Loss leader is an argument that has been used. Where you make a...

Loss leader is an argument that has been used. Where you make a loss on a contract, but that gets customers in the door... it can be OK. There's nothing specifically wrong with that.

But the performance shares are relevant, and they do change things. The revenue targets were part of the reverse takeover. The idea was that the purchase price for the business needed to be flexible based on how the growth took off. The idea was that the purchase price was X if it was a normal growth company, Y if it was a high growth company, and Z if it was a super-amazing growth company. And investors were fine with that, as JK and his lawyers wrote it. And I'd have been fine with that too. Clawback arrangements where if he built an amazing growth company, the sale price adjusts upwards - reasonable.

The problem is, JK wrote the revenue target clauses. And then JK didn't build an amazing growth company. He built a normal growth company. And then he bulked up the revenue with non-recurring, non-growth revenue and claimed the shares anyway. Then he lied about it to investors, and told them it was recurring revenue. Then it turned out it wasn't.

Loss leader on it's own is fine. I'd have no problem with that. It's the constant lies, the numerous times he's been caught out, and everything working together to make JK untouchable that irks me. There were too many coincidences years ago. Now it's just insane.