Mr. Travis:
You will note I have posted favorable information, i.e, documentation on the granted Australian patent which AENG for no good reason (IMO) was unwilling to provide. I am interested in this company and will seriously consider investing. Yet, there are many, many unanswered questions which even if answered satisfactorily, would still leave a company with a long row to hoe to commercial viability.
Permit me to ask some non-technical questions of you.
1. Please thank AENG for posting the letter from its Australian Patent Attorney regarding the US application. That step is behind us. Could you request that it now post the Shelby and Teague letters in a similar fashion?
2. As a founding shareholder in AENG, what was your percentage ownership at buy-in (include your firm, affiliates and blood relations)?
3. How was the valuation determined? Was there an independent appraisal performed or any financial analysis conducted as to the present value of the net royalty stream for the expected life of the patent?
4. What is your current ownership percentage of AENG including your firm, affiliates and blood relations?
5. As a market maker in this stock, do you wish to comment on the fourteen separate Form 144 registrations and how that affects the perception of the company. As a seed investor and continuing supporter, do these sales trouble you?
6. Did you act as a financial advisor to the company regarding the most appropriate organizational form given the company's announced business plan?
7. I know that large brokerage and investment banking firms advise companies and trade their stock simultaneously. Sometimes, the executives in these firms takes positions in stocks their company represents. However, it is my understanding that fire walls are usually in place between the trading desk and corporate finance, and most especially between the personal accounts of executives of brokerage firms. Would you be willing to comment on the protection measures in place to permit your firm to comfortably act as market maker, shareholder and company advisor simultaneously.
8. I find the long/short gamesmanship fascinating but it was raised to a new level when you intimated legal action under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute. Does such legal action contemplated include posters here who have asked legitimate, non-frivolous questions about the company and its claimed intellectual property.
Thank you
ww |
