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.
I was trading it for the spread and when the music stopped I got caught holding a small number of shares, but not enough to worry about.
I don't think there's much anyone can do right now. Even if there were legal grounds for a lawsuit, which I doubt, no lawyer will take on a class action unless there's a pile of assets to go after, like an insurance policy or a deep-pocketed insider who committed some wrongdoing. I don't see that we have either one here.
Aha, that explains it - thx. I don't know anything about ECGA other than what you posted, but your ownership interest in Insynq from the last moment it was a public company to its first moment as a private company is unchanged -- the only problem is that there's no longer a public market for the shares.
Do you still have shares?
What can we do if anything?
Thanks
I have almost the same number of shares.
Thought it would be possible to gather shareholders and sue the company INSQ to buy us out or go public again.
Sorry, I was wrong - I had to go back and look at my e-mails and correspondence from when I was contacting the company. I found out that I mixed up two of my loser sub-penny stocks! I was talking about ECGA and not INSQ. ECGA sent a notice stating that it had valued the company at zero, so the publicly traded company was going private and there was nothing for the existing public shareholders. I followed the procedures set out to do a demand for appraisal rights, and now I still have my shares (as opposed to returning them to the company in exchange for zero), and the next step is that either I or the company is supposed to file a suit so that the court can determine the value of the shares (the goal is that the valuation will be greater than what the company valued its shares at when they offered to pay zero). So I was thinking of ECGA when I answered. I also own INSQ, but with this company, there was no demand for appraisal rights. I believe the company did a reverse stock split, and then the SEC revoked the stock - I believe. I still have 142,857 shares in my account with a zero value. So, I am not sure what can be done about these shares. Sorry for the mix up. If anyone knows what can be done with these shares, that would be nice!
I don't understand the basis for your statement. A corporation has no legal obligation to be publicly traded, or to redeem the shares of any stockholder. I've been stuck with a ton of stock in a company that went private in 1998 -- it is still in business, but there is nothing anyone can do to force them to go public again or buy back our stock privately. Same thing with the former INSQ.
If you'd like to copy and paste a link to wherever you think you read that information, I'll try to explain where you went wrong.
I have the same question because I also took the steps to keep my shares, and now I have them, but the next step is for either the company or the shareholder to file a lawsuit to determine the fair market value of the shares. I am not sure how long the period is for this to get done (and I am also not sure as to what happens if it is not done in a timely manner). Thanks for any information anyone can provide.
Thanks. Is there anything we can do?
As a lawyer with some knowledge of this area, I can tell you that this would be a waste of effort. Stockholders have no legal basis for either demand.
Any INSQ shareholders who still own shares
If yes, are you interested in a collective law suite to pressure the company to buyout your shares?
An alternative could be pressuring the company to go public again.
Contact me if you are interested.
I also hope so.
In hopes they will re-list at a decent pps if the NIR debt gets settled
Honestly, I don't know their reasoning. If they had simply wanted to reduce the number of shareholders of record (a very common goal for companies that want to reduce their administrative costs), I assume that they would have done a reverse split at a ratio more like 1:1000 than 1:7.
After the R/S, there are 107,142,857 shares authorized but only 4,452,020 outstanding.
Then why R/S ?
Thanks for your help.
Not necessarily. I believe that they'd like to get it trading again eventually, but the timing of this reverse split has no bearing on it that I can see.
I never knew that. Does it mean we are closer to trading again?
Private companies can do reverse splits. This one did.
Schwab too 7:1 r/s as stated by JG
R/S? It's not trading
1. Private companies can do restructurings.
2. You can't.
How can they do a reverse split if the company is revoked and how do we get our money out if it's a private company.
Not only that, it will destroy any chance this company has of re-listing and bringing value back to the shares held by investors.
That doesn't make any sense. First of all, I'm surprised that you found a lawyer who believes that this would be a worthwhile class action, given that all possible causes of action are questionable at best and there's no large pot of assets to go after in a settlement, but I guess there are some lawyers with time on their hands.
But suggesting that a lawsuit, which is a civil matter, would result in someone going to jail is just silly.
Class Action suit wheels are in motion...JG to join some of his other crooks in jail...
Wonder why did he offer to buy shares?
Why would anyone of sane mind post a message like yours when I just received a Notice to stockholders of Insynq, Inc re-capitalization and de-listing of securities letter from Colonial stock Transfer.
"The board of directors approved a reverse split (1 for 7) of the company's common stock, which was effective November 7th, 2011. As a result of the reverse split, the companys authorized common stock is now 107,142,857 shares, with 4,452,020 shares outstanding..."
and the last pharagraph on the first page dated January 9, 2012, is as follows...
(forgive me, I'm too lazy to keep capitalizing all the unnecessary words)
"As of may 18 2011 the securities and exchange commission accepted the companys offer of settlement, which revoked the registration of out securities. As such, the company is no longer a public company and does not have any class of shares that are registered under the sec 1933, not the sec act of 1934. This action was due, in large part, to the prohibitive costs of updating audits and the cost of being a public company."
sincerely,
John P Gorst.
chairman and ceo.
I now own a handful of stock in a private shell company.
Typical pink scam operation.
Go screw yourself Mr. Gorst.
You crook.
So the company is doing well, so you inform your worthless shareholders. John are you going to pay the debt? Btw, I believe the problem is SEC, how is that going?
CF
New account...Other than my Father, I am the only other John P. Gorst.
Which Gorst are you?
Ladies and Gentlemen...and the rest of you,
As I have explained before, we are under a boat load of toxic debt, and until that can be settled which I have been working on now for 10+ months, your stock, my stock, our stock is worthless.
With that said, operationally we are profitable and have been for several years, additionally, we are growing our top line revenue at a clip of about 30% per year. Please understand, we are doing this even though we are carrying financial baggage... without it, I believe that we would be growing at a much faster clip. We are hiring people on a regular basis to keep up with growth; we have just fewer than 20 employees now.
Remember, I too purchased over a million shares in the open market just prior to being delisted...we are working on a solution, it takes time.
Your patience is appreciated,
JPG
Happy New Year JG..I wouldn't celebrate too much though :)
So how's it going big guy? :)
Whose word are you talking about, and what is that word? Please explain for the rest of us.
I believe so.
I currently have a firm looking into it....
Don't be so sure...feel free to hop on board when the time comes.
OK, feel free to talk to a class action lawyer. However, I'm quite confident of my response. No one would take this case.
Oh I disagree...
No legal grounds for a class action