Fail reading comprehension much? Wow, so many people here are clueless.
Quit claiming that I am saying something that I did not say. I never claimed that there was a contract that forced the company to buy back shares. Nothing of the sort. I said that there was an amendment to a contract and that the purpose of that amendment was to allow for the buyback company stock.
What Seth got very wrong was to claim the the contract may have been amended for other reasons. The amendment was not made for other reasons that are not stipulated in the contract, because if the amendment was made for other reasons, then those reasons would have been put into the 8-K.
Go and suck off all your idiotic boyfriends on this board.
You really are the worst retail investor ever aren't you?? Here is what you said, since you can't comprehend your own nonsense: " The amendment is part of a contract and it is for exactly the contracted purpose, not something else you can dream up and put in your article".
Did you catch the part where you say it is for the contracted purpose??? When you said that you turned the amendment into a contract you tard!!!!!!! So, there for your own stupidity to. comprehend better I broke it down for you.
Obviously you don't understand credit facilities and how they work, why the work, what needs to be approved within a credit facility and probably everything in black and white. The company made an amendment to the facility for already determined monies. They had to do this because a buyback is not normal business operations which is clearly defined under the terms of all credit facilities. In other words the company wanted leeway with predetermined monies in case they wish to do a buyback. You can't do a buyback under a credit facility without approval within the credit facility from the monies predetermined within the credit facility. Once you have the approval this still does not "contract" the company to use those monies on a buyback, but it does give you the flexibility to do so.
You're a schoolyard bully and it shows in your limited brain functions, enjoy your anal beads!!!!!!!
"The amendment is part of a contract and it is for exactly the contracted purpose, not something else you can dream up and put in your article"
Yes, I know what I wrote and I know what it means. I did not turn the amendment into a contract. I am saying that the amendment is part of a contract. Where in there am I changing the amendment? I know what the amendment states. I was simply emphasizing that the change to the contract was for the agreed upon purpose. There is no other purpose for the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for a buyback of up to $28 million worth of stock. I never made any claim that the buyback has to happen to any degree. If you think I did, where do you get that from?
If I said what you think I said, then what exactly do you think that I think that means? You keep misreading what I wrote.
Other than your continued misinterpretation, you are not telling me anything that I don't already know about how the amendment works.