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.
Savant, you are claiming Ralston bolted and he owns billions of shares; even in the same sentences. This is nonsensical. No wonder you and surf post in tandem.
"RALSTON bolted from MWWC where he holds billions of shares, so that speaks volumes."
About Director Dr. Gary Aaron and Bioidentical 💊Hormones🥼, Inc., which AHFD owns.
https://mymenopausedoctor.com.au/
This may be ready to start mass producing hormone treatments? This may be terrific news here. The Dr. only uses treatments as a last resort (integrity) and this company produces the preferable hormone treatment. This has intriguing enormous potential. I think this has been in the works for a long time and is now approaching fulfillment.
https://www.webmd.com/menopause/what-is-bioidentical-hormone-replacement-therapy
Thanks we'll keep it active. It's definitely safe 'till next March with no trades.
There was a trade not more than 2 months ago and may have been others since. I have not checked. I have a small position already. It may be worth it to increase it. A grand now could turn into a small fortune at these prices. My gut instincts are this is Boyar. He must have had some sort of plan 2 years back.
Same here. This was close to delisting. With a month already passing from the T/A verifying, we should find out more this summer. Someone isn't doing this for nothing. And Boyar is in the best position to do something, unless it is already sold. Someone is preventing delisting.
I'm not finding the evidence, as I-Glow suggests, this is a hijack.
Boyar still in control, with Aaron and Wallace, as least as a silent partner, still involved as far as I can tell.
Maybe a sale? Or maybe Boyar had a plan in place 2 years ago? Why else would Boyar take control of a shell 2 years ago other than to profit eventually (and Aaron become more involved)?
Boyar has control now, Wallace is still active even though he said a while back he has nothing to do with AHFD. A silent partner? Aaron is also involved.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/347151/content
These guys have the most to gain by doing something with this; particularly selling it for than it would take for someone to go to court and try to hijack it. It would not be the first time something on the expert market sold. I'm guessing Boyar has control and wants to profit by selling it and Wallace wants to minimize his losses. I can't find court action suggesting a hijack nor can I find a change in control since then. Purely from a business point of view, why would someone try to hijack if they could buy it for roughly the same as trying to hijack it? Why would Boyar and Aaron move in 2 years ago on Wallace's company?
"Shell Companies
Shell companies were originally intended to be among the chief victims of the new Rule 15c2-11. Many are companies no longer engaged in any business; some have been abandoned by management. Quite a few private companies choose to go public through reverse mergers with dormant shells; they believe it’s a cheaper and faster way to start reaping the benefits of public company status. That is not necessarily the case. While it often (though not always) is faster, it can be quite expensive, costing upwards of $100,000 even for a non-reporting shell, with the cost of the merger transaction factored in. For the money, the new issuer, often inexperienced, may find himself buying a pig in a poke: the shell may have skeletons in the closet in the form of undisclosed debt, former insiders with large undeclared positions, and more. Less naïve potential management may buy shells simply to conduct illegal and destructive pump and dump operations.
The SEC has never liked any of that. For several years, it attempted to deal with dormant shells by bringing mass suspensions at least once annually as part of what it called Operation Shell Expel. The program ran from 2012 through 2016. It was then inexplicably abandoned. In its heyday, it had been extremely successful. One well-known shell vendor sold his portfolio of shells that had suddenly become Grey at fire-sale prices. Others simply stepped away from the business.
But by 2017, the shell peddlers were back with a vengeance. Many got control of abandoned shells through custodianship actions brought in local courts in the state (usually Nevada or Wyoming) where the shell was domiciled. The actions were cheap and almost never contested. The new custodian could then “clean up” the shell and look for a buyer. Internet players began to follow individual shell vendors in the courts where they were active. The moment one who was perceived as arranging “good” deals filed a custodianship petition, stock in the shell would be snapped up, often on heavy volume at ever-increasing prices. That alone was often the play. Finding buyers for a shell can take time, in some cases more than a year. Penny speculators don’t want their money tied up for that long and are more likely to exit after the initial pop in price.
