News 
Market Data 
Discover
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi_lo is a bot. It is programmed to respond negatively to anything positive because they want to keep the price low. I blocked Hi_lo a long time ago because I provided evidence against everything stated by it, but it ignores the evidence and continues posting the same thing...which is why I figured out it was a bot and not worth anyone's time.
If everyone blocked it, it would disappear.
And now we have this scam "acquisition" of the nipple pasties company (LOL!!!) where CIVX never filed the appropriate paperwork with the SEC and FINRA for the acquisition corporate action approval which is illegal.
CIVX didn't bother to file the appropriate SEC paperwork because it knows it will never get the acquisition corporate action approval by the SEC and FINRA because of CIVX's delinquency and missing financials.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
Christopher Martinez who is CIVX's "consultant," unless verifiably proven that he's not the same individual is a shyster.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Why is there no direct link to an actual verifiable post from Cavan about Christopher Martinez, the company consultant not being that indicted, FINRA banned consultant?
Especially with all the lies being spread by pumpers on this board.
He's been the CEO/Owner of multiple companies that he took to the OTCQB and has advised others that have gone as far as the NASDAQ.
Companies with a shell history like CIVX must register with the SEC
https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2020/form-10-registration-statement/#:~:text=Both%20public%20and%20private%20companies,subject%20to%20SEC%20reporting%20requirements.
Both public and private companies can register a class of securities on Form 10. Form 10 is also used by shell purveyors to create inventory for reverse merger transactions that take a company from private to public company status. These shells are subject to SEC reporting requirements.
Q. If a non-reporting company was a shell company twenty years ago, is it required to file a Form 10 to cure its shell status for purposes of its shareholders having the ability to rely upon Rule 144’s safe harbor?
A. Yes, if a non-reporting entity was a shell company during any time in its history, it must either file a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 in order for its shareholders to rely upon Rule 144.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175628353
I cannot nor will I attempt to answer any questions about CIVX since 2006. All I can say, it is a mess.
James E. Shipley
(714) 814-7146
Pump coming this year. Locked n Loaded at rock bottom. It's getting started 🚀
Looks like CIVX is ready to pump
Looks like CIVX is ready to pump. Better get shares before the pump starts.
There was no paperwork submitted to the SEC for this BS scam "acquisition" which is a corporate action that needs to be processed by the SEC and FINRA.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1961378
There are no recent entries and no proper forms were ever filed.
Plus the company that was "acquired" is a complete joke. They sell nipple pasties.
What a scam.
Shipley is filing
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175628353
I cannot nor will I attempt to answer any questions about CIVX since 2006. All I can say, it is a mess.
James E. Shipley
(714) 814-7146
Companies with a shell history like CIVX must register with the SEC
https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2020/form-10-registration-statement/#:~:text=Both%20public%20and%20private%20companies,subject%20to%20SEC%20reporting%20requirements.
Both public and private companies can register a class of securities on Form 10. Form 10 is also used by shell purveyors to create inventory for reverse merger transactions that take a company from private to public company status. These shells are subject to SEC reporting requirements.
Q. If a non-reporting company was a shell company twenty years ago, is it required to file a Form 10 to cure its shell status for purposes of its shareholders having the ability to rely upon Rule 144’s safe harbor?
A. Yes, if a non-reporting entity was a shell company during any time in its history, it must either file a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 in order for its shareholders to rely upon Rule 144.
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
Christopher Martinez who is CIVX's "consultant," unless verifiably proven that he's not the same individual is a shyster.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Why is there no direct link to an actual verifiable post from Cavan about Christopher Martinez, the company consultant not being that indicted, FINRA banned consultant?
Especially with all the lies being spread by pumpers on this board.
Just a denial from a screenshot from a pumper's personal email that can be easily altered doesn't cut it.
He's been the CEO/Owner of multiple companies that he took to the OTCQB and has advised others that have gone as far as the NASDAQ.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Looks like Frank Igwealor isn't a 5% shareholder anymore. Great news for us. $CIVX
The company has said it all:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175628353
I cannot nor will I attempt to answer any questions about CIVX since 2006. All I can say, it is a mess.
James E. Shipley
(714) 814-7146
Companies with a shell history like CIVX must register with the SEC
https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2020/form-10-registration-statement/#:~:text=Both%20public%20and%20private%20companies,subject%20to%20SEC%20reporting%20requirements.
Both public and private companies can register a class of securities on Form 10. Form 10 is also used by shell purveyors to create inventory for reverse merger transactions that take a company from private to public company status. These shells are subject to SEC reporting requirements.
Q. If a non-reporting company was a shell company twenty years ago, is it required to file a Form 10 to cure its shell status for purposes of its shareholders having the ability to rely upon Rule 144’s safe harbor?
A. Yes, if a non-reporting entity was a shell company during any time in its history, it must either file a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 in order for its shareholders to rely upon Rule 144.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
Christopher Martinez who is CIVX's "consultant," unless verifiably proven that he's not the same individual is a shyster.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Heck, nobody has heard from Cavan about anything in ages.
CIVX is a dead stock.
You have never been able to back any of your lying pumps with documentation.
All you do is fall back to your "fill my bid" bullshit.
But we already know your track record with the truth.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174623127
How are your stock picks CNNA, SAPX, GVSI, MEDH, CIVX, and BCAP doing? LOL!!!
You can't seem to pick a winner.
I'm hoping this hilo guy fulfills my bids. It's at low price right now.
I cannot nor will I attempt to answer any questions about CIVX since 2006. [bAll I can say, it is a mess.
James E. Shipley
(714) 814-7146
I'm hoping this hilo guy fulfills my bids. It's at low price right now.
|
Followers
|
205
|
Posters
|
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
10367
|
|
Created
|
09/07/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
| Moderators | |||
| Volume: | - |
AI
