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.
Agreed it sounds absurd, but if that's not what they meant, it shouldn't have been what they wrote.
Worth a call to Dennis. By a holder, of course. Not me!
So give Dennis a call and get clarification...
but that's what the filing says.
Hey, the company IS still called "Klever Marketing"!
"...who would even come up with some crap like that!"
Exactly.
Who?
That calculation only works if all the Preferred were sold at one time.
Not likely.
If they meant for the formula to stay static, based on the original OS and Preferred count, it would have been easy enough to say that.
As it's worded, incremental conversions will affect the OS count and the Preferred count and thus the value of the remaining Preferreds.
Denominator (Preferreds) goes down, Numerator (OS) goes up...
Just did a sample calc- You're right, TenKay!
Each Preferred conversion increases the conversion value of the remaining preferreds...
INSANE!
(Unless you're one of the Preferred holders, and we know who THEY are!)
Here's how the conversion value of remaining Preferred shares would be affected after the conversion of 1,000 Preferreds:
((89,680,567 + (5,765 X 1,000)) X 5.67) / (88,235 - 1,000) = 6203.66
So, after the first 1000 Preferred are converted, each subsequent converted share would have its conversion value INCREASED from 5,765 common shares to ~6,204 shares!
And the conversion value of remaining Preferreds would increase with each conversion...
I can't believe they're really doing this!
I welcome anyone else showing their work to disprove this admittedly quick calc, but in the meantime...
BUYER BEWARE!
Thomas A. Cellucci to Bravatek Solutions, Inc. Stock Fanpage - BVTK
3 mins ·
Heads Up Folks: Just a short note to let everyone know that I am extremely busy for the foreseeable future and have no time to answer idiotic questions from b...... and the like. The reason you receive conventional financing is because you have increasing sales with top notch customers/clients/partners--period. As always--we are doing what we said we would...Best, Tom
Edited (redacted ) for TOS purposes.
It's 85% dilution nonetheless.
The "hidden" dilution will commence once the convertible notes start being sold.
They have no other source of revenue.
In the meantime, Reg144 will be an obstacle to their immediate sale... but not insurmountable in time.
I've seen OTC penny insiders get attorney's letters to have the restrictive legends removed... not saying O'leary et al would go down this road, but it's out there...
This means you were just diluted by 85%!
Not exactly good news.
The former DarkPulse insiders have granted themselves ~85% of the Outstanding Shares of the "new KLMK/DPT".
Retail common holders have been diluted by 85%.
And the current market cap of ~$130 Million is absurd.
KLMK/DPT has no provable revenue, headquarters, facilities, products, patents... nothin'!
Consider that KLMK/DPT's grossly inflated market cap is now more than 10X (ten times) BVTK's, which is about $12MM.
And BVTK is massively overvalued at that.
Sadly for holders- there's nothing but downside here.
Buyers Beware.
Not even going to discuss THAT silliness.
Market Cap after Reverse Merger is over $130,000,000...
That's 597,000,000 shares X $0.22...
Over TEN Times the market cap of BVTK... and for what?
Just let that sink in....
Best to all.
"What happened to all the latest promises?"
"Same as it ever was, same as it ever was"
Gotcha- It's Dennis' "Opposite Day"!
Proof: O'Leary says "Don't buy"
https://twitter.com/DennisOLeary19/status/1012315461793574912
You remember correctly. A $50 Admiral...
D'jever wonder how Cellucci became "Admiral"? Paid $50!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139709386&txt2find=texas
Excellent catch, flyersdh!
Looks like TenKay woke Cellucci up to the fact he no longer had a voting majority, after all the dilution.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?masterFileId=20071190833&fileId=20181449463
Again... APTY paid $3,000 for that SmallCapVoice promo...
The interview SHOULD be good. It cost APTY $3,000!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140884860
https://smallcapvoice.com/blog/disclaimer/
Paid promos are a sure sign of a scam here in pinky-land.
Buyer Beware.
Got that, DUDE. What's the tech's patent number?
Geez... simple question...
What's Tuitio's Patent Number? Can't find it...
Honest question.
Not bad spelling... lack of "detail to attention".
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76765419
And Tommy Boy is a cereal offender! Cheerios!
Cellucci should invest in some remedial writing courses...
Who writes this drivel, a sixth-grader?
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=77552675
"Bravatek's"... what? Does Bravatek have something? What is it?
"ResponSers"? Who are "ResponSers"?
Man#1: So waddaya think of this here hurricane?
Man#2: Dunno nothin' 'bout no hurricane- but muh first response is to get outta this dang rain, so...
Man#1: Well, there ya go, son- yer a First Responser!
Sigh...amateur hour at the Pinky Circus.
Got it. Thinking that SEC "flipped" Sal Tuzzolino...
...in exchange for immunity.
Don't have time for links and full validation now, and it's all immaterial now anyway except out of curiosity.
But the SEC complaint against Angel uses emails to a "consultant" as part of the corroborating evidence.
