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.
"That explanation is a sham and will never work with the SEC."
1. The SEC isn't bringing a case.
2. The Shover case expressly ORDERED that shares are subject to a Securities Act exemption. What would the SEC's claim even be?
I will take your 1 million dollar bet that the SEC will sue NSI and win on the issue of the NSH shares.
First, a recitation of the pleadings is not legal advice.
Second, stating that res judicata only applies to the parties IS incorrect legal advice. Res judicata applies to the claim. Shover's complaint pleads that he is similarly situated to ALL NSH shareholders. Therefore, Shover alleged that his claim was the same for all NSH Shareholders. Logically, the Order applies to ALL NSH shareholders and not just Shover.
Third, your claim that collateral estoppel will also not apply is also incorrect legal advice. Collateral estoppel = issue preclusion. In Shover's suit, the issue and claim were one and the same. Logically, the Order is then also a final adjudication of the issue.
Lastly, "anyone can collaterally attack" is further incorrect legal advice. Since the Shover suit only applied to NSH shareholders, who would have standing to relitigate the claim and issue? On what basis would anyone other than a NSH shareholder be able to address the NSH Shares issue / claim?
"SHMP “investors” have been materially negatively affect by SHMP mgmt’s inability to accomplish the mission." Sounds like that's a conclusory statement of opinion, not an objective factual harm. Strike one.
And, I didn't know shareholders vote for management. I always thought managers were hired by the BOD and shareholders vote on the BOD. Seems like your issue isn't really a thing... wanna try again? One's lack of understanding of corporate governance is interesting. Strike two.
Lastly, A prospective harm is not a past or present actionable harm. Strike three.
"And yet the voting rights of the Series A shares continue to be unduly exercised by Easterling."
On this we agree. In fact, I was the first one to raise this on this board. With that said, I've asked you several times to explain what decisions you, as a shareholder, would have so far made differently than Easterling who wields the Series A.
Only if shareholders have been materially negatively affected by Easterling's voting those shares, would any shareholder have an actual gripe. Claims require damage. If you can't point to any damage, there is no claim.
What was the malpractice? To whom? Sounds like NSI and NSH shareholders got everything they wanted. One's misunderstanding of legal principles is glaring.
I don't need to point to any provision. Shover alleged it was the case and NSI agreed. The court then approved the Joint settlement which sought the following relief: "that the settlement is fair... pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act"
How are you going to disprove what's already been proven? It's res judicata. The time to challenge the facts came and went. Only a poor understanding of legal principles would lead one to believe the contrary.
Hahaha. No. The "Sham" complaint says they were issued by NSI, but not transferred to NSH shareholders due to concerns with violating the Securities Act of 1933. So the agreement that was reached was that the shares would instead be held in Trust by NSI. That was completed by a subsequent agreement with NSH Shareholders to convert those issued common shares into the Series A preferred shares (the common shares were then canceled). Conversion of those Series A shares never took place and the entire purpose of the "sham" case was to effectuate the original intent of the agreement... NSI shares to NSH Shareholders as consideration for NSI's purchase of NSH. Go back and re-read.
Why not include the whole quote? Par for the course.
IF by "sham" you mean a unified, nonadversarial effort to effectuate, via an exemption to the Securties Act of 1933, the mutual intent of NSI and NSH shareholders in distributing the 75,000,000 shares paid as consideration for NSI's purchase of NSH, then yes, it was a "sham."
Where's my boy SteveStack been?
Actually, that's exactly right.
"because most publicly available information is reflected in market price, an investor's reliance on any public material misrepresentations may be presumed for purposes of a Rule 10b-5 action.”
Shall I define misrepresentation for you? I will because we all know you'll argue the sky is green if you can. Misrepresentation: "an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally also."
Based on the english words above, if the information is publicly available, i.e. I could ascertain the truth of the matter with court filings, then anyone could know about it. Thus, it can't be a misrepresentation. Sometimes the information is not just spoon fed, one must know other things to create a mosaic of reality.
Just like every other day.
That was me. I insisted that they should be canceled. That reasoning comes from the logical application of legal principles to publicly available information. Just because one may be unknowing doesn't mean the information isn't known.
What's absurd is that no one has provided an actual rebuttal to my explanation. The mantra is just repeated over and over and over ad nauseum, as if restating it more makes it right.
Doesn't mean they weren't already issued. Logic, it's a pesky thing.
