Barbara, that's a good post. I agree with a number of things that you say. It looks to me like a sloppy Form D filing. Understandable in fact for a sale to just two privileged, likely pre-qualified investors.
The negative things are pretty standard for these kinds of filings to, as you say, fully disclose in order to protect themselves. I do disagree though in that, substantial dilution - increasing the outstanding number of shares by 100M for only a $1M return is not so standard. Adding 100M shares does indeed dilute all shareholders. (Note, whoever has suggested that PABN/PRWT is going to be buying back shares to reduce the float is smoking loco weed.)
I think your characterization of ColleenB as releasing the text in some piecemeal way for any sinister purpose is not fair or accurate. It looks to me like she has been sequentially posting the text and I suspect that she is likely transcribing it. (I know I've had to retype all that I have posted.) If she is retyping the document, then I think thanks are in order for what is surely a lot of work.
As you note the issue of Registering the securities becomes the responsibility of the purchasers. But I would be loathe to claim they are restricted for any period as has been suggested.
I also note that many of the things described in the PABN/PRWT story are indeed compatible with things the company has claimed. There are also some things that have only been floated as rumour and as yet not commented on publicly by the company that are consistent. Notably the 84 Lumber thing.
The financial projections are scandalous though. The AFG numbers (30 houses/month), the discarding of the RMC relationship a week later, notwithstanding the relationship with 84 Lumber and the number of stores and loans claimed, the videophones, to mention just a couple.
I have some difficulty believing however, that this was filed on their behalf without their knowledge, especially since we know they have discussed the private placement and the Form D has been mentioned for weeks now. |
