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.
How could the be money stolen if it stayed within the corporation? PBC is owned by GRN Funds. And GRN Funds does actually have money, btw. A lot of it.
GRNF is not a party to the lawsuit. If you want to insist that GRNF is a shell company with zero revs, then you must say this ticker is not involved at all to the suit. All technically true.
Well good thing GRN Holdings isn't being sued. lol
If they have 500M+, then yes, that's minor.
I'm trying to keep positive. But I'm not naive. There's no sure thing here. This stock has always been a gamble and will remain so until the filings come and we know what we have. Hence, the volatility. I trust the DD we've all seen will come to fruition soon. So, I'll stick it out.
I don't know what you just said. I won't try to argue specific facts we don't know to be true or not.
My point is this may not be as bad as people are saying. I don't like it, but I don't see anything like a ponzi scheme as some have said. The suit will probably be settled in a few months and we'll move on. It certainly won't affect the overall operations of GRNF, assuming they fill the shell sometime this century.
Heh. There are different ways to make money here. That much is apparent.
Negative news always affects pps. Temporarily. Check back in a month and we can revisit whether this was a big deal or not. ;) Personally, I see it as a very nice buying opportunity.
I'm not sure that's true... GRNF isn't named in the suit, first of all. Second, it's not that big.
All they could possibly do is acknowledge it. That's it. Anything they say pertaining to it could be used in court. JC doesn't have a say in it, if he's smart. If it warrants a response it will be by the lawyers.
We already know about it, so what's the point of a PR?
No, that's false. Companies generally do not comment on minor lawsuits like this until it's resolved, if they ever do. Nothing good could come from it.
I don't know if that would constitute breach of contract. If money was diverted, that's not illegal or unethical. It's standard practice for banks to move deposits for loans to other banks, investments, treasuries, whatever makes them money.
It is odd they would write checks outside PBC accounts though. My guess is the withdrawal exceeded PBC's immediate available funds so they made it through the parent company's acct in the interest of expediency.
I'll say again, we don't know both sides of the story. How many times has a lawsuit come out and it turns out it was totally bogus or not nearly as bad as the allegations. I don't trust lawyers. lol.
I've always targeted 2-4B. Really hard to judge at this point. Would be awesome to see 10B+ though. :thumbsup: There's a reason I'm not selling my shares to the sharks.
Of course the big question is when? ....
Soulshine Dev Group is a holding company. That much is true. They own Soulshine Cannabis, Cannaseur's Choice and who knows what else. I think saw CC had monthly revs around 1M. GRNF will have 51% equity there.
They won't discuss that publicly. No company would. That's in the hands of the lawyers.
And it's only an allegation at this point. We only know one side of the story as they presented it, and the story has already changed at least once.
So much lol going on. Much ridiculousness.
Actually, it went up substantially after the LOIs to near $1.00. It's been down since then as the news faded. Such is life on the OTC. It'll defo go up to those levels and beyond with more substantial news.
OPINION noted. :)
Correct. Not sure your point. Do you have a predefined timeline of when a billion dollar company should complete it's merger?
The guy is busy. He pays lawyers to write that stuff, as all CEO do. Mistakes are not always deliberate.
He corrected the inaccurate document that his lawyers told him to sign. Are you saying there was anything nefarious beyond an honest mistake? Cause I don't see it.
Pathological liar is a bit extreme...
And JC did not write or contribute to that article. If they like his company, so what if he posts the link on social media? Maybe he could mention their mistake, but he's not obligated to. Maybe he didn't read the whole thing, who knows? There's ton's of stuff written about him.
Please. You understand what I said. It's coming.
Those companies are all owned by GRN Funds, or they have stake in them. That much is indisputable. Saying they are subsidiaries of GRNF, is maybe technically incorrect. Since JC owns both companies, and he's stated his intention to make them part of GRNF, I can understand why he would say that. There is zero doubt in my mind this will happen.
And the harvard info has been addressed, officially. It's a nonissue.
Does that apply to shell companies? Are there any other circumstances that might preclude the filing requirement? Have there been any fines or warnings from the SEC for not filing? If not, why not?
He was NOT interviewed for that article, nor did he pay for it. They just quoted his PR releases. Is it his job to correct them on the ownership issue? Does he not have better things to do than concern himself with a 3rd rate internet site?
I don't know the law enough to think you have the 8k requirement correct as it pertains to GRNF specifically. I feel like probably not since there's been no SEC issues whatsoever.
If anyone bought on the advice of a professional or amateur trader...that's on them. GRN didn't put out anything unethical or misleading in order to promote the stock. It's been 100% transparent and by the book since day one. If you have a beef with the time it's taking to get things finalized, that's legit.
What pump? There's never been a pump by GRN. It was just a peak.
If you think a few guys on the internet that push certain stocks has anything to do with this company, or that the principal owner of the company in any way benefited from such, provide evidence please.
Which tells you he had some issues as a younger entrepreneur. It's kinda typical really. It does not tell you the resolution of the issues. I would assume they've been settled and done with, but that's just me. I'm not one to read additional conclusions into things that's not public info.
Never sell the open. lol
L2 getting thin. Last chance for cheapies.
You honestly think that PBC is an underground bank operating in the shadows hoping they don't get caught?
One out of how many? We don't the facts from both sides and won't for some time. We'll sure get a lot of speculation though. And judging from the posts, it'll be mostly wild guesses and conspiracy theories. It's very unlikely this puts them out of business. We're looking at overreaction Monday and then back to normal.
That doesn't even make sense. What has been exposed? The only thing that has been verified is that PBC is in fact a real company with actual clients. Some people here said it wasn't. lol.
Ok. Yet they obviously have been doing business for some time. They are not hiding from the regulators. Do you think they are operating illegally? Or could it be the registration and licenses you think they need do not apply to them? I think that's plausible, but I'm no expert in that area.
I've always maintained they are not a traditional bank. I use that term in a general sense because any other word confuses people. They are a financial services company for high risk clientele. I don't know if the same standards of capitalization apply to them, legally.
Facts don't support that opinion.
The fundamentals have not changed whatsoever. The target cap is still in excess of 1B.
You don't think banks use your deposits for other purposes? lol That's the main way they make money. The second they get it it's diverted to some other bank or investment. There's no bucket of money just sitting there with your name on it. It's certainly not fraud to move the money. But they do have an obligation to make your deposits available for withdrawal when requested.
Do you know the facts of the suit? Did CANN actually have the money in deposits to fulfill their payment request? It's not clear.
Or maybe that's a completely unrelated event. We are talking about many months apart here. Hey, maybe the suit is why Soulshine sold out of CBD hand sanitizer.
I've maintained since the beginning this is probably a $5-10 stock. I'm still in agreement with that. Although I might be convinced it's more of a $2-5 stock though given the current climate. Still a lot of upside from here if you can filter out the noise.
I am NOT selling my 20k shares monday, no matter what happens. That's for sure. That would be the stupidest move ever.