shares

There would be no reason not to invest in the business - the government takes 30% (or whatever the rate is) of shares regardless.

The brokers already got paid, and had plenty of opportunity to sell their shares if they wanted to.

The whole circle idea was about control for the user of who he shares stuff what content with.

Also, if convertible debt is involved, ask for the total number of outstanding shares after the debt converts.

Secondly, Dotcom's main claim was the hostile takeover, his family shares were just a part of that.

Comparing market shares between these browsers with the assumption that they have the same goals might be a bit off.

You should have stock that's approaching their individual shares, as well as a co-founder title.

One way in which this could happen is if the entities holding those shares are bought (so an indirect hostile takeover).

But they can't actually sell the shares to get money to pay the taxes.

An actual co-op shares food purchases, requires labor like cooking and cleaning, and the members share democratic control over the house's finances.

All that has to happen is that your 'investor' shares constitute a majority and that those shares end up in the hands of someone that kicks out the C-suite and replaces them with others.

So when an individual shares a link to a piece of content, i.e.

Firstly, the line you quote said "all the" shares, the fact that 13% have been frozen doesn't prove or disprove that statement.

All the "shares in the family trust" seized by "Hollywood" (claimed by Dotcom) can be exactly the "6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife (which) was frozen (...) on application by five Hollywood film studios" (stated by Mega).

For example this line: > "More than 75 percent of shareholders have supported recent equity issues, so there has not been any 'hostile takeover', You could plot a hostile takeover in which the end, winning, result is that you own 75% of the shares, that is the takeover.