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.
With respect, please recheck the postings.
GreenSafe hired Blue Light Capital to find funds.
The best proposal came from Bergamo Acquisition Corp in the fall of 2009. A deal was struck where BGMO would acquire 60% of GreenSafe for an investment of $ 50 million as equity and $ 70 million as subordinated debt. That deal was signed days prior to the ground breaking event. Two weeks into 2010, BGMO advised GreenSafe that it could not make the agreed payments and asked for it to be rescheduled. The reason for the delay was BGMO's problems in remitting the profits from the high yield investment program.
Does this sound familiar?
Say, VSTA, boys and girls.
The equity infusion was rescheduled to meet the expected flow from the high yield investment program and the investment needs for another project (Suntrough and the application software firm).
Well, guess what happened?
All of the dates for the wire transfers from BGMO to GreenSafe were missed.
Does this sound familiar?
Once more say, VSTA, boys and girls.
GreenSafe's issues had nothing to do with Blue Light but what is now a recurring problem with BGMO with the failure to deliver.
Apparently, after the entire management team save two left GreenSafe, that company and BGMO entered into a new funding agreement. What it was is uncertain as the new management did not maintain the website.
Blue Light was long gone from the scene.
Evidence shows that BGMO and GreenSafe were "thick as thieves" more than two years after the big cheque signing event.
You forgot the representation by BGMO to Rahi (and others) that it had tens of millions to invest in BB Solar fully sourced by other parties without the issuance of any new shares.
In reviewing the facts, I beg to differ.
At no time was Rahi a holder of any BGMO stock.
At no time was Rahi a recipient of any options or warrants on any BGMO securities.
He had nothing to gain or lose if the stock went up or down.
Why, you may ask?
BGMO already represented to Rahi that it had millions upon millions of capital raised without issuing any new shares.
This funding miracle was also paraded before other target companies but I digress.
The content of the BGMO website was 100% controlled by HH so any promotion of BB Solar, a 60% owned BGMO subsidiary, was not Rahi's doing.
In reviewing the terms of the deal, the Bergamo named subsidiary, BB Solar, did not require the permanent investment of equity or debt but merely some short term purchase order financing similar to what BGMO received from Platinum Funding in our garment days.
Sixty percent of the stock for just arranging money - not bad a deal if you can get it.
Caught between a rock and a hard place...
is where BGMO and its directors could find themselves.
Consider this for a moment.
Let us assume that through the SEC investigation that they determine that there was anything from insider trading or the intent to deceive, then, our Company and its directors could find themselves wearing bright orange jumpsuits.
Now, let us assume that the SEC investigation finds out that the money is real. The financial report for the partial year (Sept 2012) shows two major taxable events.
The first is at the corporate level. The IRS does not like taxpayers taking their time to pay their fair share. It would appear to me that they would owe taxes plus interest and penalties from the reported part of 2012, the unreported part for the balance of the year as well as for this part of 2013. The IRS's response is to pay up now!
The second is at the personal level. Again the IRS does not like late filers. HH and SP have indicated and attested to the fact that they each made $ 40 million during the first part of 2012. The IRS does not concern itself if you have received the cash as it was not a salary.
Now, what if the IRS was doing an investigation on the reported profits from say 2009. They could take the approach of levying the taxes, interest and penalties from 2009 until the entries were reversed. However, would they reverse out the penalties and interest? I don't know.
Based on the stories circulating on this site, it is more than probable that HH received warrants in BGMO and sold them for a profit. Based on previous behaviour, it is also likely that the gain reported on the exercising of the warrants was not reported. What would be the impact on BGMO if its President was caught for tax avoidance or evasion?
One thing that we should remember.
No court ever convicted Al Capone for murder or racketeering.
He was finally caught as a tax cheat!
I think the SEC is on a manhunt for pump and dump operators. Between the fall out of the bank failures and other corporate executive greed, the voters and politicians have directed the SEC to get the culprits. It is only a matter of time.
Every target company stayed with BGMO other than one.
The reason that these capital hungry firms stayed with BGMO is they believed what BGMO told them. As the accountant proved and our President affirmed that everything that was said by BGMO through filings to OTC Markets and through press releases was unsubstantiated.
