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.
Oh come on now. This stuff has been asked and answered dozens of times.
Kimmons left the company years ago. The company has moved on. Why would he be required to come on this board to answer one person's questions?
The S1 is more comprehensive than the 10K. Filing a 10K is inappropriate for what ESCU is trying to accomplish.
Lots of false claims here. I suggest a reread of the audited financials and the S1 filing.
All of this is negated by the audited financials, which refute every one of the claims that have been made here.
Throneberry is the largest investor in ESCU. No one else has come close. He has stayed on top of what is going on and is more knowledgeable than most about the company.
Johnathan has stated his satisfaction with the current progress of ESCUE on this board. That says it all.
You may be a little late on this one. According to a phone call with ESCU the SEC has already reviewed the first filing of ESCU's S1 and it has no questions about Kimmons.
The risk factors you have been posting on this board are standard boilerplate that is included in one form or another in every S1 filing.
There is no contradiction with what I've said. The 2 million shares that the S1 intends to have registered for private placement will be held by long-term institutional firms. Page 6 is not talking about that.
Wrong. The S1 filing is to complete a PRIVATE PLACEMENT with institutional funds, not to sell directly into the market. Institutional funds are long-term holders. This is the way public companies operate. That's why the S1 was created.
So ESCU's management shells out quite a bit of money from their own pockets to clean things up and get the company going (meanwhile not asking for a penny from anyone) and they're hucksters?
Come on now.
This was already answered. See previous posts.
Who cares? He's gone.
This topic is worn out. Nothing new to talk about.
Kimmons exited years ago. Word is he's living in Monte Carlo, enjoying his imaginary wealth.
Reminder, Kimmons is not affiliated with ESCU. Discussing him is a waste of time.
Take a look at the dollar amounts involved. They're not significant. And they're basically DOA at this point.
The last time I looked none of the names currently associated with ESCU and its management were Gary Kimmons.
I see no benefit in discussing what someone may or may not be doing or thinking and who has had no affiliation with ESCU for quite a few years now. It's a waste of time.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the ESCU business model. ESCU will be licensing its proprietary turbine technology and processes to its clients. Intermediary construction contractors will build the actual turbines. ESCU is NOT selling "off the shelf" turbine products.
Regarding the "red flags" referred to in the S1, all I see is standard "boilerplate", or verbiage, contained in most S1's. Nothing to be concerned about.
There are no significant legal proceedings or other issues to be concerned about.
In short, things look great!
There basically has been no stock traded since the new management team came in and recapitalized the company. And the PPS has stayed rock solid. So how is it that people have been losing money?
The S1 filing is considered the most detailed and inclusive filing a company can provide. It trumps a 10K for detail, because the company is listing shares with the SEC.
So I guess it's pretty useful after all.
I love where the stock is and what it's doing. It's rock steady with no selling. it's right where it needs to be.
And ESCU is doing exactly what it should be doing - getting its affairs in order and preparing for ongoing operations.
Anyone who understands how to read audited financials will believe it.
Yessir, that's correct. We now have a stock that is nice and tight with no selling. Wonderful!!
There is absolutely NO evidence of Kimmons selling shares for his personal benefit.
Once more, ESCU and EDWY are the SAME PUBLIC COMPANY. When the new management came on board they agreed to take on any obligations or issues carried over from the EDWY days. The chill is one of them.
Kimmons did not receive money from EDWY in 2014. Per the audited financials, he received RESTRICTED STOCK as PIF for accrued salary for 2010 through August 11th, 2013. Kimmons had already resigned from EDWY, and the company was simply catching up with its obligation.
He was not an employee of EDWY in 2014, nor did he receive money.
Incorrect. Kimmons resigned in August of 2013. He received restricted stock in 2014 for deferred compensation accrued from 2010 through August of 2013. He was not on the payroll after August of 2013. All of this is in the company's filings.
Kimmons has nothing to do with ESCU. He has been gone almost 3 years.
Removing the chill is simply one of the items ESCU is checking off its list as it moves forward.
It's the same public corporation with a different name, management and trading symbol.
ESCU plans to request removal of the DTC chill after the SEC approves the S1.
ESCU will submit the approved S1 to DTCC to clear up any issues it had.
I simply explained how investment works in publicly traded companies.
If that sounds like "mind games" so be it.
So? There is no requirement of an appraisal by a certified appraiser UNLESS the purchaser wishes to CONFIRM THE ACTUAL VALUE of what is being sold.
The purchaser also knows that he will NOT BE ABLE TO PUT IT ON HIS BALANCE SHEET without an independent appraisal.
In the case of ESCU, a publicly traded corporation, the requirement for an appraisal is mandatory because they wish to become a SEC reporting company.
Quite simply because both people have had a working relationship with ESCU (formerly EDWY). The two have never met, nor are they associated.
Of course they don't. The SEC monitors to confirm that the asset has been appraised by a certified asset appraiser, which it was.
The SEC has seen the appraisal and other information in its private correspondence with ESCU.
NO. A certified asset valuation entity was hired by ESCU to analyze the asset and assess its value. As professional asset valuators they employ a multi-factoral approach that takes into account numerous factors.
They do not simply take the price that was paid and rubber-stamp it as the assessed value. That's ridiculous. It's not the way assets of public companies are handled from an accounting perspective.
Also, the auditor will not place the asset on the books without the signoff of an independent appraiser.
Finally? Their website has always been up and running. But it was restricted to potential clients.
Regarding the value of the patent, it would not be in the audited financials if they had not proven its worth to the auditors and now, the SEC.
You will see the entry as a $40m asset on the Q4 and EOY financials. It's as simple as that. ESCU is always available to confirm.
Wrong. From an accounting and legal perspective, the patent was not paid for until the actual shares were issued to the seller of the patent. That did not happen until October 8th. It's really that simple.
Fine, but it cannot be booked as an ASSET on the balance sheet until Q4.
The transaction is footnoted in the Q3 finacials, but GAP specifies booking the asset created by the transaction according to the date the shares where actually issued. That's when the terms of the contract were completed. Actual share issuance did not occur until October 8th, or thereabouts, which is in the 4th quarter.
The asset will not appear on the balance sheet until the Q4 financials are posted, which will be soon. OTC Markets requires the EOY and Q4 financials to be filed by March 31st, 2016.
No. The shares were issued around October 8th, 2015 by the transfer agent. There was a 60 day period specified by the patent sale agreement for the transaction to close, which happened in October.