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.
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.
Senility is the gift that keeps on giving. Honestly, this morning when I read the poem, I thought you were the poet, not me. I will spend the next few minutes trying to stop laughing - damn, I knew it looked familiar!
Decatsmeow, thank you for fond memories of your poetic brilliance and of VHUB's history in general. Indeed, I do check back here every few weeks, and I'll probably never understand who is buying and selling minuscule numbers of shares worth something barely more than nothing. Right now, I'm particularly amazed that the 1:200 reverse split has in fact markedly increased the total market valuation of the company (i.e. each share is now worth substantially more than 200 times what the stock was selling for before the reverse split was effectuated).
Just for the fun of it, I just now Googled Kyle Winther (for the newbies to this board, he's the guy who ran VHUB...apparently into the ground when there was no backup factory to produce the products when the Chinese factory became uncooperative), and you'll find him at http://www.winthcowealthmanagement.com/ Clearly the best training for the management of others' wealth is to have an experience of personal failure. On the other hand, the young couple's baby is adorable (give me some leeway here, as I'm 73 and doing the grandfather thing is the highlight of my life).
As ever, I wish everyone well here. There is so much more to the VHUB story than probably any of us will ever know. But for right now, I'm not smart enough to comprehend how a corporate shell is worth $66,000 (per CNBC that's what the total market value is) - and if there's anything here more than a shell, what assets could actually be left?
Bernie
Lumpy9200, I'm appreciative of your positive comments towards my post. Too often on this board there have been all sorts of "personalizations," that someone is either a pumper or a short. My own history is that, just from an academic viewpoint, I was curious a few years back about the pump and dump phenomenon, and there was some discussion at the Seeking Alpha website that VHUB was an example at that early time. For the record, I am exceptionally risk averse, so I'm not in the penny stock market at all, but I have enormous respect for risk-takers.
My particular curiosity at the moment with VHUB would be regarding how many shares are truly outstanding, as a vulture lender jumped in late in the company's game and had the chance to turn the loan into a large amount of newly issued shares. With no SEC filings for a long time, who can know?
Yes, I'll keep on checking in here, primarily to see if any of the old-timers have counsel to offer.
Again, good luck!
Bernie
Thanks to all of you for fond memories!
I don't have,and never have had, a horse in the VHUB race, but I've followed VHUB for a number of years, and I have a long and undistinguished posting history in this thread. I've been alternatively bullish and bearish (generally at the wrong moments for each) as the stock/company evolved from:
1) an apparent pump and dump (see URL presented a little later on here)
2) to a viable operating company with great prospects
3) then to a non-viable company (as management relied on unreliable suppliers and didn't have a backup supply plan)
4) and finally to being absorbed for next to nothing in a takeover.
The apparent track for VHUB now is that its shell has value, and the market will soon figure out what that value is. ..which is history repeating itself per the next paragraph.
For s@#ts and giggles, here is the earliest history for VHUB:
http://promotionstocksecrets.com/dogginn-inc-dogi-soon-to-be-vapor-hub-international-inc/
I wish only well to the current community posting here recently, and I similarly wish well to any of the old-timers who check in upon occasion.
In case anyone is interested, the Winthers can be found at:
http://www.winthcowealthmanagement.com/team
I was just Googling Kyle out of curiosity as to whether he'd evolved out of the vaping industry, and the family's company website showed up.
FWIW, I never did invest in VHUB, as contrasted to having followed it (and occasionally commenting upon it over several years as earnings reports were issued), having become curious as to if/how/when the "pump and dump" commentaries might materialize. Reference to: https://seekingalpha.com/article/2245733-vapor-hub-international-a-stock-promotion-that-will-end-ugly
I wish the old gang here well.
...and WOW for the volatility as well! I wish the person who bought 300,000 shares this afternoon for .44 cents, only to see a 22K share trade at .2 cents diminish his/her investment by more than half within about an hour and a half, could come on the discussion board to tell us what s/he sees in this company.
BobKS, that's a great start which you've provided! I would respectfully question one item and add one item in regard to your list.
As regards the question, you've reached the logical conclusion that the contracts that Kyle, Lori, and Jake (some or all) have with the buyer are "lucrative." That's of course logical, but you have no documentation, and so the actual wording of anyone's complaint to the SEC should be a little restrained in that regard, I would believe.
Where I'd really go after defendants would be in regard to the 10Q which reported the record earnings for the first fiscal quarter without saying squat about how the company had, presumably already by the time the report was issued, stopped having products manufactured. Such a non-disclosed subsequent event is a serious matter, for both the company and most probably its auditors as well.
Good luck!!
decatsmeow, thanks much for the reminder of better times and of greater hopes that were. It was a kindness on your part not to attribute my post #6608 back to me, as I was ever so wrong as to what was going to be with VHUB. May all your other ventures turn out far better than this (and may I stay with my day job, which is retirement)!
Good morning, z100,
Your guarded optimism on this thread has made for interesting reading. Regarding the singing of fat ladies, in my opinion there is a chorus of fat ladies, and while I would imagine that most of them have nearly completed their arias, it makes some sense to go over the roster:
1. Awhile ago, there was an intraday spike in the stock up to as high as 1.5 cents. You would make the case that there can always be another one or two of these ahead.
