Looks like he added 1.5 million shares for him and around 650,000 more for his wife. He is over 8 million shares between the two. So part of the deal was for him. I am sure Macary got his. They may have helped us shareholders in the long run but they sure helped themselves. Nevertheless, the largest shareholder believes. I wonder if he got some shares for his friend Barak though some trust. Can't understand why an investor would support a socialist like Obama.
That's the frigging point - there ISN'T A FRIGGING SOURCE that the TDS crowd can use to prove their allegations - AND IT IS THEIR BURDEN TO PROVE THEIR ARGUMENT.
Is this that stinkin complicated??
Joy's sole source of information is hubbard, who doesn't have a clue what is going on anyway. If I had a dime for every piece of false info he gave out, I would have a better return on my money than this stock! He is just a washed up politician and retired cop with nothing better in his life to do than troll this board and live out his fantasy of actually mattering. He doesn't nor has he ever had any facts that aren't public and his defense of management has been totally pathetic. AVI is where it is because of a decade of managment failure, a failed board and at this point, a part time CEO who has done nothing other than talk for 8 months.
Joy tells as many lies and makes up facts about as much as his beloved burgerboy. Losers both!
I've never seen the transcript of any contact Haywood had with AVII. How can you claim this to be fact? (Speculation)
It would be a very crooked judge (or cop) to convict Haywood of benefiting from the Dec. financing. The only eveidence for your accusations is circumstantial. (Speculation) Is it possible that Haywood got nothing in this last financing? Sure it is! He could have bought warrants from any number of holders, and likely at huge discounts due to the current PPS. Seeing the price below $2 could also have caused him to average down. No poster here knows what happened. But Joy's post claiming "Facts indisputable!" is absurd.
<<Bottom line provable truth: The last Pipe occurred and within hours Haywood was on the line with avi @#$%ing up a storm because avi did not come to him for financing.>>
I don't even understand the meaning of that sentence, nevermind the your assumption that the flapping of your gums constitutes some sort of evidence. And if George was railing at management for doing a PIPE, well, he and I are on the same page. But you love PIPEs, don't ya. Especially the Burger CNBC pump-n-dump kind.
<<Now we see that following a deal with the "trust" & Haywood to stand down Haywood is a direct beneficiary of a financing deal.>>
Again, you offer an argument that is at odds with itself. As Ruby pointed out GEORGE HAD TO WRITE A CHECK TO BUY THOSE SHARES AND WARRANTS. What is there about that sentence you don't understand?? Of course, the shares he bought are trading at a loss, but you conveniently ignore that fact.
Furthermore, although you and the other sufferers of TDS (Trust Derangement Syndrome) continue to stridently insist the Trust walked in with loaded gun and forced management to raise capital at such high cost, you have yet to provide one iota of evidence such was the case. And furthermore to that you completely ignore the much larger question that such an allegation presents:
If the Trust was able to what you are now accusing them of, how did they obtain such leverage unless management was basically guilty of every charge the Trust had EVER laid at their feet? Are you suggesting the Trust just strolled into the office and told Forrest what he would do, and how he would do it, and then he just got up and did it without one word of protest PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?
Don't bother attempting to answer the questions. They answer themselves in their obviousness, and your constant beating of this drum will in no way make prove your arguments unless you can provide direct evidence that such malfeasance and coercion by the Trust actually occurred. As the "evidence" you have attempted to foist on this board is circumstantial, contrived, and yet still TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY, I remain completely skeptical of it.
There is little doubt the underwriters required the company and the Trust to come to an understanding before they would front the deal. This simple fact fully legitimizes the actions of the Trust. The cost of the deal was the price the company was forced to pay after years of eggregious mis-management by Burger and a part-time non-invested board. And unlike a PIPE the securities were available to anyone who wished to purchase them at market prices and to date are are on the books at a loss.
Bottom line provable truth:
The last Pipe occurred and within hours Haywood was on the line with avi bitching up a storm because avi did not come to him for financing.
Now we see that following a deal with the "trust" & Haywood to stand down Haywood is a direct beneficiary of a financing deal.
Yum-Yum say's the bear...Yum-Yum!
Anyone prove differently..DO IT!...Don't talk around it; just do it!
You're the one making the accusation, so it's your burden of proof to bear. And it's high time for one of you dickweeds to show up with something other than a bowel full of sour grapes, a spastic colon, and an axe to grind.
What a bunch of pro short B**l S**T. Why don't you supply the proof that Haywood and his friends in the trust DID NOT SHORT AVII.
He can afford to buy shares and receive warrants BECAUSE he and his TRUST allies shorted and then aided the manipulation of the stock down to the recent low. The written words of the short manipulators are still flowing to this board.
My point is that Haywood and the "trust" are insiders and may have influenced the company to accept the the terms of the financing. This allowed them to get more shares on the cheap. Perhaps AVI could have struck a better deal. Of course this may have been the best they could get but how are we to know. Nevertheless, I also said that the fact the Haywood is buying more is bullish and his actions may benefit us all in the long run. As one of the other posters said, we have been given the opportunity to buy even lower than the deal and I have taken advantage of that opportunity. I am concerned that some long term shareholders may have sold at the low and they may have been hurt if this was a back room deal.