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.
Josh brilliant question which I never thought of. Did Easterling and Untermeyer not exchange?
No it's not. I am describing fact. Besides the opinion that I state clearly is opinion, please state any other sentence that is opinion and I'll prove it as fact
Utah, i"ll show you and everyone how disingenuous you are. Your answers always create snippets of information to protect but if you know it can get your boys in trouble, you will refuse to answer. Watch.
Since you know all NSH shareholders signed releases, you should know the answer to this.
Name all remaining shareholders of NSH.
Describe in detail all compensation Gerald Easterling paid for the Series A
Anticipated no answer
Franny I read every word of the documents. Shover had no standing to sue the pubco. Period. It is not debatable. NSH, the private company only had the ability to issue the shares to their own shareholders. Why don't you call Steve Walker and ask him why he didn't name himself and his brother as plaintiffs.
Here is the explanation:
Please note NSH is the private company. The pubco is SHMP.
There is one matter that is of my opinion so I will state IMO.
On 1/30/2015, an asset purchase was completed between NSH (the private company) and the public company. All assets of NSH were exchanged for 75,520,240 pubco shares.
On August 15, 2018, NSH exchanged 75,000,000 shares of the pubco for 5,000,000 Series A shares. Upon a majority vote by the NSH shareholders and beginning on 8/15/2029, the Series A shareholders could convert into half of the shares of the company upon majority vote. These Series A shares were controlled by NSH which was run by Bill Williams and Gerald Easterling (note this transaction was not legal. I am not insinuating or even inferring criminal liability. It is a civil matter. What is the issue? All shareholders of any class of securities must be offered the same offer, compensation, benefit. Only the NSH shareholders received the Series A. This can't be done and be compliant with Nevada law. This is a fact)
IMO,the above transaction was done because the company was running out of authorized shares. Within weeks, they increased the authorized shares in Nevada.
On or around August 11, 2020, Gary Shover filed a lawsuit against the pubco stating he never received his shares. Note, the lawsuit was not filed against NSH which at the time the lawsuit was filed owned a Series A preferred that upon majority vote of the NSH shareholders, they could convert into half of the pubco shares.
When the lawsuit was filed, Gary Shover's attorney was a shareholder of NSH and so was the attorney's brother. Neither was listed as a plaintiff and since Steve Walker was practicing law and securities law for decades, it is hard to believe he didn't know the terms of the preferred.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. First, Shover sued the wrong plaintiff. Any first year law student could have gotten the case dismissed because Shover had zero standing to sue the pubco. The pubco issued the common shares in 2015 and did the exchange for the Series E in 2018. It was only NSH (the private company) that had the right to distribute the 75,000,000 shares to their own shareholders and only NSH had the right to vote the Series A. Any first year law student could have gotten the case dismissed. Perhaps even more interesting, all NSH shareholders received a letter directly from THE CHEF offering them the opportunity to agree to the proposed distribution post lawsuit. The lawyer did not send the letter. The Chef sent it.
When the Shover lawsuit was filed, both parties kept the judge completely in the dark about how many shares the Series A was convertible into. If the judge was told, he could not have approved the exchange because the shares that NSH rshareholders received was less than what they would have received if they just voted as a majority to convert the Series A. In other words, the 3a10 exchange is unfair mathematically. This is a fact.
Now we move to the court approved settlement which was proposed by Both parties. The NSH shareholders, in exchange for the NSH shares (private company shares) received public company shares. LET ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR. THE PUBLIC COMPANY HAD NO BASIS TO AGREE TO THIS. WHEN THE ASSET PURCHASE OCCURRED IN 2015, NSH RECEIVED SHARES. IT WAS NSH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DISTIBUTE THE SHARES TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS. THEY THEN EXCHANGED IN 2018 THE SHARES FOR THE SERIES A WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO CONVERT INTO HALF OF THE COMPANY. THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PUBCO TO AGREE TO THIS. IN THE END, NSH STILL OWNS THE SERIES A PREFERRED EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY GERALD EASTERLING AND THE NSH SHAREHOLDERS ESSENTIALLY HAVE THEIR ORIGINAL SHARES THEY RECEIVED IN 2015 PLUS THE SERIES A. THEY KEY WORDS ARE PLUS THE SERIES A.
Hope this makes sense
Please give me until tonight and I will offer a thorough explanation
Wow you really know a lot about this. Fantastic job!!
Bobcat, is that transport company Roadships, the public company that reported 0 revenues on the last Q. with $8,000 in assets. That one? Can you give us an update on Fire from Ice Films.
They better move quick. SOL almost expired.
One other thing. If SHMP was ever sued in a class action lawsuit or a derivative lawsuit, they would lose on summary judgment if someone challenged the initial Series A issuance. The smartest lawyer in America could not create a legal basis for the issuance which was done in exchange for the COMMON shares that were held by NSH. All common shareholders that did not get the Series A and did not have a chance to enforce their rights would have a legal basis to sue.
Lol.
To be clear, yes the court was mislead. There is no court in America that is not mislead by at least one attorney on a daily basis. If the misleading is bad, the result is sanctions. The act has to be criminal and really be egregious criminal acts before disbarment is even in the air. For example, stealing from an escrow account. For example, found guilty of a criminal act. For example, accepting a bribe to the detriment of a client.
