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.
No idea, since they're dark. It's my opinion that eventually they will lose ownership of it since they have no means of paying back the loans they took to purchase it, or the additional payments required under the purchase agreement.
No, Delfin is going to reverse split TGLO, exchange new shares for their assets, then sell new shares to raise capital.
The R/S is necessary to take existing ownership down to sub 1%, then they will sell their assets for somewhere between 20 and 50% additional ownership, then sell additional shares to raise funds.
It's how these reverse mergers work.
Crescent will revert back to the original owners since IHSI's source of funds to pay for it is gone.
IHSI's overhead is so high that it's probably the only chance Crescent has at staying in business.
The stock is worthless though, and headed for a reverse split.
Dead, buried then flooded to make a reservoir.
Management built a houseboat with the toxic note proceeds and now rides around on the lake.
Selling MM always backs off to get Picasso to bite.
He did today !
Looks like 14 is the new 18.
It wasn't Comcast that wanted the settlement kept confidential, it was PNTV, just so they wouldn't have to reveal to shareholders they got nothing until many months later when the 10K was filed, as I pointed out at the time.
The company has been dumping shares on retail at $.0001 via toxic lenders who make a 100% profit on every sale.
Anyone buying is just giving money to toxic lenders and accelerating the reverse split.
Why would anyone want to do that?
Next steps, get current, do reverse split.
https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/182876/content
Date.....Nature of Each xaction.... # Shares....PPS....$ Debt.... Share Status
01/10/17 Note Conversion N/A 150,000,000 0.000565 8,475 Free Trading
01/18/17 Note Conversion N/A 136,000,000 0.00005 6,800 Free Trading
01/24/17 Note Conversion N/A 150,000,000 0.00005 7,500 Free Trading
01/30/17 Note Conversion N/A 150,000,000 0.00005 7,500 Free Trading
02/03/17 Note Conversion N/A 180,000,000 0.00005 9,000 Free Trading
02/06/17 Note Conversion N/A 180,000,000 0.00005 9,000 Free Trading
02/07/17 Note Conversion N/A 51,941,111 0.00005 2,500 Free Trading
02/08/17 Note Conversion N/A 92,035,398 0.00005 5,200 Free Trading
02/14/17 Note Conversion N/A 180,000,000 0.00005 9,000 Free Trading
03/02/17 Note Conversion N/A 200,000,000 0.00005 10,000 Free Trading
03/10/17 Note Conversion N/A 200,000,000 0.00005 10,000 Free Trading
04/04/17 Note Conversion N/A 200,000,000 0.00005 10,000 Free Trading
04/13/17 Note Conversion N/A 200,000,000 0.00005 10,000 Free Trading
04/25/17 Note Conversion N/A 200,000,000 0.00005 10,000 Free Trading
06/06/17 Note Conversion N/A 300,000,000 0.00005 15,000 Free Trading
07/27/17 Note Conversion N/A 300,000,000 0.00005 15,000 Free Trading
And only 7 years old!
Just more Bates pump and dump. Don't fall for it.
Perhaps you should read the article and you'll see it has nothing in common with installing equipment for a law firm's office building.
An idea with funding and a practical approach to providing electricity to the 3rd world. Not a self enrichment scheme like ImpactPPA.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/23/angaza-raises-4m-to-make-clean-energy-affordable-for-worlds-poorest/
Yes, they screwed shareholders over, but not by taking away voting rights. That can't be done by a public company, other than acquiring enough shares to control 50.0001% of the vote.
This action relates to an "anti-takeover" right that allowed shareholders to receive additional shares if someone acquired the company without the approval of the BOD. It was due to expire in 3 years.
The problem was, if the company wanted to terminate the right before the final date, they had to buy them back at $.01/share (par value). That wasn't a big deal when the stock was $, but with the stock at a penny and each share carrying 1 right, that would have been expensive.
So the solution? End the rights agreement immediately, which they did by changing the final date from 4/19/2021 to 4/19/18.
I'm afraid nearly $1 million in new toxic notes last year says differently.
BTW, that's a new record for PNTV.
10Q due 5/15
Sure, this could be the greatest hyped stock story since Bre-X.
Then again, maybe not.
It was after all, a modest proposal.
A modest proposal. (Acknowledgement to J. Swift)
The minute Delfin announces the R/M and the stock jumps to $10/share, I'd advise investors to take the money and run.
At that point, Delfin's investors will be sitting on $3 BILLION worth of stock and it's very likely they'll want to forget about spending years building a business when they can get hundreds of millions each just by selling their TGLO stock.
call the company? LOL, they'll give you the same excuses they've been coming up with for years.
Remember back 5 years ago when they had a "media platform" that was going to revolutionize TV. Then it was delayed for years - they had one excuse after another. Then they sued Comcast and got nothing.
The company is good at 2 things - taking toxic notes to pay salaries and making excuses for every failure (and let's be honest, they have literally zero successes so far).
Dollarland after a 1:1,000 R/S maybe. At least for a few days.
The endless speculation that Bates' latest money raising scheme is somehow going to save WSTI from it's obvious demise is magical thinking at its best.
