Quote from: ||bit on March 18, 2014, 07:22:15 PM

Quote from: mike81 on March 18, 2014, 04:37:25 PM

Quote from: ||bit on March 18, 2014, 04:35:03 PM

Explain that to Labrat. Nobody would have bought the shares if they were static and didn't grow proportionately with hardware. Labrat never sold bondholders that agreement, and he knows it. And of course he knows we know he knows that (it's documented). This is why lawsuits have been a topic for the past couple weeks.

I'm not about to sue. That won't help anyone because the LLC would simply go out of business. Labrat has always been reasonable so i'm not sure what has happened. It would be nice to get some from of explanation.

I don't think anyone will sue if he maintains the spirit of the original agreement. The legal topics came up because the way it was sounding was that he planned to make bonds static. And some of his subsequent communication seemed to carry a bit of legal posturing defending any decisions. So, I don't blame people for discussing legal options - at least in terms of showing willingness to legally counter such a reverse on the agreement. If he did do that, the LLC going out of business might be the best thing, even if liquidating meant less of a return to investors. Nobody would want to see someone get away by dishonoring an agreement and then ending up wealthier off the backs of sucker investors.

Actually the ONLY thing that has been done so far is that the bonds are now static, in opposition to the original agreement. LR has stated that he will try and do "something" for the "original" bond holders, whatever that means... No more info from LR, period. Anything else is pure speculation, good or bad.