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.
TT&TB has been picked up by the restaurantji bots:
https://www.restaurantji.com/co/arvada/
I don't know enough about it to know if owners have to pay to be on it (it looks like they use Google review counts), but any 'billboard' platform is probably good exposure.
Chris, it's your choice to not reply to me, but I think the real lesson is that writing angry notes in this forum does nothing (but blow off steam), and really doesn't make Nixon or Hamilton react just because they've gotten hate mail.
Hold or liquidate are the current options; plus file a lawsuit if you can afford it (but I'll bet a lawyer would tell you your odds of winning, which you'd want to know before filing it).
2.5 years is a long time for penny flippers. It's longer than I wanted to wait as well. But the theory behind stocks -- or what it used to be -- is that they are long term investments. The government even gives tax breaks to those who hold long to encourage holding long.
Chris, you'll have to write all of that to Nixon (or post it on one of his Facebook sites).
In 2022 Nixon told the Denver Post he planned to open that Takiza Taco place on Wynkoop Street, and it still isn't open. My guess (based on what I've found via Google) is that it was caught up in serious lower downtown-Denver (LODO) red-tape. All my post does is show what I've found, that it looks like Nixon still intends to open a Takiza place at that location, AND it shows that this seems to be the expectation of downtown Denver planners. (That is a good thing.)
But, to get a Takiza place open and get the name out there as a place to go to, to build a reputation (jumping around the LODO red-tape), he turned an Illegal Burger place into a previously unannounced Takiza place. The condition of the stock aside, I don't find fault in that move. If Tacos and Tequila are selling better than Illegal Burgers, then it's right for him to go for it.
Legally, the Business Judgement Rule gives owners a lot of leeway in their business decision-making. I always intended to hold long (i.e., more than a year). You'll have to say what your plans were, but I suspect there are many who only wanted a quick flip, and are now angry that they didn't get it.
If you try to take Nixon to court for "fraud," he will show that he was affected by COVID-19 like many were, and that he survived it (whereas many didn't) and he now is operating his businesses and 'building share-holder value." A lawsuit may force him to reveal his filing plans, but I'm sure he can easily prove that he did not walk (or run) away with anyone's money, but he's doing what he said he would do, namely operate restaurants and open new ones.
Please remember that I'm a mere retail shareholder like you, and am just as stuck as you are, so don't take anything I say as approval for Nixon failing to file and letting his stock get revoked. But, based on what I see and post about, I see evidence that Nixon's company isn't a shell, it isn't dead, and shows the potential for returning to trading.
You'll have to argue with Nixon, not me, that the way he conducts his business doesn't match up with your desire to trade your stock right now.
But note: even if Nixon got back to trading tomorrow, that would not be a guarantee that you'd make a profit or break even (I don't know what price you bought in at). NO company with publicly traded stock guarantees that any individual shareholder will make a profit by buying at price X and selling at price X+Y. That's why hedge funds exist and make money, because they bet on stock prices dropping and often they are right. Those who want to buy low and sell high sometimes lose. Just because that happens doesn't mean the company is committing fraud.
Re Hamilton - write to her as well, not me.
My view is that her working for him is more of a plus than a minus, but I cannot bind my hopes to a schedule. I can only choose to liquidate or not, and I choose not to.
Again, tell her, not me, that you want to trade now, immediately. (You won't get an answer, though, as lawyers never reply behind the scenes, or in public without permission from their client.)
Takiza Taco & Tequila Bar is listed as "Coming Soon" in the "Downtown Denver Partnership High Frequency Update" for April 2024.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.downtowndenver.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FHF_Update_April-2024_FINAL.pdf&psig=AOvVaw0bezUsGM6enTTry5SM5jk6&ust=1716649720569000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CAgQr5oMahcKEwiAjKySyaaGAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA
I can't remember if I found and posted this before (maybe I found the March 2024 version), but it seemed to show up as a new Google-search result for me.
Not that this isn't good in general, but is there a reason why this is good for RNVA in particular?
Re "agenda for a Revoked delisted stock? "
Maybe your browser had a glitch and didn't let you see my whole paragraph, which I requote:
No offense, but as the saying goes, 'been there, done that.'
Myself and another WCVC-watcher talked about this privately a month or more ago, because all of a sudden it seemed to have shown up in an 'I never saw that before' sort of way.
But a day's wait showed that it was reflexive, repetitive behavior, fed by some broken source. I think we had both just stopped looking at it and had forgotten about it, so it seemed new when we saw it.
Stocktwits is broken.That's a very old glitch. It's been around for a long time. Tomorrow what it says will go back to what it said today during the trading day, and then back up to the 200% uptick at closing time.