The stock is dead. Some shareholders holding tens of thousands of dollars of worthless shares spending a few hundred dollars now and again doesn't signify anything other than desperation.
Ignoring the fact that WSTI is dark, has tons of debt and lost millions even when it had sales is an expensive disregard for the obvious, IMHO.
ImpactPPA is just Bates way of getting paid without needing money in WSTI, which would all go to creditors.
The stock remains dead.
Whether the ImpactPPA game will work remains to be seen. It sounds like Bates offered this law firm a sweetheart deal to get ImpactPPA on the map.
It may have the effect of fooling some small players who only look at the chart, but it also makes the next day's activity look worse.
I'm sure the motivation varies, but the goal is the same, make a small buy at the ask to close it higher. MMs know it's coming and you'll see the spread get pretty large right at the close.
The idea is to have their account look better at the end of they day and particularly at the end of the week. If it closes at $.15 and Picasso has 100k shares, that's $15k in the account. If he paints it to $.16, that's another $1k in the account for a $160 trade.
People don't paint to load their account. They already have a lot of shares or there would be no reason to paint the close. They paint to boost the paper value.
They bought 800 shares at $.1609 following over 90,000 trades at $.15 or less.
I'm guessing they were painting the close.
The question is who buys at $.1609 after dozens of trades at $.15 and under all day?
Answer: Picasso!
To be fair, they lost the first $27 million hyping themselves as a media company. The MJ biz story has only cost them about $17 million so far.
Of course their weed is valued at what the market will pay, not what it cost them to produce it. It's very unlikely they'll ever be profitable on a net basis, but as long as they can get more toxic notes ($1 million or so last year alone) and the lenders can turn those notes into $3-$5 million in share sales to retail, the business will keep going.
You're missing the fact that Delfin is simply the majority shareholder in TGLO. They are in fact NOT TGLO. Their assets do NOT belong to TGLO. They will not simply donate those assets to TGLO. They own 100% of those assets. If they put them into TGLO, they now own 71% of them. Why would they do that?
Information on pipeline abandonment (that status of the UTOS pipeline that Delfin bought from Enbridge) that makes it clear why the pipeline was sold for a fraction of its replacement cost and why Enbridge was happy to see it go and Delfin willing to pay millions to repurpose it.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107424-phmsa-reminds-pipelines-of-abandonment-safety-requirements
https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20101029175555-RP10-1393-000.pdf
"UTOS argues that the proposed increases are necessary due to drastic and
continuing declines in throughput of over 80 percent since the last rate increase, significant cost increases not within UTOS’ control, the need to recover large negative salvage costs, and recognition of a more realistic remaining useful life for UTOS in light of existing circumstances. UTOS asserts that it has operated at a loss for the last three years and, absent a significant increase in its rates, it will not generate sufficient revenue to fully recover its operating expenses. UTOS states that it has no incentive to continue operating its system under these circumstances. "
I'm afraid you're completely misunderstanding.
Delfin will own 99% of the O/S BEFORE they do a capital raise. After the capital raise, they will own the largest percentage they can while raising the capital they need.
Let's say they have $50 million in net assets. They will sell those assets to TGLO in exchange for shares. For them to say, "Here TGLO, we own 71% of the company, so we'll give you those assets for free" is silly.
Here's an example of how it will work:
TGLO does a 1:100 RS. O/S is now 4.4 million of which Delfin owns 3.1 million
Delfin now merges. In the merger they exchange their $50 million in assets for 128 million new shares. O/S is now 132 million, they own 131 million shares.
Delfin now does a secondary offering of 130 million new shares at $2/share to raise $260 million (this obviously could be anything).
Q.E.D.
And I'm pointing out that the assumption they WILL hand over 29% ownership in a merged company to existing shareholders is wrong.
I'm not sure what you personally are expecting. You said earlier you disagreed with my assertion.
Please enlighten me as to what you expect to happen in a RM situation. My comments are directed at those who expect Delfin to contribute significant assets to a merged TGLO while keeping current owners at something above 1 or 2% ownership in the combined entity. IMHO that's completely wrong.
I'm not sure why you are struggling with the concept of a company that makes 100% of the value of a merged entity holding 99%+ of the ownership since you've been through it before.
Remember, the (logical) assumption is that Delfin will want to raise capital post reverse merger. And large amounts of capital. Why would they want to dilute that capital raise by handing over 29% or 15% or even 5% to existing shareholders? Would the fairness opinion even allow that?
I'd recommend a thorough reading of the information I provided. I think you'll find it makes it pretty apparent on what terms a RM will take place.
You're making a fundamental mistake in assuming that whatever percentage a company owns when they buy a shell, they must maintain that percentage when they complete a reverse merger.
That's utterly wrong.
Reverse mergers require "Fairness Opinions", part of the proxy statement approving the merger. Here's a link to TELL's - http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=11777726&RcvdDate=1/10/2017&CoName=TELLURIAN%20INC.%20/DE/&FormType=S-4/A&View=html (see page B-1).
