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.
They've had two PR's. They had to put them out. A letter of intent is a material event. A completed acquisition is a material event.
They distorted nothing. They qualified every statement, unlike some other companies I know. They have disclosures due in weeks.
You just don't like MEDT because they own a ton of A**T.
So now you've gone from oil industry expert, asking relevant questions, to rampantly speculating on what their steps will be.
What will you say if they don't follow this series of events you've sketched out? What if they already have reserve reports and they aren't from this guy (Does this guy exist or is it a joke name)? What if they already have a contractor?
Why don't you just ask Ari Bass?
Why? Read the posts. That other company has a responsibility to control its affiliates. I believe that they are engaged in an active criminal conspiracy to harm the interests of MEDT.
Looks like those affiliates are shorting again.
Got any more price targets for us? How many shares of the float of that other company does your little "company" own again?
Funny thing though, I had a little email exchange with Ari Bass today. Is 434 in the Caribbean?
Also, funny you didn't mention your conversation with him. He gave you his personal email address and offered to post answers to any relevant question you, or anyone had on the MEDT website, so as not to make; How did he put it? Material non-public disclosures, that's it. He also stated that he told you that he was the person to speak for MEDT and all questions should be directed to him at investors@medtcorp.com.
Why didn't you post that?
Time to go sell some of that other company.
That wasn't a distortion, that was sarcasm.
;)
Happy, happy, happy.
Now if the people who had all those GTC orders don't come back, maybe we are all in for a great future.
Best of luck. Down with shorters!
At December 31, 2009, MEDT had 18,125,000 shares of ANYT. Does that add up to cash? Wait, I know, there's gonna be an injunction. Angelina Jolie is coming over to my place right now and she's bringing Megan Fox with her for a rollicking threesome with me and they are gonna do everything I tell them.
Who does have 39,000,000 shares to sell out of 99,000,000?
No, I sold some in January, and my price is around $0.06, but my profits are gone.
What the hell is person marked?
I can't prove anything beyond what has been posted here by certain parties, but at least one party has claimed, repeatedly, to control the float.
Who benefits most from a run up? The people who control the box and the people who can issue more shares. With the price in the toilet, they can pick up shares at a massive discount in anticipation of all the great things to come, and at the expense of the desperate who fear a total loss of their investment.
I think Mike Head is an honest man and I don't think he is responsible. I know prior management engaged in a series of 504 transactions, and while not illegal, certainly haven't helped the situation, but I don't think this is the root problem. As per recent PR's, 60,000,000 + shares were retired. Where did they come from? Obviously from prior management. So it isn't the people who issue more shares.
That leaves the people who control the float. Someone has been selling, 39,000,000 (39% of the float!) shares since January 13, 2010 and it isn't "that other company' so who is it?
Pull out your pipe, get out your Sherlock Holmes hat and do a little deduction.
No. Prior to this week, I sold no shares since January and very few then. Would you like me to?
I don't think you should leave that house and it isn't mine. Your opinions have been forthright and salient. I respect your opinions, and for the most part, you and back2basics have given me a lot of food for thought.
Also, if the other company is my house, then ANYT is more so, I own more shares of ANYT than I do of MEDT. You are all very mistaken if you think I have an agenda against ANYT, I don't I had close to $250,000 in ANYT stock two months ago and its now @ $60,000. I am pissed, and I am almost 100% certain that the blame lies with people closely associated with ANYT. I want it to stop.
Yes, because they use the closest thing they can get to the name of the company that's available, but, from my experience, they take glee in not giving you the one you want.
Thank you for your correction. I pulled that price from aging memories, it was $12-$15 after the end of the first Persian Gulf war, and I confused 1990 with 1991.
As for 2009 Profits, Forward didn't make squat in 2009 as far as any of us know. I assume they lost money. MEDT made $758,000 in 2009. Go read their financials.
Forward is obviously devoid of cash. MEDT on the other hand has lots of assets.
Nope. $250 doesn't make a whit of difference when there is liquidity. But when people start calling me a liar, there will be consequences.