2. There is the Magnavape litigation regarding which there has been no reporting in weeks. Again, you'd make the case that anything - meaning a good thing - is possible.
3. There is the "fat lady of reverse mergers." Just as VHUB got its public-company start as a reverse merger into DogInn, perhaps the corpse-shell of VHUB would be made available and somehow the final shareholders of VHUB would benefit, just as the final shareholders of DogInn did three-plus years ago.
4. There is the out-in-the-future fat-lady hope that litigation against VHUB and its officers/directors by a class of shareholders would be fruitful. The challenge is that Nevada law would force the plaintiffs to show that the defendants acted with something worse than incompetence, which is really hard to prove.
5. One of our board-colleagues here brought up the possibility that the Winthers didn't get enough votes in their direction a week ago, and somehow that would lead to PLY increasing their offer for the company.
6. Finally, there's a hail-Mary fat-lady hope of going after the auditors, given how the first quarter financial statements showed record results for the company and (perhaps) masked the train coming through the tunnel at the shareholders.
So while I would believe that it would be a real stretch for any of the optimistic scenarios to materialize, it is true that there are a bunch of ways that events could, some with more imagination required than others, work out for shareholders.
Of course, I hope you "get the last laugh" in this discussion!
Good afternoon, Bob,
Copied from Page 56 of VHUB's last SEC filing:
The Company’s headquarters are located at 1871 Tapo Street, Simi Valley, CA 93063. The Company’s phone number at that address is (805) 309-0530.
Good luck in finding Lori!
Good evening, Hostastock,
I'm sorry to say that I have no unique way of learning what was the outcome of the special VHUB meeting held today at 9 AM. If any of the gang here want to contact Mr. Fife and ask him how many shares he held as of the record date for voting privileges and how he voted (and to tell him how much you look forward to his services as a witness in your legal pursuits), have at it.
If he voted multi-millions of shares in favor, then the various proposals are highly likely to have passed. If he voted no or abstained, and is almost as much of a victim as the gang here (though his low entry prices to the stock will almost surely give him a profit overall, though nowhere near as much as if the company had been run competently), he'll likely be pleased to make your acquaintance.
All good wishes going forward, my friend...
Norfolk, let me offer an answer to your question regarding Lori's reluctance/refusal to respond to the various questions. Begin by putting yourself in Lori's shoes as contrasted to the/your objective reality of being one of a number of preyed-upon and angry shareholders.
1. What is Lori's objective at this moment? ...to get as many affirmative votes as possible to the proposals being voted upon.
Apparently it is better for her and the family if the proposals are all adopted. ...and from a purely objective viewpoint, I really can't figure out whether the minor shareholders do better with the proposals being adopted or not. Some here have expressed that the failure of the vote would induce PLY to increase its offer, and others would believe that PLY would just let the company run itself totally into the ground, leaving all the shareholders with zilch for their shares.
2. What would she believe to be irrelevant to a shareholder making a decision on which way, if any, to vote? ...she'd believe that "how we got here" really doesn't have a lot of meaning right now as contrasted to what makes sense right now in terms of casting or not casting a vote.
3. What is keeping her from "telling the whole story"? First, it's embarrassing how much of a fustercluck they made out of their manufacturing challenge. Second, their lawyer must be telling them to admit to nothing. Ironically, admitting to incompetence might help out the Winthers as (per HM on this board) the Nevada laws limit officer/director liability to bad faith versus incompetence. But it's really hard to admit one's incompetence. Still, don't ask me how to answer the question "...but what about having buried the problem to the point where nothing was mentioned in reporting record Q1 results?" I guess incompetence sometimes leads to trying to hide incompetence.
4. Why is she avoiding you in particular? She knows you're not going to vote affirmatively, so why should she subject herself to scorn.
All that aside, often the written word doesn't convey "body language," so you may just have been asking a rhetorical question rather than seeking an answer. If so, sorry to consume your time. And if you were asking a true question, I hope that I've provided a reasonably valid answer.
BobKS and HM, I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive here and the concept has already been rejected such that I should not bring it up again, but the CPA firm whose name is on the final 10K (Hall & Company) might be inspected by your lawyer to see if it might be a source of some relief for the shareholders:
1. The audit opinion letter is patently faulty - see the sentence "As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has no revenues..." Note 2 says nothing about the manufacturing mess, and of course VHUB had record revenues in its FY2015-16.
2. The opinion letter is dated October 13, 2016, and even the Subsequent Events section of the audit report is silent as regards the manufacturing mess.
I would imagine that, in the case of any finding against the CPA firm, the CPA firm's liability carrier would likely go after VHUB and/or its CFO and CEO for having misled the CPA firm.
As ever, I'm not a lawyer, I've been retired for more than four years, and I didn't supervise any financial function for the last nine years of my career when I was serving in an aspect of healthcare regulation. So please just take these thoughts as you would the first step of a brainstorming exercise.
In whatever way you proceed, I wish you only success and satisfaction.
