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.
And someone is buying them. ; ) Who dumps and who buys? The age old question.
Even if I agreed, they're not all issued. ;) I picked up some .065s to make it more difficult to find shares.
Go look at the chart. Last time short interest closed (at the end of October '22), SHMP went from $.11 to $.19 in two days. The current open short interest has been open longer and is of a greater magnitude than back in October '22. Just sayin'
You obviously didn't read the pleadings in the Texas Shover case. All this is very clearly explained.
I think you mean the Hydrenesis tech. This is why I can't take you seriously...
"There was zero right that NSH shareholders had to exchange their NSH shares for the pubco shares. Zero."
If this were true, then pubco wouldn't own the EC IP because NSH owned that. The right to exchange was the consideration for the sale.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I see no problem. For instance, if two parties entered into a transfer of real property and there's a mistake on the deed, they both have to file suit (at least where I am from) to ask the court to reform the deed on the basis of a mutual mistake.
Here, NSI gave shares to NSH for NSH's IP and NSH acceped NSI shares for its IP. What was intended was not legally possible per the securities laws. A mutual mistake. They sought the Court's assistance to legally effectuate what they had intended.
There was a controversy, it's just the solution was agreed to. Your opinion on what courts can/can't do is really misinformed.
I'd check if I thought this was a valid problem, issue, or anything of meaning at all. Gotta find a new tree to bark up.
Shover and all NSH shareholders (because no one objected) made the representation that they had not received their SHMP shares. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit... to get their SHMP shares. SHMP just agreed. Ergo, no misrepresentation. If there is, the falsity sits with NSH shareholders, specifically Gary Shover. But like I said, Shover's admission is imputed on all NSH shareholders since no one objected to his representation. The Court says you're wrong.
The representation you reference is called "WHAT WAS INTENDED." Crazy, two parties looking to consummate a contractual agreement, but unable to do so because of securities registration laws, told the Court what they actually had intended and the Court effectuated their intent by allowing the securities to register by Court Order. What a novel concept. You've really made the discovery of a lifetime.
1. I am the one that brought this to your attention;
2. He was not inhouse counsel during the pendency of the case;
3. It was not an adversarial proceeding - SHMP and Shover were in agreement, lock step, the entire way.
If you don't like this, go talk to Shover about his choose of lawyer.
What is represented as truth and what is legally true are wholly independent matters. You can characterize the representations as "lies," but I again ask, what's the harm? It is represented in the MDA with YOTA that the Series A WILL NOT convert. They are clearly only for voting and I've addressed that issue now ad nausem.
I agree with this. However, winning a class action would just cancel the SERIES A. In that event, ALL SHMP "investors" would be entitled to vote on the merger. Considering many hear speak negatively about SHMP's prospects without the merger, who of you "Investors" would vote "No"?
This is why I said "No harm, no foul." The final outcome, IMO, would not change, to wit: SHMP reverse merges with YOTA.
Logic requires follow through, don't stop short.
That would result in a material negative change of SHMP's value, which would be a violation of the MDA.
All this speculation and not a single valid point.
The consideration paid for the Series A shares (which are just a repackaging of NSH shareholders' SHMP shares that couldn't be delivered) was the transfer of the IP from NSH to NSI. Since those undeliverable shares are now deliverable, because of court order, they can be UNPACKAGED. When you do that, there's literally nothing underlying the existence of the Series A shares.
Consequently, if anyone argues that the Court case was unfair or should be reconsidered or the outcome should be different, then just know that it means the NSH - NSI deal remains unconsummated. Ergo, NSI wouldn't legally own NSH's IP. Isn't that the whole value of SHMP? Therefore, to argue that the case is bad is to argue that NSI does not own NSH's IP.
Go back and re-read all the pleadings in that case. Everything is spelled out. The case was not adversarial. It was meant to resolve the undeliverable issue (shares held in the interim in the form of SERIES A preferred) and finalize consummation of the NSH-NSI deal by using the Court Order exception to the registration of securities.
"Third, a lawyer may allege that the common shares that were the subject of the court order were not obtained legally and the lawyer can move to nullify that order." That time has come and gone. If anyone had a problem, notice was given and they could have objected. No one did.
What securities law is being broken? In arguendo, how would an SEC fine of SHMP, for a technical violation of the securities law you will cite to, change the anticipated outcome on SHMP's end?
