What has changed between this: (click to enlarge)
Consider the following:
1) Punch assets were valued at 2.8 million (or 135 million shares at the time of purchase)… Mr. Collins has returned 153 million shares. That far exceeds the value of the asset purchase. Mr. Samblis has said numerous times that the asset purchase is completely separate from the employment agreement. Did Mr. Collins return the asset purchase shares, or the employment shares? How could that ever be determined? Of course it will be argued by Mr. Collins that he returned the asset shares, and how could that be disproved?
2) What assets are there really? The biggest asset (some may disagree, (Mr. Samblis has)) is the Punch name. What else could there be… some camera equipment, office equipment, video library of old movies. No real estate was listed in the asset listing, so how much could these assets really be worth? The asset listing listed 1.4 million in “tangible” assets. There is a lot of interpretation within the term “tangible”, such as the film library at $650,000., and Software and Broadcast Equipment at $757,000, does anyone think that might be just a little over inflated? Would they be worth spending 10, 20, 50 thousand dollars in legal fees to attempt to get them back… and would the attempt be successful?
3) The public move to regain assets could be simply the latest maneuver to garner interest in the stock and perhaps drive up the price. Public statements like the Chinese deal, CVN deal to be in 12 airports by the end of 2013, and each airport worth $192,000. in yearly revenue, new network launch to numerous markets around the country, etc, etc, etc. There have been numerous attempts in the past to publically release statements to the investing public that many say have proven to be false and/or never come to fruition. What makes this public statement about regaining Punch assets (that Mr. Samblis has said he didn’t want) any different? It appears the recapture of Punch assets stands even less chance of becoming a reality due to Mr. Samblis’s very weak argument that Mr. Collins never returned the shares used to purchase those assets. Mr. Samblis will have a VERY difficult time proving WHICH set of assets Mr. Collins returned. If Mr. Collins had returned none, that would be a completely different ball game, but as it stands now with Mr. Collins having returned shares in excess of the amount exchanged for the asset purchase agreement, it looks like any money spent in legal fees to get something Mr. Samblis stated is poison… just makes no sense.
Still think attempting to get back “poison” assets makes any sense ??? Perhaps Mr. Samblis can lay out WHY getting these assets back now is different from when he said there would be noting to gain going after them. What has changed ???