Obviously, that does not encourage “capital formation.” The SEC wanted to put a stop to the trafficking in shells, but there was a regulatory problem. The agency has for years defined shell companies as:
…any issuer, other than a business combination related shell company… or an asset-backed issuer… that has (1) no or nominal operations and (2) either (i) no or nominal assets, (ii) assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents, or (iii) assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.
But that only applied to SEC registrants; it did not apply to Pinks not required to make disclosure of any kind. A slightly different and more complex definition was adopted in the final rule:
The definition of shell company that the Commission is adopting does not preclude a broker-dealer, qualified IDQS, or registered national securities association from determining that an entity is a shell company based on an observation that a company has identified itself as a shell company (or as not a shell company) or, alternatively, review of a company’s financial information, including asset composition, operational expenditures, and income-related metrics. The definition of shell company under the amended Rule is consistent with the requirements of other established and broadly used Commission rules to provide market participants flexibility in analyzing the particular facts and circumstances involving an issuer, such as the issuer’s financial information and information related to its operations.
It would seem that considerable responsibility for identifying and dealing with shell companies will now fall to OTC Markets. It has not said how it plans to deal with that.
In the proposed rule, the SEC said it intended to prohibit market makers from relying on the piggyback exception for shell companies. Had that become part of the final rule, all of those companies would quickly have been relegated to the Greys. But cries of outrage from commenters persuaded the agency to compromise, and the result was a modified version of its original proposal:
Under the amended Rule, a broker-dealer may maintain a quoted market for the security of an issuer that the broker-dealer has a reasonable basis under the circumstances for believing is a shell company by relying on the piggyback exception during the 18-month period following the initial publication or submission of a priced bid or offer quotation for the security in an IDQS, assuming all other requirements of the piggyback exception are met… The Commission believes that compliance with the information review requirement is needed following the 18-month period to appropriately balance the facilitation of capital formation and the promotion of investor protection.
There is some confusion about the correct interpretation of “initial publication or submission of a priced bid or offer quotation for the security in an IDQS.” It seems to us it ought to mean that an OTC shell company would, like a SPAC, be able to qualify as compliant with Rule 15c2-11 only if it was new to the market. It would then have 18 months in which to find a buyer.
At the OTC Markets webinar, Zinn explained:
The way that it works is that for a new company coming on, after September 28th, that is a shell company within the definition of the rule, which includes those that disclose their shell status in their filings, those companies, starting from the point where they’re initially quoted, so that first day when they join the market and a broker-dealer has a priced bid or an ask in the security, they will be able to be quoted for an 18-month period after that.
But he added: “Any company that’s a shell as of September 28th has 18 months from that date to be the subject of a public quote if it remains a shell.” He may be confused by the SEC’s intentions because he finished by saying, “We are obviously constantly talking to the SEC about the application of this rule. This is our understanding based on those conversations, but we’ll also continue to push them to put out more specific guidance…”
Shell vendors may be perplexed as well, taking a wait-and-see stance until September 28. At least one who’s been very successful in recent years seems to be shifting his attention to exchange-listed issuers that might be receptive to a suitor interested in a buyout. The OTC custodianship plays that were attracting so much attention only six months ago have disappeared.
FINRA Weighs In
FINRA had been silent through the comment period for the proposed rule. Finally, on May 28, 2021, it filed with the SEC its own proposed rule change to members (i.e., broker-dealers’) requirements under FINRA Rule 6432 (Compliance with the Information Requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11). It posted its proposal at its own website; the SEC did the same on June 9. Only one comment has been submitted to date; it is from OTC Link LLC and was written by Dan Zinn and Cass Sanford.
While FINRA approves of the idea of a qualified IDQS making determinations about an issuer’s compliance with Rule 15c2-11’s current information requirement, it points out that:
Under FINRA Rule 6432, no member may quote a non-exchange-listed security in a quotation medium unless the member has demonstrated compliance with FINRA Rule 6432 and the applicable requirements for information maintenance under Rule 15c2-11 by making a filing with, and in the form required by, FINRA (i.e., the Form 211). The Form 211 is designed to gather pertinent information regarding the subject issuer and security, the members knowledge of and relationship with the issuer, and the member’s intended quotation activities with respect to the security. FINRA uses the Form 211 in connection with its oversight of member compliance with Rule 15c2-11.
