So it was just a difference in the approach, in that case I concede your points US law does not apply here and it should be based on UK and Cyprus based laws.

The interpretation from the prospectus rights and the legal rights of security law can be approached from different angles.
I was relying on the prospectus to interpret and not the legal law, that said while I do not believe that was an entirely incorrect approach,  your point is valid concessions to the law of the state aka the UK and Cyrpus are important since these are the implicit rights shareholders have.

Anyways went a bit into legal/investment based stuff thanks for pointing out that State Laws do give large shareholders rights outside of the Neobee Prospectus.

As an aside Havelock put the Q in their shareholdings so that's why I used the American SEC definition and not a UK/Cyprus based one
It is currently trading as NEOBEEQ   
Q Standing For - Bankruptcy proceedings

Regarding US Laws that do not apply anywhere, linking to an overview of corporate bankruptcy based on an investopedia article seems fine to me even it it is American based but feel free to clarify what you meant by US laws not applying since I didn't really reference anything explicitly american besides investopedia and the sec defintion unless you mixed my post with notlambchops explanation of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11.

As a second aside I kind of find it amusing we have more productive discussions here than in the moderated thread lol
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529946.msg6102905#msg6102905