My personal opinion is that the continual questioning in regard to Tony's personal background is "invasive of another's privacy". If disclosure was an SEC requirement it would be reported. If it's not required to be reported then it is none of your business unless Tony wishes to share it with you.
But they're not a reporting company, are they? And so they have no filing obligations to the SEC. Note, please, that I'm not the one who's been asking the most questions about Tony. Still, I'm interested. Rebecca said: 1) he isn't an officer; 2) he isn't a 5% shareholder; 3) he has received no compensation from CSHK.
Uh-huh. So why's he working for 'em? Note what Rebecca did NOT say: 1) that Tony has no connection to CSHK; 2) that Tony is not a convicted felon.
Okay, if you're comfortable with a possibly formerly felonious IR guy, fine. For me, it waves a red flag, as TED would say.
Reg S? Well, I'm not sure whether they can take advantage of that till they're a reporting company. Must ask our Legal Chicken. But How, exactly, do you think they plan to finance future acquisitions? Or, for that matter, present acquisitions? A Reg S deal is a convenient way to do it. Hard on the stockholders, yes, but money in the bank. And there was also that post from February? Remember? About how the company had cut a deal with "the shorts" to make 'em stop? Normally (well, okay, it isn't really "normal" but it does occur) this happens in the aftermath of a Reg S deal. The Reg S guys who did the deal short against their convertibles, and..... Things get nasty, the company finally pays 'em off.
And a final quote from you: How the company is structured so long as everything is legal and does not adversely affect common shareholder value is not a major concern of mine.
No comment from me. Anyone else? |