FINRA wants to make three amendments to its own Rule 6432. First, the IDQS would be required to submit a modified Form 211 in connection with each initial information review it conducts; second, that the IDQS be obliged to submit a daily security file to FINRA containing summary information for all securities quoted on its system, and finally, “other changes” to Rule 6432 and the Form 211 would be proposed to clarify the new elements of both.
It asks that on the day following the IDQS’s determination of an issuer’s compliance with Rule 15c2-11, it files a modified Form 211 by 6:30 p.m. Eastern time. It sees that as a good way to guarantee that trading will begin as quickly as possible. In a footnote, it adds its bombshell: “…the modified Form 211 must be reviewed and signed by a principal of the Qualified IDQS and the principal must certify, among other things, that neither the firm nor its associated persons have accepted or will accept any payment or other consideration for filing the Form 211.”
For the daily security file submission, FINRA wants:
Security symbol;
Issuer name;
If the non-exchange-listed equity security is being quoted pursuant to a processed Form 211 under FINRA Rule 6432(a);
If applicable, the type of publicly available determination made by the Qualified IDQS (e.g., an initial review pursuant to Rule 15c2-11(a)(2), that the required information is current and publicly available under Rule 15c2-11 (f)(2)(iii)(B) or (f)(3)(ii)(A), or an exception under Rule 15c2-11(f)(7)) and the date on which such publicly available determination was made by the Qualified IDQS;
With respect to a non-exchange-listed equity security for which the Qualified IDQS has made a publicly available determination under Rule 15c2-11(f)(7) relating to the availability of the piggyback exception under Rule 15c2-11(f)(3), whether the issuer is a shell company and, if a shell company, the number of days remaining in the applicable 18-month period under Rule 15c-2-11(f)(3)(i)(B)(2);
If applicable, that the security is being quoted pursuant to an exception that does not rely on the Qualified IDQS’s publicly available determination and, if so, identify the exception relied upon by the subscriber; and
Such other information as specified by FINRA in a Regulatory Notice (or similar communication).
Perhaps such a list could be generated automatically and so present no difficulties for OTC Markets, but it seems it would have to be reviewed for accuracy, at least occasionally. Even so, it doesn’t seem to be problematic.
The “other amendments” are less substantive and should present no problems for OTC Markets.
The text of the amended Rule 6432 begins on page 35 of FINRA’s submission.
Zinn and Sanford posted their comment to the SEC on July 6. Their chief interest is in demonstrating that OTC Markets, as an IDQS, ought to be allowed to charge for its services. While they “do not expect the existing application of Rule 5250 to have a significant impact on our ability to perform initial information reviews, …we believe the modernized interpretation and application of Rule 5250 that we propose here would benefit issuers, investors and regulators alike.”
The thrust of Zinn and Sanford’s argument is that the prohibition on compensation for initial information reviews shouldn’t be applied to an IDQS because an IDQS isn’t a broker-dealer. Further, according to FINRA itself, a potential conflict only arises because for a market maker: “Accepting such prohibited payments compromises the independence of a firm’s decision regarding its quoting and market-making activities and, among other things, harms investor confidence in the overall marketplace because investors are unable to ascertain which quotations are based on actual interest and while are supported by issuers or promoters.” But an IDQS does not publish quotations or act as a market maker. It merely facilitates market maker quotations, and so the prohibition on accepting compensation should not extend to a “neutral market operator conducting initial information reviews or filing Form 211s [sic] with FINRA.”
No comment on the daily security file is offered.
On July 29, the SEC filed a new notice in connection with FINRA’s proposed amendments to Rule 5250. The deadline for the Commission’s decision would have been July 30, but the Division of Trading and Markets, “pursuant to delegated authority,” decided to move the critical date to September 13, by which time “the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change.”
It seems the suspense will continue until September 28 is nearly upon us. In early summer, OTC Markets did its best to encourage non-compliant issuers to submit current information by June 30, noting that early submissions would guarantee compliance by the critical day in September. It says it’s working through applications now and will handle as many as it can, in the order in which they’re received.
Some, inevitably, will arrive too late. At the webinar in July, Zinn was asked what issuers should do if they end up without published quotations but want to return to normal trading. He replied that they’d have to apply for an Initial Information Review, which is a “higher standard” than the “ongoing information standard” that is being applied during this pre-September 28 period. He added casually that “things like audited financial statements are likely to be required.”
