Bonnie.... how far will you go?
Convertible preferred shares with voting rights are legal!
It is common practice to take a dead shell that has failed and gut its diseases.... not that the prior investors are a part of the disease process (rather a part of the restructuring). The prior shareholders died along with their unfortunate investment. There is no relationship to the new owner to the old shareholders.... the prior shareholders are innocent victims who did not have the skill set to sell at an earlier exit point. If you don't like the heat in the kitchen, get out!....
Case I: Raptor Networks Technology Inc.
You lost your ass off investing in RPTN.... should you have made a profit, you would have cashed out and moved on to the next play. But No.... you had to lose your ass off to attack the company.... per your earlier quote... for "YEARS".... you can be nothing other than a disgruntled long term investor... and you should be mad at RPTN.... they failed you and you did not get out at a healthy exit point.
In the example you are trying to make relevant, RPTN is going through an SEC restructuring that includes a 10:1 reverse split of prior shareholders... there is nothing illegal about this process... yes... sad that an RPTN investor did not sell his shares and if he/she had 1M shares, they will soon own only 100K shares.... but nothing illegal by the Mineral King.... happens all the time as part of the gutting process to give the new entity owner fresh shares for the company's vault.... and if you are still following me, the RPTN lien holder (CCE) also participated in the restructuring terms that included waiving their $11M dollar lien against the company for a nice pop of new issue shares (post-10:1 split).
And of course, you don't reference who later wrote your referenced quote and it does not matter... nothing was done illegally and the gutting process happens all the time.... with or without whiplash from investors who don't know when to exit their position.
Case II: Raptor Resourses Holding Inc.
You earlier stated that the Mineral King gave himself 300M free shares of stock... after I spanked you again with facts, you agreed these are only "voting" shares and are convertible at a rate of 300:1.... that would be 1M trading shares. Again... nothing illegal or questionable about preferred shares.... it does open the debate too:
a). The camp that believes the shareholders should have full voting rights on any company issue they have no material knowledge on concerning forward looking business opportunities.
b). The camp that is OK without shareholders having full voting rights on any company issue.
Nothing illegal but subject to a new debate.... if you are in camp "a" and don't like the pubished filing with the SEC concerning preferred shares, you sell your position and move on.
So what is your point and why do you keep having to say,
Enlightened
