Umm...I'm a little slow, does this mean that Ian Bakewell just got 500 MORE votes? ...or 700 more votes?
One could make the case that you're intentionally tanking this security to buy cheaper shares.
500.
What he did was that with some of the money that had been raised by selling shares he bought some back - then the difference between .15 and what he paid for them he added to G&M.
It PROBABLY increases the value of the remaining shares - no way to tell without a valuation of the hardware's current value (as G&M/private shares werent taken for the 200 bought back there's been no undue dilution). It represents a change in his policy of when he allocates G&M/personal shares - but that was never in the contract anyway and I don't see it as unreasonable.
It didn't buy them himself - so it's only helped him if he intends the company to keep running (if he were trying to collapse it then last thing he'd do is buy any back which raises price and reduces cash on hand).
Obviously claiming the G&M shares belong to him rather than the company is still as delusional as ever: but I'm fairly optimstic he'll see sense on that as the buying back would make no sense otherwise.
