(Second Opinion) Jack, litigation [Global] based on principle, a Big Yes.
<<It's not worth the effort...>>
Each person must decide motivation and purpose for action.
<<...there's no money there.>>
Baloney, I recently posted that Jensen could have obtained a cash flow
prior to this new venture now undertaken, and from such exercised
his duty to shareholders to protect their investment and create
increasing value for gpgi shares. Not doing so put at risk those
shareholders investments as described thru their posts on this thread.
My posts of recent weeks outlined the structure of connecting events
that Jensen engaged in with the person Twiford that violated in spirit
and practice what was required of him as President of Global.
<<IMO let it go and you will sleep a lot better.>>
Not if you decide that Jensen was a crook and you let him get away
with it knowing that you could have fought him using the legal system.
<<Investing in pennies is always risky.>>
True
<<...investors have to also blame themselves for their loss. >>
True, but sometimes a past & current loss can change to a future gain.
<<Global's new process may get previous shareholders some
of their money back>>
Nope, "some" as in dilution Jensen can and may try, but if he does
under the cover of normal business developments he will encounter
his cover being replaced with criminal activity per him knowingly
be aware of his conduct with Twiford.
<<... it's a longshot.>>
No problem, time has been long for most original investors,
and the shot will arrive on target for original investors
and new investors like myself, but Jensen and Twiford may
or may not be allowed to claim on the hit.
<<...management's competence, the real risk.>>
General case studies, yes, but here nope.
Doug wait for GPinkGie and buy big time under 3 cents. |
