It's almost like they're tempting the SEC to decline to declare their S-1's effective.
In the latest amendment one of the changes, presumably made at the SEC's request, was the inclusion of the management agreement which you say indicates that they "bought the energy shots from ISO International LLC".
It kind of does, except it hasn't been signed by the manufacturer...there's emptiness where their dated signatures should be. If I was NDYN and I actually had an agreement signed by the manufacturer, then I would have sent a copy of THAT.
In the original filing they included this statement:
"Our executive, administrative and operating offices are located at 555 El Camino Real Ste A418, San Clemente, CA 92672. The Company uses this address for mailing purposes. Its main operations are based in Oakland, California."
I suspect that the Commission asked to see the lease for the Oakland property/facility or some document that at least had an Oakland address on it...they did so in SIGO's S-1 filing and it took a few attempts to get them to file their lease as an exhibit (only it wasn't quite their lease and it had some terms in it that connected them to a Joseph Wade operation).
Instead of providing a lease or anything else with an Oakland address on it NDYN simply removed this statement from their amended filing and replaced it with this:
"Our executive, administrative and operating offices are located at 555 El Camino Real Ste A418, San Clemente, CA 92672 which are provided by our CEO . The Company uses this address for mailing purposes. The Company uses Amazon ’ s facilit ies for storage and fulfilment purposes and uses a copacker for the manufacturing of its products. As such, the Company ’s CEO and officers work and operate virtually from the mailing address in San Clemente, California."
What happened to "Its main operations are based in Oakland, California"? Will the Commission require a REAL address for the Company's CEO and officers or will the same virtual address that other Wade-related operations use suffice?
The original filing to register 500,000,000 shares at a "Proposed maximum offering price per share (2)(6)" (there actually is no footnote (6)) of $.0005, or $250,000 said "There is no assurance that we will raise the full $22,000,000 as anticipated" and repeated that number twice in the Table. The SEC noticed that :o)
These can't be simple, honest mistakes, but I can't figure out what could be gained from screwing up the simplest stuff so thoroughly.
They said this, which is true:
"The Company has filed for the trademark “Nate’s Well Shots” (serial number 87356004) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office."
They didn't mention that the USPTO filed an Office Action letter with them that requires a response which will render their application dead by Christmas if they fail to respond.
One could easily make a full time job of monitoring these characters. It's more than a little annoying to think about the actual costs that the SEC and the rest of us are incurring in order to process this Registration Statement....especially when the issuer itself paid a fee of $28.98.
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