I 100% agree that there was misrepresentation on the Series A. The judge was never told that the NSH shareholders actually owned a preferred at the time of the hearing and was not told what the terms of the preferred were. However, the attorney was an advocate as are all attorneys. Saying he was testifying under oath is legally incorrect which I believe you know. I do agree that the attorney could potentially have an issue if this was ever looked into. He didn't even disclose to the judge he was a NSH shareholder. However he has an out. It is a fact that the individual NSH shareholders never received their individual allotments. That is a fact.
By the way and if you're being fair, no one from SHRIMP ever testified under oath in the hearing so not sure where that came from.
If anything was going to happen on the Series A, would have happened already. I have always agreed that the Series A transactions were beyond stupid. Nothing will happen in my opinion.
Not really. I believe the tell was the bonus shares that could be paid to shrimp shareholders. That number was not created out of thin air. Look at it as a "the company is doing well threshold" I believe Yotta thought it will be impossible for SHMP to even come close to that number. In the end, Yotta was sold based on a pie in the sky scenario and when they realized there was zero chance it could happen, they bailed. And any SPAC that is being reasonably advised is going to make any equity payout based on meeting benchmarks. SHMP will not agree to that. As far as Niterra, it is plainstupid. Niterra is testing an ammonia sensor for accuracy. So when SHMP says they chose us, for what? Because their technology allows someone to remove just ammonia from water. That means zero.
To all Mr. Nugent's promoters
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qca/2010/71/pdf
And a website that was written by a 7 year old does not change that.
The site MPN Victim is a complete joke.
I think they're in a no win situation. Even keeping the Iowa facility idle is expensive. That is the problem. He essentially says in the interview we have no other alternative but to dilute or they're out of business.
Gerry, "We are in business." Confidence builder.
One other thing is that when a CEO repeats "We are in business.", that is never a good sign. That is code word for severe financial challenges upcoming.
I see. What about the Bobby Mclelland guy. Didn't the ASIC go after him too?
By the way the court's disagree with Bobby and Michael.
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qca/2010/71/pdf
Two takes for Jerry's interview.
The weed in Texas has a very high THC content.
High likelihood of litigation from Yotta. (i.e. "We know there will be a battle.").
You will break 2 cents shortly and REACH 1 cent by year end
So did I and this may just turn my opinion. I always like to feel that no one knows Natural Shrimp better than me. Dr. Christine Huynh is a former Director of Alder Aqua. Although that name may not mean anything, it means a lot to me. Alder Aqua is the successor to Vero Blue, a company that spent $150,000,000 on a deadbeat aquaculture facility that was the greatest failure in the US aquaculture industry. In fact and after spending $150,000,000, Dr. Huynh convinced Natural Shrimp to buy it and the facility has been a disaster and a cash strain since day one. I have to add that she was the main driver and advisor to the disaster in Iowa. So my previous position was I am a buyer at 1 penny. With Christine now at the helm of the decision making team, I have all the confidence in the world saying I should not be a buyer at 1 cent and I should wait for lower prices. I do declare I do agree.
Actually would not be a certificate of designation because they are not creating a new class. Would be amendment to articles of incorporation. Hope that makes sense.
Well said. I would hope I am more valuable in your eyes.
Utah, I admitted I was wrong on the registration statement. Niterrra is not in the shrimp business. Are you saying you've been right on Shrimp and more. Watch this. How did your SPAC prediction work out?
I evaluate all posts on SHMP. I love this one, "Nasdaq up listing in 30 days." From a regulatory standpoint, impossible. Stock promotion is funny stuff.
That is a good analysis. However even if you assume revenue excludes, their cash needs will be in excess of $10,000,000 to pay the bills. That means they would have to increase the share count by about 1/3. Of course, hard to imagine the stock stays where it is as that much stock hits the bid.
Oh yeah, they're running for the hills. Stock retesting 52 week lows. Hmm?
Utah I know I kid you all the time. But and seriously, it is clear in that video and as I have posted that Niterra is in the sensor business. There is zero evidence they have an interest in the shrimp growing business. Shrimp buys sensors from them.
Can you name 3 businesses that sell a product worldwide that isn't in the billions. Means zippo. We knew 90 years ago shrimp is a big business. So is toilet paper. TRANE GONE, US FOODS GONE, SPAC GONE. And now Japanese spark plug manufacturer is the saviour.
One of the reasons why I read this board is for the humor. Shrimp is selling $50,000 in shrimp per quarter, has virtually no cash, will lose tens of millions of dollars this year, chief funder is sued by the SEC, in default on its debt, and an unproven business model and technology but yet, it's going to NASDAQ, LMFAO. REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY?
There were not $500,000 in shrimp sales last year. False.
No it's not sir, it's the law. Those shares, if used by GHS or Fife are free trading. Period. Has nothing to do with opinion. It's the law and an established safe harbor. Law overrides my opinion
This is funny
You have no idea what you're talking about. The shares will be used by the toxic investors and will be free trading because the underlying security was held for 6 months.
Can you explain this guys background in Australia?
Uber I believe you know your question is misleading. Obviously and when one estimates cost, they estimate at full production. Clearly, they are not at full production. Their cost per pound may very well be $10 per pound. However, I'm sure you realize that by using that number as the true costs right now, you should include a disclaimer. Be fair.