There was no further discussion of that astonishing suggestion. At some time in the future, will Pink Current Information issuers be required to produce audited financials? OTC Markets could do that: it’s a private company and can ask anything it wishes of the issuers that want to be quoted on its trading platform. But many issuers would be displeased and might well seek out a different IDQS.
For further information about this securities law blog post, please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real S, Suite 202 N, Boca Raton, Florida, (561) 416-8956, by email info@securitieslawyer101.com or visit www.securitieslawyer101.com. This securities law blog post is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group and should not be construed as and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes."
Share price is super low right now. It will skyrocket with very little activity. Right now is the time to buy. However, it very, very risky without inside info into what is going on. If nothing happens, it will delist. But again, the TA updated. So whoever did that thinks the odds are in their favor or they would not have spent money. Next buyer of shares could turn a grand into a small fortune if the gamble pays off? And it is a gamble.
Do you know when the T/A verified? Was it Friday? If so, before or after closing? This is very, very interesting.
I-Glow monitors these. He obviously does so for profit. I look forward to his explanation of why he feels this is a hijack rather than Wallace. If I am interpreting his post correctly, he is suggesting this is a shareholder trying to profit rather than Wallace. My gut instincts are this is Wallace getting around to selling it. Could he already have a buyer in hand? Too many questions. So little answers. I don't think the transfer agent will divulge who paid them?
Even if someone tried to hijack it, what other motivation could they have but to turn it over, for profit, to someone who will use it unless they are going to use it themselves.
It is a safe bet it is either Wallace or a major shareholder who believes they have more shares than anyone else. There is no evidence of recent share purchase activity.
Thanks savant ITYS. Ted Ralston did a fantastic job pulling the plug on crypto and reversing course to far more profitable endeavors at both MWWC and GEVI. God bless him for it. Anyone can look at the revenues of GEVI, see the enormous increase, and see the stock price soared. It is presently the better part of a dollar per share. If he does a similar job here, and I am watching it happen, guess what happens next?
"I have a feeling many if not all here at MWWC got caught in the crypto scam and have no choice but to be in favor of new HAD direction. No other choice.
Same as Ralston other failed crypto scam at GEVI, same situation there. Everyone got caught in scam and now no choice but to cheer for new endeavor.
Ralston 0-2 in crypto scam and be 0-3 with the fake forest fire and he bolted from MWWC where he holds billions of shared, so that speaks volumes."
proof
/pro?of/
noun
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"That is proof? SMH"
Doing great IMO for a company that missed filing.
"Why can’t they file a 15c IG?"
'What is a 15c?"
"Also do you know why a transfer agent would be verified if the shell is dead? Thanks"
"SEC Form 15
By WILL KENTON Updated September 11, 2022
Reviewed by CAITLIN CLARKE
Fact checked by TIMOTHY LI
SEC Form 15: An Overview
SEC Form 15 is a voluntary filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), also known as the Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration. It is used by companies to revoke their registrations as publicly-traded corporations.1 2
Form 15 is typically used by small companies with a limited number of shareholders who decide that the expense and reporting requirements of remaining a publicly-traded corporation are too onerous.
1
The company's shares will cease trading, while its remaining owners may retain or sell their shares privately.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Form 15 informs the SEC that a company no longer wants to trade publicly, and therefore won't follow the usual government reporting requirements.
The form is most often used by small companies with few shareholders who find the SEC reporting regulations burdensome.
It is sometimes used by companies in deep trouble that face imminent de-listing anyway.
The form also may be used by companies that have fallen on hard times financially and have reason to fear imminent and non-voluntary delisting by an exchange.
Understanding SEC Form 15
SEC Form 15 notifies the SEC that the company filing it does not intend to continue to file the various forms that are required in order to maintain its listing as a public company.
A company must have fewer than 300 shareholders to be eligible to file Form 15.
2
The reporting requirements are detailed in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They are extensive and can be burdensome for small publicly-listed firms. Some of these experience very little trading of their stock on the public exchange. Ownership may be dominated by a single family or by a small group of investors. For such circumstances, the benefits of being a public company may simply not be worth the time, money, and effort of preparing and filing periodic reports to the SEC.