By not walking away from BGMO even after it was proven that the high yield and SBLC programs never closed, they hoped that they could lever the BGMO deal with other investors so that they could find real money.
Bergamo has a long history of showing financing documents to target companies. In every case, Bergamo did not deliver.
The accountant said that the company had no money at the start of the fiscal year 2012. What was earned was deemed to be restricted therefore not useable cash. Our management misrepresented itself that it could close a deal with VSTA when planned as BGMO had no cash to invest. Even after two amendments, BGMO still has not delivered the cash to VSTA.
VSTA will remain quiet on the off chance that BGMO may deliver. By keeping that dream alive, VSTA management can try to raise funds elsewhere and try to get a competing bid from a firm with real cash. By doing so, VSTA management keeps their reputation and the VSTA shareholders do not stampede to the exits.
The sad reality is that Bergamo has a long and perfect track record in announcing the raising of capital and investing the proceeds into green ventures. Neither the former nor the later have ever closed.
So the failure of the Bergamo named and Bergamo controlled company named BB Solar rests solely on BGMO. They failed to deliver the cash to acquire, integrate and install solar pumps in the third world.
This is not the first such failure of BGMO to deliver funds and the resulting fallout of BGMO's repeated unsubstantiated claims.
Please remember that the accounting firm of L L Bradford concluded that there was no evidence that any of the previous financings or investments had occurred. Further, please remember that Herzog admitted (attested) that the statements made by the accountant were true. Hence, our own President admitted mis-speaking the truth.
Even, if it is true...
it was placed in a restricted account.
The company started the year with no cash. Anything earned from the so called high yield investment program would either be restricted (at least 88 million) plus some unrestricted amount. If there was any free cash earned after September 2012, wouldn't you think that they would have used it to discharge their obligation to Vistagen?
The evidence of amending the agreement with VSTA and deferring the amounts suggests that there isn't any unrestricted cash. If this is true then the release date would still be months away.
There is also another issue of the absence of updated financial statements, ideally audited, to the end of the 2012 fiscal year as well as an interim for the current year. This would confirm one way or another if the trend in continuing.
VSTA will not walk because...
there is an interesting pathology associated to the corporate victims of the BGMO story. Firms like GreenSafe, Suntrough, Vistagen and so forth require lots of money to roll out their business plans. They all may have stellar management, proprietary technology and so on but they all are desperate for cash.
They stumbled upon Bergamo who was their saving grace.
Once BGMO has missed a date for payment, firms like those mentioned above do not announce that the deal is dead. Why you may ask?
They keep the illusion alive perhaps for personal issues like not admitting that they made an error in being party of the BGMO drama (or comedy).
By keeping the door open, they may think that Hillard can finally (after 60 plus unsubstantiated press releases) actually break the history of false statements and actually raise the funds for investment purposes.
Also, by keeping the BGMO door open, they can use to for some leverage to find other real investors to move quickly to put money into their firms.
VSTA has already said that that they could be in grave trouble if BGMO does not deliver. So by keeping a low profile, they get to play both sides of the street. They can keep the faint hope open for BGMO to deliver and they can go to the street and try to find another capital party who can complete the deal at relatively higher stock prices.
I think it is the fourth down and ten yards to go. Do you punt or not?
My reading of the letter is as follows:
The accountant was asked to verify the funding but never came out and said that he verified the cash was legitimate and resided in the names of the parties and the banks mentioned.
What the accountant did perform was to prepare a lost of the documents that he has received and views.
No letter issued by an accountant should be open to two opposite conclusions. This is contrary to the profession says my neighbour.
According to the accountants,
Bergamo has never closed any financing deal or closed any share purchase arrangement with any target company prior to January 2012. Since there wasn't any proof, all of the previously reported revenues from high yield investment programs and the subsequent share of the profits vanished. The same hold true for the after tax profits and retained earnings.
Using the OTC Markets reported financial statements, it would appear that somewhere between 50 cents and a dollar per share in book value was wiped out.
Better yet, our Company's president even affirmed the accountants statements that nothing prior to January 2012 happened. It was all a dream or an innocent lie or perhaps even a criminal or civil fraud. Time will only tell from the SEC and others.