Good morning, HM, just a few thoughts this morning in response to your post:
1. First, there is no reason for you to be sorry that you are still "lurking" here post-sale, as you have a strong vested interest in how this drama will play itself out over probably years of litigation. For the moment this is the best venue for discussion, albeit a non-confidential venue (if Lori/Kyle and/or attorney isn't reading everything that goes in here, they've crossed back from corruption into incompetence as the predominant trait, as hard as that would be to imagine).
2. Heck, I'm here even though I never bought a share and was following the company initially only to see what happens to a company that is the subject of a pump-and-dump in which there was a failed attempt to victimize me back in Spring 2014. I have tried to be a good "analyst" and a good friend to this community so as to justify my existence here - and you truly have been the model of a good analyst and a good friend to this community.
3. Your comment about "selective ethics" is priceless, as selective ethics probably is the hallmark of the absence of ethics.
4. Presuming that the "Company B" offer was turned down because it was deemed unsavory (your word) and that the offer was deemed unsavory because Kyle/Lori might feel about marijuana even as negatively as I feel about it (which would surprise me greatly), nonetheless the offer should have been explored based upon the overarching criterion of what would be best economically for shareholders. If there is a price to be paid for being ethical - and there often is - the price cannot be shifted from the ethical person to innocent third parties, the rank and file shareholders in this case.
5. Everything above notwithstanding, it's a question beyond my capabilities to answer whether abstention from voting or voting nay to the proposals soon coming up for vote best will serve the economic interests of the rank and file shareholders. As a general principle, acting out of anger or spite generally does not accomplish the intended result. From a rational viewpoint, I would imagine that somehow one's "logical" vote might revolve around the question of whether the "shell" of VHUB has economic value for a reverse-merger scenario and what voting scenario would lead to the rank and file shareholder community deriving the benefit of the shell's being utilized, much like how the DogInn shareholders reaped the reward of VHUB running with their shell three-plus years ago. I'm sorry that I'm way out of my league here, and nothing above is intended to slight the righteous anger of the screwed-over masses who post here.
This is probably enough bloviation for a whole month, not just a spring morning, so I'll just wish you Godspeed and, like Snagglepuss of the Pixie and Dixie cartoons long ago, exit stage right.
Per your post: "And they do have a manufacturer, Jasper." Let's run with that for a few moments...
Jasper has Mr. Li in common with PLY, as was learned in the history section of the proxy materials coupled with confirming in the California state records that Mr. Li is the registered agent for PLY (this is all in some old post of mine on this discussion board). So the question to Lori becomes "why did Jasper stop manufacturing VHUB products - was this part of a plan by Mr. Li to take over VHUB on the cheap, and if so what legal remedies were considered by the VHUB leadership? And by the way is there any connection between Mr. Li and ijoy?"
...and once again per your post: "I vote dishonesty because the ijoy situation occurred in July and the news blackout started on January of '16."
I'd believe that "complete incompetence" in not having multiple suppliers either supplying or ready to supply as needed turned into "complete dishonesty" either because the company was being extorted by Jasper or the executives were being offered a soft landing by Mr. Li (and some protection for the VHUB workforce as a whole, I'm guessing) if the VHUB shareholders would be left in the dark.
The company went through a flock of CPA firms along the way, and that's always a red flag. Your attorney will make something of that, I would guess.
One last question for tonight:
Lori, why aren't you advising us in regard to whether the shell of VHUB will be used as the instrument of a "reverse merger," much like how VHUB got its start via DogInn, and if so how the then-current VHUB shareholders can/will benefit from the use of the "corpse" of the company?
Norfolk, I'm a bit rushed, so this list will not necessarily be in any logical order as contrasted to stream of consciousness. Lori, why did you:
1. ...never update the shareholders with new sales and earning projections after you presented at the "micro" capital conference, thus leaving overly optimistic projections as the last "clue" shareholders had of where you thought the company was heading?
2. ...never repudiate the pump and dump of Spring 2014, as having that situation on the record kept potential investors from investing in the stock?
3. ...make loans to the company, and will you waive your right to repayment in the process of winding down?
4. ...did you not mention in your FY2016/17 first quarter earnings report that you were already in a disastrous second quarter due to supply-chain problems?
5. ...did you turn down the offer of "Company B" as was mentioned in the proxy material section on the history of the company's decline?
5. ...did you not more prominently disclose in the proxy materials that Jasper Manufacturing and PLY are related? In other words, were you in essence extorted to accept PLY's offer because Jasper was squeezing you as regards producing your goods at a fair price?
6. ...did you let your auditors issue financial statements that some might construe as materially misleading in regard to items referred to above?
7. ...did you not report further on how the Magnavape litigation is going after the recent settlement conference?
8. ...are you and the executive group as a whole producing profits for PLY already while producing losses for VHUB?
9. ...did you get into the mess with ijoy, as contrasted to staying with domestic manufacturers?
I'm sorry, that's all I can come up with, given my time constraints. Hopefully, the wiser among the group will come up with what I've missed.
Yeah, Hostastock, the e*ig bankruptcy at first glance looks like VHUB on a much larger scale, and the legal counsel to be retained in the VHUB case may learn a thing or two by consulting with the plaintiffs' attorney in the larger case (I'm assuming that there'll be some legal action there).
