InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1547
Posts 7854
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 02/26/2010

Re: stockrider post# 8786

Tuesday, 07/26/2011 1:37:44 AM

Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:37:44 AM

Post# of 28290
Completely wrong. First Kodiak was never even brought up as a financing option by PGIE. Second it was announced by PGIE a while back (after previously leading investors to believe that they had already submitted an S-1 filing) that they had decided not to do an S-1 filing for the two financing agreements (one with Lead Dog and one with AGS Capital).

Here is an example of the misleading about an S-1 filing being submitted to the SEC (which obviously it never was or it would have showed up on the SEC edgar site while it awaited SEC approval):



Here is the PR where they announced they were no longer considering an S-1 filing which automatically killed the Lead Dog and AGS financing possibilities:

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=47605668

PGIE said that they have decided to seek other financing options after leading investors to believe that an S-1 approval and the subsequent financing was eminent.

Personally I think they were afraid to do an S-1 filing because they are trying to avoid the scrutiny of the SEC especially since the filing would have to include detailed disclosure on everything and this company won't even do a basic disclosure filing for their financial statements or share any disclosure on share distribution.

Just one more example of the many things that PGIE said that ended up not being true already.

First investors were misled about the two Kentucky Oil Refinery deals being closed. Those are both terminated and off the table. Then the S-1 filing (which would include the Lead Dog and AGS financing deals since they couldn't happen without an S-1 approval). Then the first Russian gas/oil deal. Then the two fake Russian/Turkish based company agreements.

I may have missed some others.