As for BB Solar, the story appears to be that they pulled the plug on Bergamo since Bergamo did not deliver the cash as promised. Look at the previous list of companies where BGMO agreed to fund but never delivered. It includes a clean coal project, GreenSafe, Suntrough, a broker dealer, an applications software developer and BB Solar to name a few. We should not say the BGMO was smart at saw though that all of these projects were scams. It is clear than BGMO did not raise any capital to fund these ventures as contractually agreed.
There are a few sad realities with BGMO.
The accounting firm of L L Bradford concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate any or all of the claims of funding, investment, profits and retained earnings made by Bergamo to OTC Markets, through Business Wire and to the shareholders prior to January 2012.
If there is no evidence to support the claims and representations made by our firm's President, it begs the question as to the nature of the press releases. Where they mere prospective wishful thinking, intentional misrepresentations or something that could be labelled as criminal or civil fraud.
Perhaps the most damning statement by our Company was the attestation that what the accountant prepared was free from any errors or omissions. In essence, our President confirmed that their was an absence of proof to any prior claim of funding or investment, profits or retained earnings. This is a rather stark admission that our own leader misspoke!
The story of the high yield investment program is a replay of an early program that BGMO reported either in late 2009 or early 2010. In both cases, documents were signed and paraded about. In both cases, shortly after the announcement of funding, they announced the acquisition of a controlling interest in a potentially lucrative venture. Both target companies had proven management. In both cases, BGMO could not deliver the funds as agreed. In both cases, the share purchase agreements were amended to defer the contribution dates. In both cases, the payments under the agreed and deferred dates we missed.
What we are seeing is a repeating pattern of funding documents, investment announcements and missed payment dates made by a Company whose accountant and President stated that everything prior to January 2012 was in fact a lie.
We are now asked to believe the Company has reformed itself, that it will no longer misrepresent itself and yet continues to follow the same patterns and business practices of four years earlier.
It would also hold true that any current or former BGMO who was privy to certain discussions and documents involving BGMO could submit them to the SEC as well.
Likewise, any of the former target companies that BGMO negotiated to provide capital and none of which closed could also submit documents to the SEC.
It is our responsibility as good citizens to ensure that the SEC has all of the available information before it so that they can render the appropriate favourable or unfavourable verdict.
I am sending all of my GreenSafe articles which shows the announcement of funding, ground breaking, rescheduling of the capital investment and so forth to the SEC.
It goes to the pattern of announcing funding, finding a new target and never acquiring the businesses. This happened with Suntrough, the Japanese application developer and BB Solar as well. I suspect this fate will fall upon VSTA as well.
Suspension of Trading
Aug 02, 2013
OTC Disclosure & News Service
Washington, D.C. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 70093 / August 2, 2013
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced the temporary suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), of trading in the securities of Bergamo Acquisition Corp. ("Bergamo") commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 2, 2013, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 15, 2013.
The Commission temporarily suspended trading in Bergamo because questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases and other public statements concerning Bergamo's business operations and financial condition. Bergamo's ticker symbol is BGMO.
The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available
information and any information subsequently issued by Bergamo.
Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspensions, no quotation may be entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer has any questions as to whether or not he has complied with the rule, he should not enter any quotation but immediately contact the staff in the Division of Trading and Markets, Office of Interpretation and Guidance, at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by Rule 15c2-11, he should refrain from entering quotations relating to the abovenamed securities until such time as he has familiarized himself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in
violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action.
If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they should immediately contact the following individuals:
Sanjay Wadwha, (212) 336-0181 or wadwhas@sec.gov
Associate Regional Director, New York Regional Office
George N. Stepaniuk, (212) 336-0173 or stepaniukg@sec.gov
Assistant Regional Director, New York Regional Office
Wow!
I have never have seen a skull and cross bones before on a market service.
I guess I can call my BGMO investment dead "officially".
Caution needs to be used
in reviewing the work done by the accounting firm.
We need to remember that it was a compilation rather than a review or audit so the third party checking of the management prepared numbers is virtually none. He can say that he has a piece of paper but does not go back to the issuer to ask if it is real.
The report is for a very odd period of time. The company apparently changed its year end without telling the shareholders and issuing comparative restated numbers for the prior period. Further, why end the period in the middle of a month. Why not the end of a quarter? What about the year end numbers? What about interim numbers for this year?