I should add that it's maybe a little vain of me to believe that I guessed correctly regarding the company to which you were referring in your post. Don't hesitate to tell me that I should "try again."
Finally, the most curious part of all that's gone on here in recent weeks is that, as someone (maybe it was you, sorry that I've forgotten) pointed out, Magnavape could have settled with VHUB just by buying out VHUB. The Magnavape lawyer could have said: "Here's two million dollars or whatever number for that intellectual property we borrowed from you. OK if we just keep that intellectual property now, and you'll throw in the rest of VHUB as part of the overall settlement?"
Good day, Sir.
HM, yes, all of us learned from our time together on this board, though the lessons will probably vary across a broad spectrum. For the moment I can only imagine what the poor Shlemazel (sometimes only Yiddish will do) - the guy who probably bought at 1.5 cents yesterday and sold for half a penny today - must be feeling. I do hope that one or more of the more recently unfortunate folks will post on our board here and share how they got roped into buying a stock that the key executives buried in their most recent two SEC filings regarding proxy statements.
Even though I don't invest in penny stocks, the "free" lessons I learned here may be worth sharing:
1. If a stock has a pump and dump history, it should probably be avoided on a lifetime basis, not merely be "suspended" for some number of months or years.
2. Family companies with family/corporate transactions, no matter how well explained in SEC filings, probably ought to be avoided.
3. If a company stops maintaining that part of its website pertaining to shareholder relations, that's a sign that it's time to sell the stock.
4. If a company states that it's looking for additional capital and more than a year goes by without even a progress report, that's sufficient reason to exit the stock.
5. If a company makes public its multi-year projections and then doesn't report on how subsequent financial results would impact those projections, that's a big warning flag.
6. On the "soft" side of lessons, I've learned what a decent core group we've had on this board during the past year or two. I hope that whatever legal steps you take will prove rewarding (lest I forget, consider getting depositions from the market makers as to what, if anything, they were told about how the company was doing and when they were told).
...and now it will be interesting to see what further gyrations will go on with this stock, as soon one of the key questions will be answered: were the key players in VHUB eager to go private via PLY, or was the key player in PLY eager to go public via the shell/merge route with VHUB (just like how VHUB began as a reverse merger with DogInn)?
Good luck to all!
Thanks for your appreciation, BobKS - it actually means a lot to me!
Getting back to substantive remarks, as regards VHUB sure looking like it's doing business as usual, please recall an earlier post of mine in which I documented how Jasper Manufacturing was VHUB's manufacturer before ijoy, how Mr. Li is the main cog in Jasper, and how Mr. Li is again the prime cog in PLY. So, of course Jasper is back to manufacturing VHUB wares and PLY is getting the profits.
Now if your legal team can put the final piece of this pie together, namely what if Mr. Li has something to do with ijoy, you're going to have the time of your life in the next few years following the happenings of an international legal dispute. I would have written the prior sentence even in the absence of ijoy being a Chinese company and Mr. Li having a name which sounds as if it may be Chinese in origin (important rule I follow - never make a presumption of nationality based upon only a surname, as sooner or later one gets into trouble that way).
I'm saddened that you're limited to three posts daily, as you're an excellent poster here. May you be one of the rare people who still make good decisions on what steps to take, even when justifiably angry.
I'm hesitant to write "one last thing" here, because it may not turn out to be the case.
The most fascinating piece of the puzzle to me is the situation of Mr. Fife. If he votes his shares in favor of the proposals at the upcoming meeting, it's entirely possible that his shares plus the three executives' shares could put the affirmative vote over the top. If he decides not to vote, or decides to vote in opposition, the gang here may have the best ally imaginable in terms of pursuing legal remedies.
The gang here will also seek to confirm, I would believe, that Mr. Fife had no information available to him that was not available to you all if he had been selling stock during the time that the general stockholder community would claim to have been misinformed regarding the viability of the company. I have no reason to believe that he did anything improper, plus I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know it even if he did it. I am just logically of the belief that, presuming his integrity (and there is no reason to believe that a toxic lender has ethics any different from the rest of us), he can be very helpful to your cause.
BobKS, the best part of retirement is that I can determine more than before how I'll devote my energy, and the cause of the gang here is a very worthy place for me to be concentrated. So, just for "s*its and giggles," here's an excerpt from the risk section of the last 10Q the company filed. I believe that this has a November 21, 2016, date attached to it. It's up to you and to your legal counsel to figure out if this disclosure is sufficient given the known catastrophe of the manufacturing situation...
We use third party contract manufacturers to produce and finish our vaping devices (“Mods”), including our Limitless Mechanical Mod, from facilities located in both Southern California and China. Our Mods, which are made from a metallic material such as steel, brass or copper, are custom machined to meet our design specifications. Once machined, unfinished products are delivered to our location in Simi Valley or to a third party service provider to be buffed, polished and to add various treatments and embellishments, such as paint and engravings. Finished products are then held in inventory for distribution and sale. In the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we relied on three manufacturers to produce all of our Mods. Although we have relied on a limited number of manufacturers to machine our Mods, we believe manufacturing capacity is available to meet our current and planned needs. We do not currently have any long term agreements in place for the manufacture of our Mods.