As soon as the voluntary Form 15 is filed, the company is no longer required to make the principal filings required by the SEC. These include the annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and current reports on Form 8-K. (In the case of foreign companies, Form 8-K is replaced with Form 20-F, 3 and Form 6-K). 4"
Thank you. Something is up. I'll have to start looking into this.
Verify that or you are making an assumption. And do I have to remind you about your dismal record with assumptions about QMC?
I think the problem is each and every one of you is giving Jake too much credit. Seriously. When he tells you he is going to give you something or do something for you. He doesn't actually have to. He merely has to make the statement. Everyone then has to give him credit for giving you something or doing something for you. And then everyone has to tell him how wonderful he is. If you don't adulate him, you gain his wrath. That is the way it has always been for Jake. Understanding that will allow Jake to be more predictable to you.
"So Lil Jake aka DIRTY JAKE likes to sue the shit out of other hard working innocent people and threaten them and hustle their money from them - BUT THE DICK BRAIN CAN'T PAY HIS OWN DAMN BILLS in a timely manner when he lives with a golden spoon shoved up his skinny ass at Mommas mega bucks Free-Loader-In estate house WTF again ????"
Watch him call it a transaction fee, commission, etc.. I've got his number. You should all be expecting this at every turn. None of you can truly expect him to earn anything or do anything honest. $5.00 is pretty generous by his standards. He is probably kicking himself and telling himself he does far too much for the ungrateful shareholders at this point, and regretting not cutting checks for $0.01, or sending nothing at all. Frankly I can't believe any adult would believe anything he said after his history,
Company employee Dark2, how about giving them an update?
"we doubt that shareholders will hear about it. We expect it will be just like when UEEC applied for PMA approval for Class III in late 2017, there will just not be any updates, like it never happened."
Skwyerz is laundering the K&L settlement into his own pockets and making sure not share it with shareholders.
It was $100 before Jake the Snake 🤣took.his.cut🤣.
I only got paid out 5 dollars not 100
"Watching B list celebrities (at best) watching a show from 50 years ago...RIVETING !
hope Vegas gets involved as I have Gary Busey puking before round 2 wink
HAD would have worked in the 80-90s but now there are more reality shows that real shows...
Blagman needs to come up with the "new" not the copycat model.
Has he done anything in last DECADE?"
"star-studded series...uplifting insights from artists, writers, musicians, athletes, chefs, and fashion designers...diverse voices in the entertainment industry...promises to captivate audiences with its rarely-seen sneak peak into celebrity lives."
"there is something special for everyone in this ‘NO SCRIPT' affair inside Hollywood; which is sure to make the morning BUZZ on TMZ"
Networks usually do the announcing. Judging from this linked'in post, the deals are already completed beforehand. But reality doesn't stop the thoughtless and witless manipulation. I know I am dealing with an extremely short attention span, but try to read the underlined sentence. Then the real challenge will be to remember it so I do not have to keep explaining it daily.
Robert Blagman’s Post
Robert Blagman
3w
"Hollywood After Dark - ready for its "close up" Mr. DeMille! 😎"
"Just what happens when you work 14 hours a day!"
Drugman❓️, how is the s-1 fantasy and clinical trials progressing? Is Skwyerz hard at work? Are the reactors shipped to India churning out them quantum dots? Remember the factory there was going to be expanded to handle the overload? Wasn't open source blockchain a brilliant purchase? Are the display companies crawling over each other to use QMC's "industry-disrupting" technology? Is this a total scam?
The public's purchases disagree with you. Revenues soared. That is what matters in business.
"MWWC really isn't worth discussing"
At least make yourself useful, and get the ask back to .0001 for us. Right now you are just acting as a pest.
"Sh%# Changes in over a YEAR"
It holds true today and into the future. Just because 🍐you🍐 and your offspring have extreme trouble comprehending various strategies and tools does not mean it is meaningless. I do understand it is meaningless to 🍐you🍐, and your departure from actuality, but it isn't as far as the reality of Marketing Worldwide's present and future is concerned. I'm truly sorry I disturbed this sassy delusion you embrace. Other than🍐your🍐 own imagination, no reverse split has taken place or is about to. May i suggest you keep reading the article over and outload to 🍐yourself🍐 and offspring?