My vague recollection is that 2M shares traded as a last gasp before the SEC revocation took effect. However, I don't remember if they actually traded at .0002.
"He said it..."
I'm sorry, what is "it"? That a revoked stock can be shorted? Please, as I've asked before, show me the post that proves that T53 said that. Your first attempt pointed to a post that did not prove that at all.
"... and still touts a Revoked stock."
There's nothing illegal or morally wrong with believing that Nixon may eventually return WCVC to trading. And, no one is harmed by that idea. Each person who holds WCVC shares has the freedom to decide whether to hold or liquidate. There's no one to fool.
What's your agenda, Joe? What's your goal in posting every day that WCVC is currently revoked? What change do you hope to bring about? Who are you trying to influence? Why are you tilting at this windmill?
And, why are you so angry at T53, trying to run him down all the time? Did he force you to buy WCVC?
Expend your anger against Nixon. He's the bad guy (if that's what he is). And posting here does nothing to get back at him, since (supposedly) he doesn't read this forum. Not only are you not hitting Nixon where it hurts, you aren't hitting him at all. He doesn't care that you post "It's revoked" every day.
Re: "And does it matter?"
It always matters when a person says things about another that aren't true.
I don't see anything in that T53 post about active shorting of WCVC while it is revoked.
Everyone who knows T53 knows he means (or believes) the stock was shorted before it was revoked, and if it gets back to trading, then there will be a 'short squeeze.'
But, if I'm wrong, T53 is welcome to correct me.
Google vs Yelp reviews - this reddit thread is interesting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FoodNYC/comments/17z04z3/do_you_check_yelp_or_google_for_reviews/
Google reviews for Takiza Taco average pretty high. Yelp reviews are pretty low.
I found the comments about yelp threatening businesses -- plus the fact that business have to pay for the page -- surprising.
I don't know this to be true, but yelp gives me the impression that some people purposely give bad out of bad motives.
I'd like to see the quote, because I'm pretty sure he knows when a stock can be shorted (i.e., only when it is on the market).
Any mention of 'short squeeze' involves 1) possible shorting before the stock was revoked, and 2) the speculative return of the stock to trading.
Oops - that should have been a subsection of Denver CO.
Here's the out-of-date Yelp page for it :
https://www.yelp.com/biz/illegal-burger-capitol-hill-denver
The address was: 609 Grant St Denver, CO.
The Google Maps street view photo is out of date and still shows the building as an Illegal Burger:
https://www.google.com/maps/[@ userid=104].9841206,3a,75y,74.1h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_G4Qnt_4ZJ5HBH6yhwtk7g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D_G4Qnt_4ZJ5HBH6yhwtk7g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.gws-prod.gps%26w%3D86%26h%3D86%26yaw%3D74.100586%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu
It looks like the new place is Gaia Masala & Burger:
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gaia-masala-and-burger-denver
Maybe Illegal Burger could have stayed there after all.
It's a sub-section of Colorado:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Capitol+Hill,+Denver,+CO/[@ userid=104].9904966,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x876c7ed0cb0a869b:0xe6d53ad2d3499f53!8m2!3d39.7336946!4d-104.982297!16zL20vMDZsMnNf?authuser=0&entry=ttu
I didn't look up the exact address for my post. There's some other restaurant there now.
... and how does that address the false claim that T53 is saying that the revoked stock is currently being shorted?
More on the Red Lobster debacle:
https://slate.com/life/2024/05/red-lobster-restaurant-closing-bankrupt-endless-shrimp.html
It not only includes being 'eaten out house and home' by the bottomless shrimp promotion, but they sold their property holdings and then rented them back on "on punitive leases."
As far as I know, Nixon quit three bad leases:
Illegal Pizza
El Cazo (a very short-terim venture)
Illegal Burger Capitol Hill (I heard a horror story about the crime as well)
Nixon and/or the previous tenant of the Illegal Pizza place still owe settlement money, the final payment of which is due in June 2024 ($23K and change). I assume that is why the case is still open in the Broward County clerk's database.
Re "Shorting a Revoked stock?" -- no ... that's not what T53 is saying.
The claim, or suspicion, is that it was shorted before it was revoked.
Since Nixon hadn't been filing, anyone who knew the rules about filing would have been able to place a near-sure bet with a short position against WCVC that it would get revoked before the stock price ever recovered.
Since revoked stocks almost never return, the expectation is that the shorter will never have to buy the stock back to cover because it will (hopefully) never return to trading.
[Also, a rule change was going to send WCVC to the expert market, which was supposed to be as close to near-death as a stock could get before being revoked.]
