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.
New short positions opened. We should see a further drop in SHMP PPS barring strong buy support.
It's $120,000 per each month to extend. If this covers May, then $80,000 would cover pro rata June. Coupled with SHMP's PR, can we expect notice of YOTA shareholder vote and business combination closure by 3rd week of June?
Dumb example.
Rooting for a bankruptcy... there are employees, contractors, vendors and shareholders that would be harmed.
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/01/21/us-fish-farmer-buys-100m-of-equipment-for-land-based-barramundi-expansion/
You're right, it's worth $100 million in 2015 dollars.
Thanks for confirming the PPS is undervalued since the Iowa facility alone is worth at least $40 mil.
Looks like shorts basically closed their positions yesterday.
Then why are you arguing about a NATURALREDHERRING?
I think you're the one that needs to look up the definition, sir. You alleged the shares were reduced. That is not necessarily the case.
https://bizfluent.com/how-7955935-account-stock-redemption.html
Then I guess Easterling is duly exercising the Series A vote.
With that said, I agree with you that legally speaking, no one owns them because their legal existence is devoid of any consideration following the Shover Settlement. If shareholders didn't want the merger (i.e. were being harmed), I am sure someone would take up this issue. However, since it seems everyone agrees the merger is in SHMP's best interest, by ensuring that happens by voting with the SERIES A, you'd be hard pressed to articulate a harm in Easterling wielding the SERIES A vote to make that reality a certainty.
So we know they aren't now treasury shares?
But they do exist and no one has challenged the legal effect of voting them. Unless and until then, they are "duly exercised." Go challenge them if you want to be right. Until then, you're wrong.
unduly? I disagree. I don't want Power11 with their 11 million shares having any say in this business at this time. I say duly.
Please, do show me where it says they were canceled.
Who cares if we clearly know what they are for, that they have no value and that they will be canceled. Talk about a NATURALREDHERRING
No where does it say those shares were cancelled. Ownership just changed. So 11M are still outstanding.
Could you be more wrong.? LOL. Literally just stick your foot right into your mouth
"The Series A Preferred will be cancelled and retired without any conversion thereof and for no consideration."
"On [?], 2023, the holders of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred”) of NaturalShrimp Incorporated (“NaturalShrimp”) and Series F Convertible Preferred Stock of NaturalShrimp (the “Series F Preferred”), who hold, in the aggregate, at least a majority of the voting power of the shares of NaturalShrimp’s capital stock (with holders of Series A Preferred and Series F Preferred voting on an as-converted to NaturalShrimp common stock basis), executed and delivered to us irrevocable written consents (the “Stockholders’ Written Consents”). The Stockholders’ Written Consents approved the Merger Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2022 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Yotta Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Yotta Merger Sub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Yotta (“Merger Sub”), and NaturalShrimp, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into NaturalShrimp, with NaturalShrimp surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yotta (the “Business Combination”)."
They were kept around just to ensure a vote went where it needed to go. Stick in your pipe and smoke it EQ, UD, and JT.
If you had conviction in your prior statements and analysis, this is a question you would never ask.
It's not a matter of belief, my friend. That's what you are not understanding. It's a matter of objective fact. What is yours?
Any proof that's what is happening?
Is this a serious post? "I would bet," "it's probably in" are statements evidencing a lack of actual knowledge, while telling someone who quoted from the most recent filing that they don't know what they are talking about... Please just stop.
How do you figure that? It's not based in any real world evidence. Unless you know inside information the rest of us do not...
You're making a lot of assumptions.
May want to do that math again...
Welp, they aren't shareholders any longer so the ones that remain must be "For" the business combination then. Thanks again for confirming my take.
"On April 19, 2023, YOTA held the Special Meeting. On March 30, 2023, the record date for the Special Meeting, there were 14,718,499 shares of common stock of YOTA entitled to be voted at the Special Meeting, 66.49% of which were represented in person or by proxy."
"In connection with the stockholders’ vote at the Special Meeting, 7,414,905 shares were tendered for redemption."
Wait, does this mean that there are less YOTA shareholders today, then there were prior to April 19, 2023? Wait, does that mean YOTA shareholders are more or less likely to vote "for" the business combination? EQ, please, make it make sense!
Thank you for confirming my statement. What's the relevance of "t's a SPAC?"
What about YOTA's stock price? If the deal wasn't happening, it'd be dropping too. Instead, it's trading above par.
"If the Extension Amendment and the Trust Amendment are implemented and you do not elect to redeem your Public Shares now, you will retain the right to vote on the business combination when it is submitted to stockholders and the right to redeem your Public Shares into a pro rata portion of the Trust Account in the event a business combination is approved and completed (as long as your election is made at least two (2) business days prior to the meeting at which the stockholders’ vote is sought) or the Company has not consummated the business combination by the Extended Date."
Other than Steve Stack's buddy, why would anyone hold shares to a SPAC just to vote "no." You'd have to really be acting in bad faith.
It was also announced that shares would be redeemed. Therefore, it should have shaken out any common shareholders who were not "For" the business combination and thus it may not be a direct proxy, but it's certainly an indirect affirmation. Looks like current YOTA PPS is hovering right around the $10.31 redemption price.
3 months before NSI presumably has to pony up another 1/2 of $1.15 million. We'll find out today if YOTA Investment LLC is permitted to pony up $120k/mo. until the deal closes. Someone is prepared to put their money where their mouth is...
So you're saying their like Elizabeth Holmes?
506,667 sell at 15:03:14 @ $.04885 avg. does not come up on any other source of trade data, other than Ihub.
Trade data from OTCmarkets.com:
03/29/2023 15:06:43
0.05
0.00 14,000
03/29/2023 14:45:40
0.0495
0.00 150
Can one actually call Ihub accurate? Moreover, why would anyone sell that many shares at the low price of the day? hmmmm
Can't really know if you don't disclose your source of information, right?
Your unsubstantiated presupposition is incorrect, just like the understanding you've put forward re: SEC's ability to go after NSI for god knows what issue or claim.
Yup.
In this case, they are one in the same. Res Judicata applies to a fact or issue resolved in a prior case. Collateral estoppel is the doctrine that applies when a subsequent case attempts to relitigate res judicata. Would it be the fact that the NSI to NSH shares were created in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, or the claim that the NSI shares are being distributed to NSH shareholders in violation of the Securities Act of 1933? I believe the judge ruled on both those points and after notice and hearing determined that the securities are exempt under the Securities Act of 1933. Collateral estoppel, also known as issue or claim preclusion, please teach me, what issue or claim would the SEC be addressing anew that's not res judicata in the Shover case?
Not after a court of competent jurisdiction ruled the securities are exempt. Obviously no idea of what collateral estoppel is.