With respect to our custom designed atomizers which we market and distribute globally, in our quarter ended September 30, 2016, we sourced these products from one manufacturer located in the United States. We believe that suppliers for our atomizers are available to meet our current and planned needs.
We source our proprietary E-liquids (such as our Binary Premium E-Liquid) from an ISO Class 7 certified manufacturer in the USA, which helps ensure their purity and quality. In addition to sourcing our own e-liquids, we also purchase e-liquid from other reputable American suppliers for resale through our distribution channels.
While the last sentence of the first paragraph tells a lot of the story as regards the long-term challenge of getting a supplier or two contracted, it says nothing about how things were already in a catastrophic state at the time the 10Q was released. You and your legal counsel get to figure out if the 10Q was fatally flawed and how you'd assess the fault between the company and its CPA firm.
Have a good weekend!
Good morning, BobKS,
I'm hunting for the misleading commentaries from Kyle and company. Without yet cross-referencing to the ijoy timeline (I'll get to that soon enough), here's an excerpt from Page 21 of the most recent 10K which has a publication date of October 13, 2016:
We depend on a small number of third-party suppliers and manufacturers for raw materials, components and certain of our electronic cigarette products. We depend on such suppliers to supply materials, components and products in a timely manner, in adequate quantities, consistent quality and at reasonable costs. An interruption in supply and or consistency of our products may harm our relationships and goodwill with customers, and have a materially adverse effect on our cash flow and our operations.
Although we believe that several alternative and redundant sources for our products are available, any failure to obtain the components, chemical constituents and manufacturing services necessary for the production of our products could have a material adverse effect on our business and prevent us from timely execution of our business plan and may result in additional expenditures of time and money in seeking viable new sources of supply and manufacturer alternatives.
Now here's an excerpt from Page 27 of the initial set of proxy materials:
In May of 2016, the Company began to have IJOYGROUP Co. Ltd., a manufacturer based in China (“IJoy”), co-design and manufacture its “Limitless” branded vaping products and the Company received its first shipment of products from IJoy in June of 2016. The Company continued to receive product shipments of its “Limitless” branded products from IJoy until August, 2016. After this time, IJoy failed to supply the Company with products despite the Company’s continued efforts to secure supply, and purportedly manufactured and sold products under the Company’s “Limitless” brand without consent. As a result of not having an adequate supply of its Limitless branded products, the Company’s revenues significantly declined, particularly in the final three months of the calendar year ended December 31, 2016 and its working capital was significantly depleted.
So I would believe that the sh*t hit the fan in August 2016 and that the 10K that followed was very incomplete as regards stating the extent and seriousness of the manufacturing problems.
...and that's why I've written a few times that you might consider the CPA firm as one of the "problem parties" as you go about assessing blame.
I hope I've been helpful here and that you will find success in the legal avenues you'll be taking!
Tyguy, it is two weeks today from your post #7617 in which you asked the very same question as to what's going on with VHUB. H-M's post #7626 later on March 2 presented a simple but well-stated version of what had gone on with VHUB.
In the intervening time from March 2 until today, VHUB has distributed proxy materials for an upcoming shareholders meeting which will put a fork into the company, pending one of three miracles (and the definition of miracle is that the particular happening would be expected only by nincompoops):
1. Fearing litigation, PLY increases its offer.
2. The Magnavape lawsuit in which VHUB is the plaintiff gets settled in VHUB's favor, and the settlement would actually be largely collectible.
3. The fastest lawsuit in history would be filed and settled, whether that be a suit against management for some version of "bad faith" in having worked for PLY while still serving as VHUB management or a suit against the auditing firm for not reporting as a subsequent event in the financial statements of the first fiscal quarter that the company doesn't have a manufacturer anymore for its product line.
I am sorry not to be able to provide you with an answer to soothe your regrets, and I hope that whatever lesson you learn from this debacle keeps you from what would otherwise be more catastrophic losses down the road.
If the folks here interested in pursuing legal remedies might be looking for some pathways to explore, take a look at a couple of VHUB 8K filings from 2014:
Here is the announcement of Andrew Birnbaum's arrival as CEO, taking Kyle's place in that role:
[url]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1515718/000151116414000169/vapourhubform8kappointmentof.htm
[/url][tag]Welcome Andy[/tag]
Here is Andrew Birnbaum's resignation letter:
[url]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1515718/000151116414000385/vaporhubletterofresignation.htm
[/url][tag]Bye Bye Birnbaum[/tag]
Mr. Birnbaum did not have a long tenure at VHUB, so perhaps there is a story to be learned which might help the cause.
Good morning, decatsmeow,
1. As an aside, you answered a long-simmering question I've never really had asked anyone, namely whether the voice to text technology is any good - I've seen enough Dragon software commercials to become curious - and clearly based upon your example, it is.
2. Moving along to a substantive matter addressed in your post, your comment about computer-generated trades does reinforce the point that you, CashByers, and others have made about the value of technical analysis, especially in larger cap stocks where there'll be lots of technical algorithms at play (and there can become an automatic following of the herd when some technical-formation milestone has been reached).