So, everyone claiming that T53 is talking about shorting this stock while it is revoked is promoting false information. Those claims may play well to some audiences, but not to those who know the facts.
Joe - Why do you say that T53 is claiming that anyone is shorting WCVC while it is revoked?
... and?
You're welcome, and I'm glad you stopped in.
Earlier you asked this, that I didn't address explicitly (but only implicitly):
I agree 100% with this, that the SEC's action does NOT "protect investors" at all. They really mean future investors.
I still think there's a chance that Nixon stopped filing as a strategy to keep convertible note holders from diluting the stock all the way to the top of the A/S, but I don't have a secondary theory about how he will get back to trading and fix the current amount of dilution.
But, if trading returns with no further dilution, this might run just because it's back to trading.
That's a great question. I think the answer is implicit in the SEC's authority to do what it did, namely, to revoke WCVC, which makes a company 'private' because of that action.
An irony is that the SEC's public notice was that it was revoking WCVC to 'protect investors':
There's now a Yelp page for Takiza Taco & Tequila Bar:
https://www.yelp.com/biz/takiza-taco-and-tequila-bar-arvada-2
https://www.yelp.com/biz/takiza-taco-and-tequila-bar-arvada-2?osq=takiza+taco (same content as above)
The earliest review was April 6, and the latest was May 18.
The ratings only average 3.5-ish, but at least they have a page. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity," right?)
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this detail matters, but the URL with the full name says "arvada" and ends with "-2", which suggests that they are still planning the LoDo location, or that somewhere there will be a "-1" location.
Re havenagoodtime being a "pretty good basher" --
From the standpoint of my interaction with him in that other forum, I never felt that he was a basher at all, but was rather was always on-point about what he wrote. (That stock we were both in deserved all the 'bashing' it got.)
I'm quite pleased and humbled that he dropped me a line here.
Re "someone had mentioned it was revoked and I wanted to see the bagholders that cannot seem to understand what revoked means."
That someone may have been me (in another forum), since my recollection is that you showed up here almost immediately after my post.
With few excepts all of the "bagholders" here understand what "being revoked means."
What a few -- including yourself -- don't seem to understand is 1) that stocks are revoked for more than one reason and 2) in some cases, revoked stocks can return to trading, since some (but not many) have. That misunderstanding includes the false notion that all revoked companies are no longer in existence, having no operations at all. An imputed claim is that revoked stocks are revoked because the owners/management are always guilty of fraud, which so far is not true in the case of WCVC, since it was revoked for not filing and not for fraud.
To lift a word of yours slightly out of context, namely "courtesy" -- it's funny how many who claim to only want to be helpful to 'bagholders' demonstrate their "courtesy" only with ladles loaded with schadenfruede, as if such gleeful gloating really helps anyone at all.
So, thanks for giving us your understanding of "what revoked means." Some of us think you've now given us all you've got.
Re "extinguished shares" - you aren't giving enough detail about your scenario to prove that those shares were revoked and that revocation is what "extinguished" them.
Shares may be "extinguished" in perfectly above-board situations, such as after they are bought back by the company in a transaction that puts money -- the value of those shares -- back into the pockets of the original share holders. The company may choose to destroy (or extinguish) those shares rather than put them back on the market. That would reduce the O/S and probably make remaining share holders happy.
My shares are still listed in my account profile. They have not gone to zero.
It is rare for a revoked stock to return to trading, but a few have. Examples of revoked stocks that don't return to trading don't prove that no stocks can ever return, because, again, a few stocks have.
WCVC only got revoked for not filing its financials. It was not revoked for fraud or other misdoings. Although Nixon seems to be lowering the profile of West Coast Ventures Group Corp (he only keeps a "foreign branch" alive in Colorado), Nixon Restaurant Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of West Cost Ventures Group Corp, and it is active, and has open restaurants. None of Nixon's companies have filed for bankruptcy.
The existence of real money-making business activity means there is capital behind the stock. If Nixon chooses to do so, he can return to trading and let the market assign a value to those shares.
Since the stock can't be traded at the moment, no "newbies" can be 'pulled into this scam,' so you are here for no reason other than to revel in making pointless putdowns.
Since the stock can't currently be traded, no one can "pump" it, either. However, people who hold shares can see what the company is actively doing, and decide for themselves whether to continue to hold or to liquidate.
Pointless putdowns are more suspicious than any positive support in this situation.
Sorry, but the shares still exist. "Revoked" in the the dictionary isn't the same as "destroyed." All shareholders' profiles will show the share counts.
Your contributed dash of schadenfreude proves nothing about the stock itself, but rather proves that you don't actually know what "revoked" means.
Some revoked stocks have returned to trading. Whether that will happen is an open question.