Oops, we can't do any prior period reports as the accounting firm stated that every previous announcement of funding and investment could not be substantiated. In a single statement, the accountant said that everything posted on the BGMO website, reported to OTC markets, spread by Business Wire and to the shareholders was misspoken. Better yet, our own President attested to the accountant's conclusion.
I beg to differ.
Police and regulatory authorities will not tell you that you are a person of interest or are under investigation. In doing so, it gives the party time to flee or destroyed additional incriminating evidence.
Only when they have done their work would they come knocking on your door. At that time, it I generally too late.
These very same authorities will not advise the complainant or tipster the status of the investigation or if they are investigating at all. This is done to maintain secrecy during the investigation.
The better questions to raise would be how many complaints or tips have been filed and to whom have they been filed?
The Public Accounting Firm also said that funding and investment transaction reported by the Company to OTC Markets, Business Wire and to the shareholders was unsubstantiated.
Further, our own President concurred with the accounting firm's findings.
All of the previous assets, revenues, profits and retained earnings were an illusion.
For the uninformed new BGMO shareholders, they also had funding documents paraded before target companies. They also had a high yield investment program to fund the planned investments over 4 years ago. As with VSTA is experiencing now, we cannot deliver the cash as promised.
As mentioned earlier, profits does not necessarily translate into cash.
This is evidenced by our firm's inability to invest into VSTA under the original agreement and the two following amendments. According to others, the cash from the $ 88 million does not appear for another 5 months. Our firm should have been honest with VSTA and said come back in a year's time when we cash in the current account rather than on paper.
However, given our outstanding debt to our two directors, I expect that the $ 88 million will go to discharge their commissions payable leaving nothing of the $ 88 million available for investment.
You raise a good point.
I find it strange that BGMO wants to go up tier in the stock market but does not prepare a year end statement or even an interim for this year.
But, we should expect this, when we do not have annual meetings, proxy materials, management discussions and even independent members on the Board.
My sense if that BGMO does not have the cash to pay L L Bradford to do an audit. We might not have the money to do another compilation report either.
I suspect that with the flurry of inquiries on this board and calls made to their offices that L L Bradford would want to distance themselves from BGMO until our Company cleans up its act. This raises another question about the ability to find another accounting firm who will do the same thing as L L Bradford especially with our firm's reputation and no cash to pay the fees.
Except, it is locked up.
How can we talk of profits when we had no cash to pay our day to day costs and make the investment in VSTA?
Making a book profit is not cash, at least yet.
We need to remind ourselves of the ethical issue of representing that BGMO could do a deal with VSTA knowing that there was no cash to do it at the time that it was signed.
Even after the amended dates and rescheduling of the payments, there is no evidence of cash. Even VSTA has stated in their recent SEC filing that there is some risk that BGMO will not deliver.
Regrettably, it is the very same accounting firm through the preparation of complied statements who could not substantiate not one funding or investment transaction that the Company reported to the OTC Markets, through Business Wire and to it shareholders prior to January 2012.
Further, our President certified that the accountant's statement that everything which L L Bradford said regarding the misrepresentation of prior reported assets, revenues, profits and retained earnings was correct. In essence, our President affirmed the several years of mis-speaking.
As for the $ 88 million, at best it is booked income which is not useable for day to day costs or to invest in other businesses.
We need to consider the accountant's proof that since we had no cash prior his statement and that anything that was reported as being earned was untouchable then how could we ethically go an negotiate with VSTA to invest in their firm in the first half of 2013 knowing full well that there was no cash to do so?
Hmm, an insider?
To be an insider, you need to be a major shareholder in BGMO or a director or officer in the Company. In only own 30000 shares which is nothing given the current share count but when I bought in it was a respectable number. When I bought in at 30 cents, there were about 60 million shares out. Now, with over 220 million shares out, we are at 2 cents.
The investment platform, you need to listen to our President more often. It has always been margined liquid investments. The only place where you can get that kind of movement is in things like bonds and currencies. I heard that future and indexes work too. That was the story he gave to the media in 2010 and again this year.
As for where they are going to spend the money, again, our boss says that it will include hedge funds and things like alternative energy and biotech. Hillard has a soft spot for helping the disadvantaged.