Sal Tuzzolino qualifies as a "consultant", having received shares for "services" past and future.
I suspect that Sal Tuzzolino was the SEC's referenced email "consultant"-
Sal had reason to flip, since he also received shares from the same pool that Moffitt got charged with illicitly selling, and was thus also guilty of the charges (assuming he sold them).
But Sal Tuzzolino only got 2,000 of the series A preferred, convertible to 2,000,000 shares, compared to Moffitt's/CoProducts, Febles/Kelso's 1.499 Billion shares each.
So he was the smallest fish (for this charge) and the logical one to provide evidence in exchange for immunity.
From the SEC charges: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp24148-bud-genius.pdf
Kudos to Timothy Stockwell and C.J. Kerstetter
Named at bottom, as having done and supervised the investigation.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24148.htm
Got it. Thanks!
Not sure. But I suspect they're even more worthless than the common shareholders' shares.
Without getting too into the weeds, the charges against Moffitt state that his shares were never properly registered, therefore he had no right to sell them (that's an over-simplification).
But I can't imagine Sal would want to raise his head at this point and subject himself to SEC scrutiny.
So far he seems to be off their radar.
OT re RIGH/Budgenius SEC charges...
Well, it's nice when some of them get caught. I followed this one for years- an obvious scam in the MJ testing space.
Now, SEC is finally bringing charges, and the details read as though they were pulled from some Ihub DD I and others did.
Satisfying to see SOME of the scammers get nailed:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp24148-bud-genius.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp24148-moffitt.pdf
Question, though... I see some shareholders were still able to sell after these charges were brought. I realize they are only charges so far, but the OTCM lists RIGH as a "Prohibited Service Provider":
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RIGH/quote
That PSP designation has been in place for some time, even before the charges were brought agaist RIGH.
Does it have no teeth?
Thanks.
Y'gotta wonder about Sal Tuzzolino...
...he got off without so much as a mention in the SEC filings... and he owned almost half of the company (or so investors were led to believe).
Lol. You'd be better than Angel, that's for sure!
Yeah, I know you guys knew all this, I just figured I'd get it in one place with the actual filings.
I've only been checking in on RIGH occasionally, and wouldn't have even caught this if it weren't for a Google alert to this article:
""Marijuana, Bud Genius, Tommy Chong — Keys to New SEC Action
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/marijuana-bud-genius-tommy-chong-keys-16643/
"...nice to see the SEC protecting future investors"
Totally agree, Vape.
Ironically, it was you who got me looking into Taylor Moffitt and USCoProducts.
What really hurts is that I know you were once convinced and got out but had second thoughts and re-entered.
I hope you don't take that wrong... not trying to rub salt at all... I was genuinely sad for you when I saw you do that.
And I know you're a big boy and all, but man...
Anyway, please know that I've always appreciated our civil correspondence.
I hope the SEC doing this to one of the smaller-fry (RIGH/BudGenius) will put the fear of G-d into some of the other would-be scam artists out here... but I suspect it won't...
Thanks, although I just built on the work of some others, most notably My2Mustangs (formerly LilBrother1492).
I take no pleasure in the losses of others, though.
There are some sick, depraved individuals out here on the OTCMarket, preying on people's innocence.
FWIW, I was duped myself early on, to the tune of over $60k...
That's why I decided maybe I could help expose some of these frauds and maybe, just maybe, save some others from the same experience.
But as Mark Twain never said:
SEC also nails Taylor Moffitt and Carlos Febles.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp24148-moffitt.pdf
SEC finally nails Aaron "Angel" Stanz and BudGenius...
Just catching up here, guys, but thought these should be posted for reference:
First, the SEC v BudGenius and Aaron "Angel" Stanz
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp24148-bud-genius.pdf
(See reply for charges against Taylor Moffitt and Carlos Febles.)
Nothin' from nothin'...
Couldn't resist...
It means IHSI does NOT own Cresent..
Indeed, they can't even spell it right in their filings (Cresent, not Crescent).
https://seekingalpha.com/filings/pdf/12648277.pdf
The whole purchase of Cresent was a sham engineered by TCA and IHSI to give the illusion that there was a real company, with real revenues, that IHSI could report.
The Special Purpose Vehicle that TCA told IHSI to set up to purchase Cresent was in fact CONTROLLED by TCA, not IHSI.
SEE:
"Too much! For $10, TCA Global bought controlling interest..."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=136763476
The owner of the "original" Cresent, Dewey Keith Gabriel has since set up shop under a similar name, and presumably now runs his business out of there.
The old Cresent is "in receivership"... AKA limbo, until such time as TCA and IHSI drop the sham.
"Add to the mix... Cresent in 'receivership'?"
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=136748528
IHSI can't legally make any claims to Cresent revenue, because, as the filing says-
Self Corr: should be ~0.0062, not ~0.062...
The other paid promo: Triton's "Equity Purchase Agreement"
https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/sec-filings/12749937/content/html
No problem. And hey- remember this classic?
And Tommy boy paid great "detail to attention"...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138711113