Quote from: kslaughter on February 04, 2014, 08:23:28 PM

Quote from: interJ on February 04, 2014, 08:19:31 PM

Quote from: kslaughter on February 04, 2014, 08:05:25 PM

Quote from: shaofis on February 04, 2014, 12:24:22 PM

Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.

Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.

That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.

You made the point that Ukyo could declare bankruptcy. This is why we have to have a fire sale at this time. Should Ukyo declare bankruptcy, the court would put a stay on selling any of his assets, and Active Mining would be stuck until the court confirmed that our lien on the shares comes before other debtors. So, this is the reason for putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders being allowed to trade.

So do you admit that you are willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares while you have unimpeded access to the market?

...and you think this is ethical... how exactly?

No, I am not willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares to have unimpeded access to the market. I am liquidating the shares due to the above reasons.

Quote

putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders

How do you figure that doesn't constitute as anything BUT withholding access to our shares?