Look at the track record of clean coal for Pakistan. Solar powered pumps in Africa and Asia. BGMO even had signed agreements to buy into two companies in this area alone. I understand that Herzog thought GreenSafe was in the green space both conserving power and saving the ground.
Please remember that the $ 88 million, if real, is locked up until, as some have reported, early into next year. It really is not spendable cash until then. In fact, since it is restricted cash balance held by another entity, most banks will not use it as collateral for a loan of even a smaller amount.
Our Company knowingly entered into a commitment to fund VSTA without the financial resources to close the deal as contracted.
Even after the amendments, we could not even deliver the rescheduled dollar amounts.
The original investment was announced as were the amendments by the Company.
Shareholders are reminded that in 2009, BGMO was also involved with a high yield investment program and on the basis of that contracted to make investments in two other companies.
Even with the amendments, we could not even deliver the rescheduled dollar amounts.
The original investment was announce as was the amendment by the Company.
See the parallel with the source of funds, the need for an amendment and the announcement of the investment. All of these events were made by the Company without the aid of any positive or negative poster on this site.
Unfortunately, you cannot prove or disprove the statement that the government has or has not investigated Bergamo and its management.
Most police and regulatory bodies do not contact or advise the suspect that they are being investigated until such time as they are apprehended. Otherwise, the alleged party could skip town or destroy additional evidence.
Based on the proven evidence from the accountant that all of the publicly released press releases and financial statements issued by the Company prior to January 2012 were unsubstantiated, it seems to me that one or more BGMO investors could have gone to the SEC, the OTC markets or even the state securities agencies and say that I relied on the information to make an investment. There are other basis to make claims of wrong doing as well.
Now, do any of know how has actually made a claim? We may suspect parties who have but we don't know for sure. Even if we did know the answer to these questions, no government agency would tell the complainant or the Company that an investigation is underway.
I am glad that you concur that the accountant verified that all that BGMO and its directors presented as factual to OTC Markets, Business Wire and to their very own shareholders prior to January 2012 was unsubstantiated.
The previous BGMO financial statements and press releases are part of the public record and distributed solely by Herzog. Any positive or negative poster on this board did not control the content or distribution of the Bergamo claims to any funding or investments. We are all users of the same officially sourced information.
What the Bergamo hired accountant stated in the retained earnings what that he could not find any proof that BGMO ever closed one financing or one investment prior to January 2012.
This is a polite way of the accountant saying that BGMO (read Herzog)misspoke the financial position of the company for years.
The real killer here is that our own President admitted in his attestation of December 2012 that he effectively misspoke the financial position of the Company in all of the previous released to OTC Markets, Business Wire and the Shareholders.
You cannot accept one portion of the complied current financial statements (the revenue and assets) without accepting the same accountant's position that all of the previously reported transactions were misspoken (the opening retained earnings).
This is not a matter of BGMO shareholders taking a different view but rather an independent third party saying these things.
The accounting firm of L L Bradford concluded that there was no evidence of even one of the financings and investments reported by the Company through its President to OTC Markets, reputable wire services and to the Shareholders prior to January 2012 was proven.
Bergamo's own Chief Executive attested to the accuracy of the accountant's conclusion that everything that the Company said in the past cannot be proven, ergo, was false.
Is it civil or criminal fraud or misrepresentation, I do not know.
The flip side of this argument is that the very same accounting firm reported that he could not substantiate all of the claims made by the Company and its management prior to January 2012.
Whether this is a criminal or civil fraud or misrepresentation is not for me to judge. The fact of the matter is that the Company retained accountant could not prove not even one of the previous financings and investments announced by our President.
To make matters even more interesting is that our President, in the December 2012 update, clearly attested to the fact what the accountant said was true - there is no proof of what the Company reported to OTC Markets, through reputable media and to the Shareholders was proven.
The compiled statements mention that they are consolidated but do not mention the entities that are consolidated, the jurisdictions that they are incorporated in and the percent ownership in each.
We know from some of the previous press releases that there are some that are less than 100% owned. Where is the reporting of the minority interests?