Have a good day.
Sorry, it was dc_key to whom I responded privately awhile ago - my bad.
Also, I'd certainly second your comment about the differences among betting/investing and technical/fundamental approaches. I do believe that, in regard to playing the game, the nature of the game is really harder to fathom in the penny stock world where there is an additional layer to navigate, namely who's basically honest and who's questionable.
Good afternoon, decatsmeow,
Buying back in is purely a bet that something unexpectedly positive will happen, like value from the post-liquidation shell accruing to the last bunch of shareholders or PLY raising its price to try to cut off litigation possibilities or a belief that lawsuits against the company, its board, and/or the company's auditor will materialize into something meaningful for shareholders. So your decision depends upon how much you enjoy pure "crap-shoots."
Other than that, I think an e-mail from me from a happy hour a few weeks ago is sitting in your inbox - my memory isn't the best these days nor would I have the Chutzpah to expect a response during the fleeting time of happy hour each week, presuming you don't have the fuller level of membership.
Anyway, good luck on VHUB and everything else (which now reminds me that I'm pretty sure my e-mail to you was a comment upon your other significant investment at that time).
BobKS, I'm sorry that I honestly just don't know the answer to that vital question, and my trying just to be logical in formulating an answer would not necessarily lead to my giving you the correct answer. Let's both of us read the plan of liquidation within the proxy package again - if I can feel anything within a mile of confidence in coming up with an answer, I'll post, otherwise not. Again, I'm sorry.
Good morning, Hostastock, just to emphasize your point, it has already been proven that a corporate shell is valuable. Remember that the DogInn shareholders cashed in (probably mostly via the pump and dump in Spring 2014) when VHUB was created using the DogInn corporate shell.
So there's a lot of poetic (non?)-justice going on right now with VHUB, as the VHUB stockholders may or may not - and I'm leaning towards guessing "not" - cash in on the value of the shell if/when PLY uses that shell to go public.
Meanwhile, H-M, if you're reading this note, kudos to you for continuing to thrive in retirement age. Maybe the only thing more effective than crossword puzzles in warding off Alzheimer's is to try to figure out the machinations of VHUB.
H-M, I would agree with you that, really by definition, any lender of last resort (i.e. the lender who collects in large measure by converting debt to equity at bargain-basement prices) can be termed a shark. But I would also believe that, at least in this case, the shark may very well be the holder of a large number of VHUB shares and that you, BobKS, and the others in our midst here could have some commonality of interest with Mr. Fife.
...or perhaps if he is being given a special inducement to vote his shares in favor of the proposals, that would come out in the discovery process, and that might serve as a helpful morsel for your legal case(s).
Again, I'll mention that I probably know just enough "to be dangerous" when it comes to business law, and that my one class in business law took place back in the fall semester of my first year of college back in 1968. Still, brainstorming can be a good start sometimes in coming up with action plans. (Translation: Bring your grains of salt in abundance when I'm posting, but every so often I'm "on to something.")
Good evening, H-M,
1. In answer to a question floating around the board, I did some quick looking up on Mr. Fife a few months ago and remember him - yes, based in Chicago - to have a strong academic background and a penchant towards philanthropic activities.
2. In answer to your question as to whether there is a basis for hope in regard to a better deal for shareholders, the odds seem very stacked against it. The Magnavape suit perhaps has a 50/50 shot at a good verdict, and then maybe less than a 50/50 shot at collectability of such a good outcome. The question of who owns the VHUB-shell after everything has been sold/distributed is a fascinating question, one to which I don't have the answer - but don't bet the farm on the final shareholders being the owners. The chance of collecting judgments against the Directors and Officers liability insurance of VHUB and/or the errors and omissions insurance policy of the CPA firm are both very iffy - and probably lots of years down the road, unfortunately.
3. Would PLY on its own volition up the deal that's on the table to .011 per share, the closing price on December 30 just before word came out about the parties exploring an asset purchase transaction? That might kick out damages from the lawsuit picture, as there is no inherent right for a transaction to yield more than the price of the stock pre-announcement.
Again, the best I can do is to wish you good luck.
H-M (and Cash + BobKS), I'll confess that my head is spinning as I try to figure out whether the scam is:
1. to take VHUB private by putting its intellectual property into PLY, then "scorching the earth" of what's left of VHUB.
2. to take PLY public via using the shell of VHUB.
3. to do something (which I can't figure out) that represents Mr. Fife's desires, as he may "have the goods" on "the conspirators."
While the second possibility seems to be the most potentially profitable to a scammer, especially if one pictures a pump and dump right after PLY has gone public, please tell me who would be taken in by such a scam... especially when BobKS's lawyer will be filing for injunctive relief (I'm imagining) to stop that from happening as long as the aggrieved class of VHUB to-be-former shareholders has a case pending.
The first alternative looks fascinating, as the Winthers must be absolutely exhausted from all that goes with running a publicly traded company (remember that the 36 million shares of the three insiders were for one day worth around $72 million in Spring 2014).
