lies within the Tenor/Trexs deal (Tranche 1 and 2 inclusive). That's what should have received a vote in then first place and, from a securities law perspective, that's what we should be petitioning to have reversed. The material consequences of that contract were so severe that it should never have been executed without a shareholder vote. I'd like to know who funded Trexs as well. That's why they operate through limited partnerships like Trexs. It's easy to disguise the true beneficial owner and the one steering the ship. Whoever it is, it is not Trexs or Tenor. Its whoever provided the loan to Trexs for the purpose of funding this transaction. I want to know who fronted the dough that Trexs used to invest. My guess is the loan to the LP came from Paulson or Amber. Maybe even a combination of the two. Someone needs to seriously investigate that. This definitely complicates things, so it will be interesting to see how the Concerned Shareholders respond. My deepest appreciation to the CS groups for their efforts and the risk they have assumed thus far; both Courtenay's and Rocco's camps. Without them, we'd already be well on our way up Schitts Creek, with our paddles firmly planted where the sun don't shine! BH