Here's a description of the process in another RM. https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/6639351-adam-pelkey-cfa/4981650-plx-pharma-case-study-reverse-merger-valuation
Some general reading.
https://finance.zacks.com/reverse-merger-mean-stocks-1096.html
Delfin paid for the clean shell. That's their asset too!
"A former Nasdaq company". Know what a "former Nasdaq company" pinkie shell is worth? $25k.
Leverage? The only leverage TGLO shareholders have is to argue in court that their contribution to the merged company wasn't properly compensated.
That would go something like this:
Judge: How much did Delfin pay for 70.9% of the company?
TGLO:$25k
Judge: And now that you're merged, how much of the asset value of the company did Delfin contribute?
TGLO:100%
Judge: And who has paid the ongoing expenses of maintaining TGLO as a public company shell?
TGLO:Delfin has paid 100%
Judge: And what percentage of the company do former shareholders now own?
TGLO: 1%
Judge:I'm sorry and you're asking to maintain your 29% ownership based on what??? By my calculation, Delfin should REDUCE your ownership. 1% is simply too generous.
You're missing one fundamental point.
TGLO's market cap post merger has NOTHING to do with current ownership retaining 29% of it, other than it reduces Delfin's ownership.
TGLO is contributing no assets to the venture. It's an empty shell.
Delfin is contributing 100% of the assets and future income to the shell. For that it should own only 71%??? That's not how RMs work.
The market will create winning (or losing conditions) for the stock post RM, but there's absolutely NO reason to dilute your ownership by 29% just because that's all that was available from insiders. Once a new owner controls over 51% of the vote, they are free to restructure the share structure any way they please. Heck, many pinkies do it when the existing shareholder actually are responsible for some of the company's asset value. In TGLO's case existing shareholders bring literally nothing of value to the shell.
BTW, Delfin and its shareholders will have a winning condition. It's the existing TGLO shareholders that will be in for a big disappointment.
Happy to clear up your confusion.
To Enbridge, "less than nothing".
To Delfin, "whatever they paid for it".
When you have something that is costing you money to maintain (see my earlier posted information on abandoned pipelines) and providing no income, indeed, to you, it's worth "less than nothing".
What you're missing is that Delfin can SELL their assets to TGLO for a greater ownership in the company. They have absolutely NO reason to donate them. The assets will still get the same markup, except instead of Delfin getting 71% of that gain, they'll get 99% or whatever they choose.
If TGLO were contributing 29% of the assets to the company, there would be some rational for giving them 29% ownership, just as TELL did based on the existing (Nasdaq) company contributing 3% of the combined asset value - the existing shareholders got 3% of the combined equity.
There is absolutely no reason or rationale for Delfin to hand over 29% of its assets to shareholders who contribute exactly $0 to the merged company. The notion that someone Delfin wants to "be nice to TGLO shareholders" or bears any responsibility for the 29% owners when they bought their 71% for $25k is simply ludicrous.
Delfin may trade at a premium to its assets, or it may not. Few S&P companies need to spend billions before they see their first dollar of income. But that's beside the point. The reality is existing TGLO shareholders are not going to be gifted with 29% of a company just because that was the share structure when Delfin took over the shell. They'd be lucky to get 1%.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107424-phmsa-reminds-pipelines-of-abandonment-safety-requirements
https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20101029175555-RP10-1393-000.pdf
"UTOS argues that the proposed increases are necessary due to drastic and
continuing declines in throughput of over 80 percent since the last rate increase, significant cost increases not within UTOS’ control, the need to recover large negative salvage costs, and recognition of a more realistic remaining useful life for UTOS in light of existing circumstances. UTOS asserts that it has operated at a loss for the last three years and, absent a significant increase in its rates, it will not generate sufficient revenue to fully recover its operating expenses. UTOS states that it has no incentive to continue operating its system under these circumstances. "
LOL, I remember you posting that IHSI was a scam.
Looks like you were right.
It was a 35 year old pipeline that was no longer being used and Enbridge was responsible for upkeep of the line. It was put in to carry natural gas from the ocean rigs to the land. It was worth less than nothing.
Whatever Delfin paid (and $43 million seems reasonable), it was a good deal for both companies - at least assuming it's usable without a lot of updating required. 40 years under the ocean isn't a kind environment.
Floating LNG shipping to avoid coastal loading of ships is a novel idea. Whether it's a good one or not remains to be seen. If it is, whether Delfin can do it profitably or not, remains to be seen.
What doesn't remain to be seen is if Delfin is going to hand 29% of its assets to TGLO shareholders. It's obvious that would provide no benefit to Delfin, and a lot of costs. I'm thinking they have some good people doing cost-benefit analysis.
Cash was exchanged. The 5% investment came later.
Lord knows, if Delfin has a market cap of a billion dollars or more, they SURE aren't giving $300 million away to TGLO shareholders. Delfin's investors would sue them out of business.
LOL, the 10K is not posted because the company is in a shambles. They have huge debt they can't pay and their only source of revenue is probably being taken away, either by the seller or by the lender.
The good news is that toxic lenders can't convert legally while the company is dark. The bad news is, that doesn't always stop them.
INCORRECT!!!! As STICKIED directly from the 10K
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140115556[t][/t]