I'm going to interrupt the flow of this post with maybe the most naïve thing you guys have ever heard, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. Here is VHUB in which both Winther parents and their son (and their daughter, somewhat in the background) are involved. It's hard, at least for me, to imagine a scenario, other than the Godfather movie scenario, in which parents would be other than so totally embarrassed to be doing what seems to be going on here in the presence (worse, the active involvement) of their son that such a series of actions as seems to be going on here would ever have been imagined, much less done. In other words, my guts are trying to figure out some scenario in which all the key players here are honorable people. ...and no, I haven't yet figured it out, and you'll all tell me I never will - and I understand.
I'm still fascinated by the question of who would own the valuable (as H-M points out) shell of VHUB after the stockholders would have been paid their final distribution.
Finally, going back to the main thesis of there's a scam but we can't be sure yet what the end-game is, remember that VHUB incorporated in Nevada, presumptively for the reason that it's really hard, if I remember correctly, to go after corporate board members in that state.
Wishing you all well and thanking you for having heard me out...
BobKS, good morning, and we don't know for sure what happened with Fife/Typenex, though there is a clue. Outstanding VHUB shares increased by 3-4 million from the 10K to the first proxy filing, which we can guess to be Fife getting some more "true-up" cheapie shares. How many he still holds, only God and Fife know - none of us has a way of knowing, though you could always ask Lori Winther. If he still has all his shares that he ever had, that can come real close to pushing the PLY proposals "over the top" of the vote-counting.
You used the word "obvious" in your first post of the day when referring to this all being a scam to take PLY public, and at this moment I admire the confidence of anyone who can deem anything about VHUB being obvious. Something sure smells really bad, and the shareholders sure have been supplied with a lot of smoke, but precisely what the scam may be is something that your securities lawyer-bloodhound will hopefully figure out.
If the Winthers wind up with a lot of new VHUB/PLY stock and the current shareholders wind up with zilch - and then there's a massive pump and dump on the new stock, just like there was with VHUB in Spring 2014 after the DogInn transaction - I wouldn't be all that surprised. Maybe that's the most likely "end of the day" scenario, but it's only speculation to me, not quite yet as obvious to me as it is to you.
Have a good week, and thanks for your patience with me!
RPH, I've got a theory on this "continuation of life as usual for VHUB," and I'll try it out on you, since you've got a solid history on this board for considering anything brought up here before dismissing it.
Given that:
1. PLY is just another face of Jasper Manufacturing (since the two have Mr. Li in common);
2. PLY has become the new face of VHUB ever since Kyle started "doing his thing" for PLY pursuant to the 25K consulting contract between VHUB and PLY; and finally
3. Jasper was VHUB's manufacturer before the role went over to ijoy which fomented the downward trajectory of VHUB...
Therefore I would believe that:
1. VHUB's product line is currently being manufactured once again by Jasper;
2. The product line is being sold under the VHUB name, which has a more solid standing in the vaping industry than does PLY; and
3. PLY is making all the profit out of this arrangement.
I realize that this is pretty far out, but it's the best that I can do here at the moment. Perhaps you and Hostastock, both having industry background and the instincts that go with it, can use what I've written here as a jumping off point and do better than I have.
Incidentally, if there's any truth to my theory here (or to how you'll improve upon it), there may be some fascinating legal implications as regards the damage done unto VHUB shareholders.
Finally, I think I've thanked most of the folks here individually in the past few weeks for "letting me play in your pond," so now it's your turn for my appreciation. Have a good week!
Good Saturday evening, Cash,
1. I didn't find anything new or interesting in the proxy materials that wasn't there before, but I "enjoyed" the opportunity to get still one more reading of the sense of what's going on here.
2. It would seem to me that the materials are silent as regards how matters would proceed if, after the distribution to shareholders (if any, though it looks like the current price of the stock is as good a guess as any, assuming something but not much out of Magnavape) has taken place, the shell itself of VHUB were to made available to PLY to effectuate a reverse merger. In other words, are the shareholders of VHUB still shareholders after getting their distributions but before the corporation would otherwise have been liquidated.
3. I am guessing that any security lawyer would advise the gang to take VHUB up on its offer to ask Lori Winther any and all questions (like WTF happened, to phrase it generally)so as to have a record that internal due processes were followed and that answers were either constructive or misleading in some way.
Have a good week!
Just for purposes of having some documentation placed adjacently, have a look at an excerpt from the annual 10K filing which happened to be dated on October 13, 2016, and also at an excerpt from the recent "Pre-14A" filing from February 21, 2017. One would have imagined that both the supply chain catastrophe and the unsolicited offer from "Company B" which had not yet been declined - both of these mentioned in the February 21 filing - perhaps should have found their way into the previous filing of October 13...
From the 10K which was dated October 13, 2016:
Sourcing
We use third party contract manufacturers to produce and finish our mods (“Mods”), including our Limitless Mechanical Mod, from facilities located in both Southern California and China. Our Mods, which are made from a metallic material such as steel, brass or copper, are custom machined to meet our design specifications. Once machined, unfinished products are delivered to our location in Simi Valley or to a third party service provider to be buffed, polished and to add various treatments and embellishments, such as paint and engravings. Finished products are then held in inventory for distribution and sale. In our fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, we relied on one manufacturer to machine all of our Mods and in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, we relied on two. Although we have relied on a limited number of manufacturers to machine our Mods, we believe manufacturing capacity is available to meet our current and planned needs. We do not currently have any long term agreements in place for the manufacture of our Mods.