Not honest means dishonest, and dishonest means fraud (of some sort).
So far he hasn't been charged with fraud by any securities regulatory agency (as far as I know0.
Since his agent for Nixon Restaurant Group hates stock fraudsters, I (still) find it hard to believe that she'd be his agent knowing that he is purposely defrauding his shareholders.
I don't like that he's not communicating with shareholders one bit, but there's a possibility that he's been advised that saying nothing is better than saying something, at least for the moment, which might imply that there are open issues being worked on which preclude public comment.
If he's a defendant in some action (which I haven't found evidence of yet), that's another reason to stay quiet.
Re "Sooner or later you too will say that Nixon is a dishonest person"
Don't get me wrong, at the moment, I agree that Nixon seems to be 'doing his shareholders dirty,' but I don't know all the facts. I know that Nixon's stock was raped by bad actors who abused convertible notes who were caught and jailed. However, Nixon owns some of the responsibility for agreeing to those convertible notes in the first place.
Nixon seems to have survived COVID-19, and it's obvious that he not only has an active business, but he's changing his offerings (two Illegal Burgers have become two new restaurants) to hopefully keep his company alive and profitable.
If the SEC or some other government agency decides that Nixon has crossed a legal line and charges him with a crime, then I'll agree that he's a crook.
However, what Nixon has on his side is a legal thing called "The Business Judgement Rule"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_judgment_rule
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businessjudgmentrule.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
The rule requires the company/its-officers to act in good faith and with a duty of care, but there is wide latitude in interpreting what that means. The rule grants an automatic presumption in favor of the company, and those who bring a charge of violating it have a high bar of proof to show it has been violated.
This isn't a defense of Nixon, for my portfolio shows my stock's value is $0 as well as yours. But I accept that there may be things behind the scene that preclude me from making a final judgment against him as quickly as you have.
I'm still reading news stories about the 'bottomless shrimp' promotion putting them $11M in the hole, which in turn is a factor in closures.
Maybe independent franchise-holders had more discretion on how far they had to go in (not) buying-in to that promotion.
Nixon's Illegal Pizza in Lauderhill closed that way, by saying "Temporarily Closed" but it never reopened. However I think that as a general rule, 1 or 2 restaurant operations tend to give notice to all to 'say goodbye' to their customer base (plus employees), whereas larger chains are more cut-throat, with corporate ax-men turning off the lights without notice to all but the highest management.
Of course, a money-losing operation with no chance of revitalization has to close; but the larger the company and the bigger the dollar amounts involved are, the smaller the human element -- employees and customers -- is in relative importance.
The irony here is that larger companies are more beholden to investors/shareholders, but Nixon's smaller company currently seems to allow him to show no concern for his investors.
Hey Brenda Hamilton!! -- how are those lessons to Nixon on the importance of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders going?
Re Red Lobster closings ...
I just read that RL put themselves $11M in the hole via an "Endless Shrimp" promotion to attract new customers. Who knew that in hard economic times, customers would over-indulge on such a deal?
Also, they not only hope to restructure debt (via bankruptcy), but get out of "costly and lengthy leases." Again, who could have predicted that landlords would structure leases to drive their renters out of business?
This still sounds like COVID-19 fallout, although there's also the demographic of the customer base. I read 'fast casual' as just the next step up from 'fast food' like McD's, BK, and the like. Prices are rising so many in their customer base are saying 'no more $10 Big Mac for me.'
We already see that Nixon switched two of his burger places to Taco and 'expensive alcoholic drinks' places. That may still hit the 'casual' side of the demographic, but not the "fast."
Like with McD's, BK, and the like, there's probably a measure of price-point expectation in TGI Fridays and Red Lobster and other chains. Nixon's restaurants are not chains (yet). Based on the Google Reviews of Tequila Taco so far, all though people mention it being a bit pricey, they seem to feel that they are getting what they are paying for. As long as people feel that way, they will keep returning.
He's also in Denver, not New York/New Jersey.
"No one cares about hamburgers... only the fact that the stock is worthless.."
And posting about it over and over and over and over and over again shows what ... that you actually care about the stock being worthless? You have a right to care about that, but, how does posting about it improve the situation?
Don't write to the ihub group about it, since you are really just yelling at stuck-holders like yourself. Write to Nixon. Tell him that that's what you care about.
So ... what? How are you helping me by telling me what I already know?
But what do bashers have to gain in this case? That's what I don't understand.
"... Hard to bash something that it can't get any worse"
But here you are bashing it anyway. Therefore, you must be saying that it's not really as "worse" as it could be. That's encouraging.
Here's the latest/65th Google review of Takiza Taco & Tequila Bar: