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.
So if all other voting shares can have a total value of no more than 217 million and Mr. Preferred A has 2.5 billion voting shares, he can do whatever he wants, right?
Exhibit A to the May 8-K is an interesting read. It appears that each of those one million Series A Preferred Stock shares has "two thousand five hundred (2,500) votes on all matters required to be voted upon or consented to by a stockholder of the Corporation, or an aggregate of two billion, five hundred million (2,500,000,000) votes." That would give them voting control in all matters, would it not?
Those shares are not reduced by the reverse split.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411730/000149315216010214/ex10-2.htm
Now, this is a disclaimer:
"Sierra, Adam and Johnny and all other characters ever mentioned and presented by the publisher on our websites are to be considered fictional characters!......To protect your interests the presumption should be made that all information on our website is inaccurate and unreliable...."
Translation: Unless you're extremely stupid, ignore this site.
Unfortunately, there is no "her." She is a fictional character the entire site is a fraud.
That's Sierra World Equity bullshit: http://sierraworldequityreview.blogspot.com/
"The Nevada file shows what it will be after the split." Yeah, and I think that's a problem. It states that the Par Share Count is 207,000,000. There is no asterisk. There is no footnote, no explanation. To the uninformed potential investor, it is completely misleading.
I agree. My only point was that I believe they should have filed it earlier. If nothing else, it would have been a courtesy to shareholders. That's all.
Yes, I do. The fact that they did not submit an 8-K for six months suggests a certain laxity in their operations.
The May 23 8-K addressed their intent: "The closing of the transactions under the Exchange Agreement (the “Closing”) will occur on or about May 31, 2016."
They didn't 8-K that the closing had actually occurred until December 1.
He appears to be just a tad less communicative.
Had I been CEO and "The closing of the transactions under the Exchange Agreement (the “Closing”), occurred on about May 31, 2016," I believe I would informed my shareholders of that material event before six months had passed, but I guess he was busy or something.
According to the 8-K, "In November 2016, Leonard Caprino resigned as an officer and director of Solaris and Neil Kleinman was appointed as President and CEO."
The 8-K does not say financials will be released "soon." It says the company "intends to file Form 10-Q Quarterly Reports for the Company and its Pixel subsidiary as soon as is practicable."
Is it spelled out somewhere that the duties of Weinberg and Co., the auditors since March, 2016, are markedly different from those of Li and Company, the former auditors? If so, I would like to read up on it.
The last 10-K was audited. The one before that was audited. The one before that was audited. Etc, etc.
That is incorrect. SFOR is an SEC filer. They file 10-K's every year. 10-K's contain audited financials. Always.
Appreciate it.
There it is! Thank you.
RE: "it's for the uplist to NASDAQ" I've read both the May and December that 8-K's and can't find that reference. Can you point it out for me?
Has the intent to apply for NASDAQ listing been publicly stated by the company? I don't see it in either the May or the December 8-K.
What is your source for the float number?
The 10-Q states "Outstanding at November 17, 2016 2,318,676,386" How much clearer could it be?
The later reference to "Diluted average common stock outstanding" at 1.7 billion is just that. It is the average number of shares that were outstanding for each of the nine months of the year. In simplest terms, if you had a one billion O/S at the end of January and a two billion O/S at the end of February, your average common stock outstanding for the two month period would have been 1.5 billion.
No, NOT 1.7 billion O/S. The 10-Q states the O/S clearly and unequivocally. As of November 17, 2016, it was 2,318,676,386.
Thursday's 10-Q states that as of November 17, 2016, the O/S was 2,318,676,386. That's pretty current.
I am saying that he doesn't want to encourage attendance. IF -- as some have claimed -- the meeting was to be celebratory, he would want a larger turnout.
If the meeting was to be a prelude to a celebration as some of the more fanciful posts have asserted, don't you think he would have presented an agenda that was at least mildly enticing to encourage attendance? Instead look at this snoozefest. Had he added, "Item 6: Watch the paint dry" it would have been the most exciting thing on the agenda.
Indeed. "To transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting and any adjournment thereof" is as boilerplate as boilerplate gets.
"Cash on hand came in at $1.6 million at the end of third quarter." Actually, that was the second quarter. We won't know about the third quarter for another couple of weeks.
I'm not necessarily referring to you specifically, but I think that 11/9-18 is going to be a very disappointing 10 day period for some here. The expectations are unrealistic.
Now it's down 35%. If the demand gets any greater, who knows how low it will go.
It's down 32% on this "serious loading."
"Who is going to the shareholder meeting." Let's see: travel the 95 corridor in the tri-state area on a late Friday afternoon to vote in person on two items that are slam dunks and two items that are non-binding advisories. I might pass.
Okay, thanks.
That's interesting. My reference was this post of yours in which your boldface appears to request same date only. #msg-125397043 There must have been another communication about which I did not know.
The attorney for Strikeforce requested that all three conferences take place on the same date, not the same time. Indeed, when two of the conferences had been scheduled for October 7, they were not at the same time. One was at 10:30 AM, and one was 15 minutes later.
I think it's more of an "Okay, where are we on this?" meeting.
According to the transcript posted here, this is what Mark Kay had to say in the video: "...it's just a meeting at just really administrative meeting it's a meeting where they coming together in the point to meet with the judge it's one of many meetings that we're going to have with them" #msg-126073190
I agree that it would be a positive development, just not a big price mover.
OTCQB fees:
Application Fee. There is a one-time application fee of $2,500.
Annual Fee. $10,000 per year
And I agree with the EVIL one on this. Uplisting within the OTC market is inside baseball stuff. No one except message board junkies really cares.
And I gave my opinion of his opinion. It's a message board.