Also, if we assume the $ 88 million is real, the key point is that these funds are restricted and cannot be used for day to day operations or strategic investments in firms like Vistagen. If these were the first funds received by BGMO and they are locked up then how can we, as a Company, negotiate in good faith, to buy into VSTA knowing full well that the funds are not available?
Nothing is more certain than death and taxes said Benjamin Franklin.
This got me to thinking about the demise of our firm's President. It is not a question of if but when. Given his age, it will be sooner rather than later. This begs a serious question to me, a small shareholder, and should be a concern to the bigger ones too.
From what I see, Herzog in the only one in front of the cameras (the GreenSafe ground breaking), on the radio (the Big Biz show) and the author of all of the press releases. There is very little out in the media about Sohail.
So, when HH kicks off his mortal coil, who runs the show?
We only have a board of two persons that does not have a proven history of governance.
As for the question of taxes, I see that Bergamo publicly reported the receipt of cash, the recording of great revenue and an estimate of taxes to mid-September 2012.
Have these taxes been paid seeing that it is after the year end?
I suspect the IRS would want to be paid especially when we have said we have oodles of profits and cash.
Speaking of which, where are the year end numbers?
I mentioned once before about the future release of the $ 88 million. Virtually all of it will go to Hillard and Sohail to pay off what the Board (solely) agreed to pay them. By my recogning, they each will pay about $ 16 million to Uncle Sam.
In reviewing the most recent statements of our Company President, he wants to invest into ventures which alleviate suffering which include clean water, solar power and so forth.
Herzog was saying this as far back in mid-2009 by announcing an investment in clean coal. A couple years ago, our President was investing in solar power to run small water pumps and to supply reliable power in Asia and Africa.
Our President has been fully consistent in what he has told his shareholders for years. Kudos for following the dream.
You hit the nail on the head!
Due to Bergamo's reliance on high yield investment programs in late 2009 and early 2010, Bergamo could not deliver the funds to GreenSafe as contracted to do so. Even when it was reported that the deal was amended to extend the payments and match it to the funds received from the levered assets, BGMO could not deliver.
The same story exists now with VSTA.
I am not sure what happened with the clean coal powered plant in Pakistan funded from a $ 1 billion dollar asset pool from the summer of 2009.
I am also not fully certain what happened with Suntrough. I read that they have put a plant into some place in Africa. I suspect that it was a case that their management did not believe that BGMO could deliver even after many extensions.
As for BB Solar, BGMO was to earn 60% of the profits for just factoring the purchase orders. With BGMO's former experience in the rag trade, that should be easy to contact Platinum Funding.
Does anyone know what happened with the applications developer in Japan?
By the way, as I read it, it was Herzog who orchestrated the removal of the entire GS management team save two persons. It appears as though the promises of money to the remaining two never came to a successful conclusion when BGMO was dealing with GS in late 2011 or early 2012!
When I did speak to Swire late last week regarding some of the comments posted in I-Hub, he said it is not his concern. He has apparently raised the money for his plant. The quote was "real money". I asked him how much will the plant make. He recalled Gary Purdon asking that question about 4 years ago. At the time, Swire responded about $ 25k per operating hour. He said his new plant has a few more bells and whistles and would be higher than that level. I squeezed in one last question on the technology. Is it being used and does it make that kind of money. Yes, he responded, in several countries and quite profitably.
The bottom line is that the public record shows that BGMO and various other parties executed documents in what I think would be in good faith for which BGMO has never delivered the funding that they agreed to.
Can anyone show any proof that BGMO has successfully delivered capital to a project as agreed?
Even the investment deal with VSTA shows striking similarity to the old GreenSafe story. In both cases the capital is coming from offshore high yield investment programs. In both cases, the funds were being managed by an offshore BGMO affiliate. In both cases, the funding agreements were amended to defer the payments. In both cases, BGMO could not even make the smallest of payments on the new deferred payment terms. Sad my friends.
I bought into BGMO in 2009 based on the great news that Herzog told the world about the GreenSafe recycling plant. Many did too.
Others bought in on the Herzog announcement on the investment in Suntrough. Others bought in on the Herzog announcement on the investment in BB Solar.
Others bought in on the strength of the billion dollar funding in the summer of 2009; the high yield investment program in early 2010, the money from Harbinson's and the big converted rupee check.