Also embedded in the 10Q is the fact that both Boards (YOTA and SHMP) already approved the merger. Since Easterling wields sole voting power of the commons because of the continued existence of the SERIES A (I doubt he will vote "No" to the merger), the only concern would be YOTA shareholders' vote. Welp, 58.5% of all common shares are held by 6 or 7 entities. Other than Yotta Investment LLC, all the top YOTA common shareholders acquiried their +6% stakes AFTER the MDA and AFTER extension of the MDA. Moreover, YOTA common stock is currently trading $.20 OVER the par value. I'd say that all signals currently point to a "YES" to the merger by a majority of shareholders of YOTA common stock.
NATURAL RED HERRING
I still have a problem with this. The SERIES A are legally ineffective for want of consideration. Therefore, imo, the voting rights could be legally challenged as non-existent. With that said, I also take the position, no harm no foul. What do I mean? Well, if there were no SERIES A, then ALL SHMP "investors" (as Joshy likes to call them) would be entitled to vote on the merger. Instead, because of the SERIES A, common shareholders' votes are negated and the holder of the SERIES A gets sole voting power. ONLY IF SHMP "investors" would vote "NO" to the merger would this be an issue (This is based on the presumption that the holder of the Series A - Easterling - votes "Yes"). Unless there's good evidence to suggest that SHMP "investors" would vote "NO," this is a NATURAL RED HERRING. I'd say that the lack of existence of a lawsuit to enjoin voting of the SERIES A supports my presumption.
Fife was never in it to hold YOTA. In fact, YOTA is to get away from fife. Apples to oranges my friend.
.001 change in price is not "dumping" bwhahaha
58.5% bought within the last 6 days. AFTER the MDA and extension of the MDA. Wanna take a guess how they stand on the proposed merger?
They are only relevant if you believe SHMP shareholders would vote "NO" to the merger with YOTA. Otherwise, complete red herring.
No facts to support this assertion.
Uh oh shorts.
There are company statements that expressly state what Joshy says is missing in this two month old puff piece. Tomorrow is short settlement deadline... coincidence? I think not.
They focus on arbitrage. There's lots of arbitrage opportunity between SHMP, YOTA, YOTAR, YOTAU and YOTAW
It's half the amount that you used to represent "existed." Want to admit you were wrong about the Series A or you going to ignore the issues that worked themselves out during your hiatus?
Tell me you didn't read it, without telling me you didn't read it:
"The amount of plastic and microplastic floating in our oceans, according to Eriksen et al. (2014), is around 5.25 trillion pieces, or 65,269,000 tons. Owing to their small size and ubiquity in all ecosystems, microplastics exposure to biota and humans is highly probable (Smith et al., 2018; Mercogliano et al., 2020). Several studies have documented microplastics in a wide range of taxa, including zooplankton, fish, shrimp, seals, bivalves, sea turtles, stranded whales on continental coastlines, and humans (i.e., placenta) (Nelms et al., 2018; Abbasi et al., 2018; Donohue et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2018; Garcia-Garin et al., 2021; Ragusa et al., 2021)."
Yo, it's not just gulf shrimp. It's ALL seafood.
From 2018: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/gulf-mexico-sending-out-sos-message-plastic-bottle
from 2021 specifically about the Gulf of Mexico: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34534833/
Man o Man, having an opinion about RAS shrimp farming without consideration of current, real world ecological problems....
Conspiracy theory as reason for a belief. Got it. Also, guess we won't acknowledge supply chain issues due to Covid over that exact period "end of 2019" through 2021. Sure, let's cherry pick "facts."
Everything is absurd until it's not. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP8936
The effort put into ignoring clear differences in product... bottom link states "import" and top link is "gulf" shrimp. With certainty, import is full of chemicals and preservatives while gulf shrimp are not only becoming harder to harvest, but are full of microplastics and other pollutants. Night and day differences.
It's not "know" or "here's what I rely on to support my opinion," but rather just straight "believe." I wish I had the luxury of ignorance in my decision making.
Love when facts (personal experience) trump theory ("academic" speculation).
Get off making up facts. Good to know there are "investors" that form "opinions" without deference to objective reality. Means many "opinions" can be outright ignored.
Moreover, "opinions" with no basis in reality (i.e. without truth) may very well be defamatory in nature. Continuing my educating demeanor, here's a simple definition of defamation to put in your pipe: "communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation."
Here, you consistently publish on iHUB (viewable by third parties) statements (written opinions) which are not based in reality (a.k.a false) about SHMP (a legal "person"). I won't inflate egos and go as far as to say that such statements damage SHMP's reputation, but I will contend that reputational damage to SHMP is the point of such opinionated statements. Can't say one is educating when the statements are factless.
Proof of failure please. If no proof, then can't have a reasonable opinion. No reasonable opinion = pure defamation.