It's not fraud if you know about it. Please, learn what words mean.
700M aren't being traded daily. The most number of shares traded in any given day in the last year are 16, 12 and 10 million. In fact, the last time a similar volume was traded was on May 1 and the PPS closed up $.033. I think you think it is something to sweat over, otherwise you wouldn't be discussing it so avidly and in a manner as to push the thread down.
I'm saying that there are other more plausible, less illegal explanations than what are currently being proferred by some.
Saying they are issuing shares without filing disclosures is implying they are committing fraud on the market. Logic, try it.
companies =/ NSI. If you have proof NSI is committing fraud, please, by all means, bring it to the attention of the market and the SEC. Without proof, the comments are just defamatory.
Increasing O/S has a material effect on the value of the PPS. To increase the O/S without disclosing to the market via appropriate filing would be to commit a fraud on the market. You're right. What's so hard to understand about that?
"how would the T/A know that someone is borrowing shares, that's between the broker and their clients."
Go learn about FINRA.
So you agree then that it's possible the TA may be reporting borrowed shares? Which means that there are potentially 10 million common shares which need to be rebought at some point? If the stock can go down $.01-$.04 cents on news of 1%-2% dilution, then it can certainly go up the same when those shares have to be rebought. To the extent retail has been accumulating and holds, it may be difficult to find shares to rebuy. That's called a short squeeze and it explains the PA over the last year, at least.
No. It requires an assumption not supported by fact.
Even if FIFE is selling, those shares (resulting from conversion) are already calculated in the O/S.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of legal reporting requirements at issue. A financial instrument which can convert into common shares will have the potential common shares issuable counted against the A/S.
That's exactly the purpose of the May 10, 2023 Prospectus and each and every previously filed prospectus.
Lol so you're implying that NSI is defrauding the market to the tune of 10 million shares?
You're 10 million too high per the May 10, 2023, Prospectus.
For the past week and a half, short volume equaled on average around 40 - 45% of total daily volume. One obviously does not understand the concept of relative v. absolute.
When. Hasn't yet. Try again with your narrative.
So going to a mandatory agency reporting site is a lack of DD or does it just mess with the narrative?
That's interesting because that's the EXACT number of short shares reported to FINRA for 6/16. You've yet to provide a rebuttal to the prospect that your "dilutive shares" are actually synthetic (borrowed) shares being shorted (dumped) and bought by retail.
It's what explains the price action for at least the last year.
Moreover, I'll repeat again, I do not care what the TA is reporting (see above), there CANNOT be more shares trading than are Authorized AND Issued. The last time NSI reported a number for issued shares was May 9, 2023. The O/S cannot legally exceed that number unless, 1. there's been a filing updating the number; or 2. you guessed it, see above.
4. It is retail. 5. MM buying and selling the same borrowed shares to try to shakeout loose hands.
Seems like if it is successful, there's a new wastewater treatment mechanism. A competitor so to speak.
Selective sight I am sure.
Funny cause I've yet to see any proof of what you've claimed. Go read any news article about the prevalence of microplastics in natural sea food. The TRANE report supports what I've said. https://naturalshrimp.com/wp-content/uploads/Trane-Biosecurity-Benefits-of-EC.pdf
"There is no difference." There are no chemicals. There are no microplastics. There are no parasites or bacterias or other germs. GUARANTEED. Other farm raised shrimp cannot say that. Fresh caught shrimp cannot say that. Your opinion ignores very material distinctions; very dishonest.
No it's my opinion which differs from your opinion. There are countless producers that give consumers this exact information. I guess you've never had a great bottle of wine with wagyu.
I appreciate your self promotion, but there is nothing common about your sense, you're merely expressing a personal opinion. My contrary personal opinion is people are willing to pay a premium for certain sources of food if the health and quality can be guaranteed.
Last I checked shrimp are crustaceans with shells. Ergo, they are shell fish. How wrong can one be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp
You realize you've yet to explain the discrepancy?
Show where SHMP mgmt said it would be harvested. Link. Cite. Source.
"MFranny
Re: Anvil post# 107239
Saturday, June 10, 2023 10:35:03 AM Post# 107251of 107278
The company is representing how many shares are permitted to be outstanding, i.e. authorized AND issued. Who actually issues the shares is a distinction without a difference. OTC Markets showing outstanding shares in excess of what the company has represented SHOULD be outstanding, that's a discrepancy requiring an explanation, no?"
What's your explanation EQ?