All of these announcements by the Company prior to 2012 are part of the public record. The accountant could not find any evidence of these events happening. Our own CEO said that what the accountant said was true in every detail. In essence, our own President admitted that he was not truthful.
What happened before 2012 is important as even our own boss admitted his lack of truthfulness.
As for the old guy, I am getting up their in years so we need to be a little more respectful to retired folk.
I think you could be referring to Hal Wolfe. If so, the public file shows that he was hired by GreenSafe to find money. Based on the passage of time, it would appear likely that after a number of proposals, Wolfe found that Bergamo could deliver the capital needed. After some time, a deal was signed and announced. I think that was in November 2009. From a little internet search, Wolfe moved from CT several years back.
I am glad I kept printouts of the old GreenSafe and BGMO stories.
In the story of GreenSafe, Suntrough, BB Solar, the coal plant, the applications developer and so forth, the problem is not the companies that BGMO wants to invest in but our own firm's inability to deliver funds as they contracted to do so.
Unfortunately, Vistagen, will fall to the same fate. They already missed a few funding dates which is a recurring pattern with all of the previous ventures.
Please keep in mind the following:
The accountant hired by Bergamo said that he could not substantiate any claims of funding, investment, assets, revenues, profits and retained earnings prior to January 2012. Our President signed off on the December 2012 update in which he certified that what the accountant said was factual. In other words, the licensed accountant and the Company said that its prior financial reporting posted to OTC markets is a crock.
I suspect that the disclosure part of the OTC is in fact not regulated as to its validity. If so, they would have removed it based on the Company's own admission that it could not be substantiated. Saying that it is regulated would imply that the Company's own admission of billions of prior funding and investment was real? If so, they why would BGMO admit it?
As for any investigation by any regulatory body, if they receive a tip, they will never advise the tipster that they are investigating or the status of any investigation.
Further, they will not advise the alleged party that they are being investigated until they are charged. This is just good practice.
Do I think that tips have been filed? More than likely.
Do I think that various bodies are investigating? Not the foggiest as they would never tell anyone.
Thanks for your comments on my accident. Still twinges occasionally. I guess I will end up with joint problems down the road.
As for BGMO, the current price is either:
Grossly too high if you believe that the past is a good predictor of the future and that the company will become current in its financial reporting and employ better governance,
or,
Grossly too low if you believe that the company is finally being truthful after years of missteps, misrepresentations and the absence of PR's indicating why the story has changed.
For me, the absence of an audited statement for the entire fiscal year and an update on the current year suggests poor governance. The failure to have annual meetings with proxy materials sent out in advance suggests the same. The failure to disclose the perhaps the effective change in control with issuing over 60 million shares is a matter of concern.
However, if BGMO can clean up their act, then, I would be a buyer although I suspect at levels much higher than these.
Based on what I see, it would appear as though the OTC will post what any Company's officers will provide them. If this is true then The obligation would be on the Company's part to remove what has been proven and certified as being unsubstantiated.
What is more disturbing is the fact that the Company's own accountant and chief executive officer have in fact said that what was given to the shareholders, the media and OTC markets would be more than likely a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
I went on the OTC Markets website and quickly found all of the financial statements supplied by Bergamo where the Bergamo hired accountant had independently determined that the financial results prior to January 2012 could not be substantiated.
The December 2012 certification by our President which said that the accountant was fully correct in saying that everything prior to January 2012 could not be substantiated.
Since all of the unsubstantiated financial statements are still on the OTC site, it appears to me that the OTC will post anything that the Company provides. It also stands to reason that the only party that could take down an unsubstantiated statement would be the company otherwise the OTC Markets would have already done so.
The same accountant affirmed
that he could not substantiate any claims of funding and investment made by Bergamo prior to January 2012.
All of the accumulated assets, after tax profits and retained earnings previously reported were written off.
Bergamo's President attested that every thing that the accountant said was true and correct.
All prior claims of funding and investment were certified by Bergamo as being unsubstantiated.
I was brought up not to call people names.
I will let the words and actions of the Corporation and its officials to do the talking for me.
I find it odd that what we are hearing now is that we need to believe BGMO today even though the accountant admitted and the company attested that every statement prior to January 2012 could not be substantiated.
They said it - I didn't!