🍐Pearheads🍐 need to check the unsold inventory. https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/392649/content
Actually they can't distribute anything. Once megola cons a 🍭sucker🍭 into purchasing anything, even the gullible don't return to buy more. That inventory tells a different story than the one being spun.
Sterling must've been right at home @MGON with 💩ITYS💩.
No, the customers dropped megola, evidently fleeing to GEVI.
🍐Pearhead🍐 read this very slowly and outload...
"Marketing Worldwide Corporation Cancels Reverse Split and Seeks Alternative Means to Capitalize Operations
Marketing Worldwide Corp.
Tue, Mar 21, 2023
3 min read
In This Article:
MWWC
0.00%
CHEYENNE, WY / ACCESSWIRE / March 21, 2023 / Marketing Worldwide Corporation (OTC PINK:MWWC), ('the Company'), approves Cancelation of Reverse Split and seeks alternative means to capitalize operations.
Marketing Worldwide Corp., Tuesday, March 21, 2023, Press release pictureMarketing Worldwide Corp., Tuesday, March 21, 2023, Press release picture
Marketing Worldwide Corp., Tuesday, March 21, 2023, Press release picture
Marketing Worldwide Corporation 'MWWC' is pleased to announce that the Board of Directors under the advice of 'TCO' Robert Blagman has decided to cancel the Reverse Split and proposes alternative means to capitalize operations through non-dilutive measures.
"There are always options, when we consider alternatives to support ongoing long-lasting growth," said 'TCO' Robert Blagman.
The Company ‘BOD' and ‘TCO' Robert Blagman have discussed several scenarios that benefit the shareholders; which, take into consideration the latest acquisition of ‘MWM' and the slew of projects currently in the pipeline, which has led to the actions list below:
Marketing Worldwide Cancels the Reverse Split
‘MWWC' has identified 470 Million shares of Restricted Common Stock that will be retired to the treasury over the next few weeks; this will clean and reduce the outstanding share structure of outdated non-compliant issuances.
Marketing Worldwide under a re-negotiated contract now has the capacity to eliminate $100,000 in convertible debt and has verbal approval from the debt holder to proceed.
Marketing Worldwide Media ‘MWM' (sub.) will host a select group of Accredited Investors with the intentions of selling ‘Cashless Warrants' executable at a ‘fixed sum basis' and paid for by proceeds generated from corporate activities; as opposed to, dilutive debt paid by the parent company Marketing Worldwide Corporation.
Mr. Blagman stated, "I bring more to the table than just a strong resume, network of professionals, and industry savvy. We have access to the licensing and option agreements for a variety of solid global content driven events that can be distributed at a favorable industry price to an international viewing audience. The quicker we do this the faster MWM can bring in positive revenue results. Marketing Worldwide Media can be much more than just a name."
Marketing Worldwide would like to invite our investors, shareholders, clients, and corporate sponsors to view the second episode of a 3-part video-series and a new Podcast interview with our 'TCO' Robert Blagman, which will be released later this week and shared via the corporate Twitter account"
GEVI outsold competitor POS Megola 40x over. Evidently Megola is totally incompetent from what you are telling me. Smell that smoke.
WHAT stops anyone from making a KNOCKOFF MFB31 blend ?--30% Potassium citrate, 10% Triethyl Citrate and water
THEN to break ALL the useless patents just add in 1% Urea and NEW PRODUCT
IMAGINE other companies and chemist can KNOCKOFF MFB 31 as its NOT PROPRIETARY
GEVI is useless ! Fire departments can make their own (new blend) and cut out GEVI.
smell the smoke
Sounds good. The flaw in your thinking is that you never forsake the established revenues without first establishing the new product line, and actually demonstrating a better profit margin, which then would make dropping the old product an option. Two years have passed with essentially no revenues. Those revenues could have been used to build toward a new goal. No sane businessman is going to forsake those revenues in the meantime. What if the new product does not pan out? At least then you have something to fall back on. This whole situation does not add up. Something is very wrong that is not being disclosed nor discussed.