***************************************
From the “Pre-14A” SEC filing dated February 21, page 27:
In May of 2016, the Company began to have IJOYGROUP Co. Ltd., a manufacturer based in China (“IJoy”), co-design and manufacture its “Limitless” branded vaping products and the Company received its first shipment of products from IJoy in June of 2016. The Company continued to receive product shipments of its “Limitless” branded products from IJoy until August, 2016. After this time, IJoy failed to supply the Company with products despite the Company’s continued efforts to secure supply, and purportedly manufactured and sold products under the Company’s “Limitless” brand without consent. As a result of not having an adequate supply of its Limitless branded products, the Company’s revenues significantly declined, particularly in the final three months of the calendar year ended December 31, 2016 and its working capital was significantly depleted.
On October 5, 2016, a broker acting on behalf of a medical marijuana company (“Company B”) presented an unsolicited letter of intent to acquire the Company. On October 6, 2016, Kyle Winther had a telephone conference with the broker to discuss the letter of intent.
**************************************
One other thing that I found fascinating, is taken from Page 38 of the 10K, which contains the auditor's certificate/opinion. Take a look at the excerpt below which comments on VHUB's revenues. That statement surely looks to me to be inaccurate and might cast a doubt regarding the auditing process...
***************************************
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has no revenues, a history of incurring net losses and net operating cash flow deficits and has limited cash.
**************************************
It seems to me that there is some explaining to be done here. As always, it is wise to try to keep an open mind as long as possible, as there are always (at least) two sides to any story, and all we can see at the moment is the side of the story which indicates non-feasance, malfeasance, and whatever other terms people more competent and less retired than I use at these moments. I hope that this post is helpful to the cause of engendering a fair resolution to this big mess.
Cash, first thanks as ever for your kind words.
1. As regards the stop-loss order, I have heard that market makers just love to maneuver things so that the order will be executed, then help/make the price rise again to where it was before, all within a few minutes.
2. As regards the value of VHUB as a shell-only, you may be on to something here, something which I hadn't even imagined, as Dog-Inn was a shell before VHUB reverse-merged into it, and then the Dog-Inn shareholders made a bunch of money when the pump and dump on the new VHUB stock was effectuated in March 2014. Still, even as a class action suit is contemplated for the current happenings with VHUB, it appears a little strange to hope, much less expect, a pump and dump of a shell to bail out the current stockholders (and I couldn't even begin to imagine the class action suit coming from sold-out former shareholders regarding the lack of disclosure indicating how this scenario had been intended all along to play itself out).
3. You don't need another bidder for the shell, as PLY, currently an LLC, will do just fine, I would believe.
(All this is much too complex for my far too simple and innocent brain - the veteran investors around here have a much better chance to figure out the end game correctly.)
Have a great weekend!
Cash, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, but I think you may have one misconception about the nature of a class action suit. You're sounding as if you believe that the only way you could become part of a class action suit is if you hold on to your shares "until the bitter end." To the best of my knowledge which is always quite limited, I believe that class action suit plaintiffs in cases like these are defined as "that class of stock purchasers who bought the stock between two given dates, or who held the stock as of some given date." ...as these are the folks who would be alleging that they were enticed to buy or to hold the stock based upon either bad actions by management or bad communication by management or both.
BobKS's legal specialist knows all this stuff inside and out, but I wanted to get this point out into the open early in the game. Indeed, a number of innocent former shareholders of VHUB lost value on stock they held (and later sold)at the time the alleged managerial shenanigans began. These former shareholders, I do believe, will be welcomed to join the "class."
Again, nothing in the post should be taken as advice, other than the advice to check in with a lawyer, presumably BobKS's for the moment (and hopefully beyond).
Just as a total aside to enhance the point I've tried to make, for the moment assume that PLY will increase their offer at the last moment, which would surprise me a lot. That still would leave a "class" of damaged former shareholders who might retain their interest in a class action suit.
I wish you only good luck here!
decatsmeow, .009 would reflect some sort of a "win" on the Magnavape suit (including the capacity of Magnavape to actually pay a judgment at trial, if it goes that far) plus sufficient votes at the shareholders meeting to pass the two motions (which quite properly is very iffy). ...or some sort of a higher offer at the last moment by PLY to try to ward off a shareholders suit somehow. Heck, nobody has much of a clue here as to the entire story of how a company with record first fiscal quarter earnings went mostly out of business in the second fiscal quarter, with no mention of subsequent events in the first fiscal quarter's 8K reporting (which in turn becomes the basis to study if there is legal recourse against assorted parties).
As an aside for decatsmeow, you'll find me from last Friday as a private e-mail on this system when I utilized the Happy Hours function of this website, so if you'll log in, you will see my answer to a question you posed not relevant to current matters here.