I am very rapidly becoming disenchanted with this company and mostly with the people who own it and there complete lack of proportionality and integrity.
Very soon I will sell out of this thing unless honesty, integrity and proportionality begin to rule the day.
You are dead wrong. I have been through multiple symbol changes on a CEO and consultant level and NEVER has FINRA let us pick our symbol.
Finally, a symbol change takes ten days if everything is in order. Why the delay? The symbol change was a bad idea because it puts you in FFINRA's legal review process and all sorts of bad things can happen, not least of which is a series of scared children dumping because it's delayed.
And for the record, I own 925,000 shares of ANYT, and to prove my point, I will sell 5,000 right now. Watch the ticker.
No, I don't think I do. I don't advocate that anyone buy that other stock. I don't advocate that anyone sell any either. This applies to ANYT as well.
And I distort nothing.
As for agendas, I absolutely know who has one, and his actions are very, very bad for ANYT shareholders.
SBMI - Assigned
ANYT - Assigned (They wanted ABOL, they are trying to spinoff into that name now. Their disclosures refer to them as ABOL quite often, same as with this MFWT nonsense.)
FINRA puts the name into their computer and the closest thing available is what you get. That's why ANYThing Brands Online, Inc. is ANYT.
No it doesn't matter what symbol they get, however all of you out here seem to think MFWT is a given and it is not. And yes, the purpose was edification. Moral support, patience, calmness. I want ANYT to go back to $0.25 or higher, I have a lot of shares, and I think that selling by the Morgans and certain other affiliates have hurt all of us badly, however, I worry that minor delays in a meaningless thing like a symbol is hurting this company. I don't think they should have even tried to change the symbol at all.
Finally, everything I say provides insight, or I wouldn't post it.
None of my posts attack ANYT. I actually believe Mike Head has a chance to make something of ANYT, however, I will always attack misinformation and distortions. There is so much fodder here it truly frightening.
This was education.
Just for everyone's edification, the actual date that the symbol will change, if it will change, is posted at the site in the link below:
http://otcbb.com/OtherDailyList/
Type in the symbol in question and it will show you any past changes as well as any imminent changes, one day before the change, with an effective date of the change. On the effective date, we will wake up to a new symbol. It doesn't happen during a trading day.
Finally, and for the final time, FINRA picks the new symbol. It may be MFWT, but I personally doubt that it will be. Their computer gives you one and thats it. They used to give companies a choice of several, but those days are long, long gone.
No need to be snide. Leave that to others. To this point, despite your misgivings about MEDT, some of which I share, you have been polite and cordial in your posits. I hope it continues.
As far as oil is concerned, they just finished that deal and they are not in production, so as for oil, the answer is $0. I don't expect them to be profitable, if they can even get into production, for quite some time, as they have already been clear that it will cost money and those expenses, if any, need to be recouped before they can become profitable in this sector. If they get any oil out of the ground. Their isn't really a question in my mind if their is oil, only if they can get it out in a commercially effective way and that is a big question. These wells were plugged and abandoned and it wasn't because oil was spilling out of the ground. On the other hand, oil was 12-13 bucks a barrel back then. its going to over $100 soon enough, like as not. I am waiting to see what the flow rates and other information from their testing was before I think dumping Forward and moving on is the right play.
As far as 2009 is concerned, a year they ended with one employee, they made $758,000, compared to the $135,000 that other company made with their 50 employees.
Cool, so its $10K in debt per employee?
Its still acting in concert and its still illegal. Once you call yourself a "Company" you are one. You have repeatedly urged people to buy and posted price targets.
Naughty, naughty, naughty.
Yes, at one point, but we don't know how many employees Forward actually has.
I don't know.
I don't know that it matters. The guy who I was responding to stated that MEDT had tons of debt. $34,000 is tons of debt?
It doesn't really matter. I am bullish on ANYT. I am bullish on MEDT. If things don't work out for either I will be sad.
By your own statements, SKy & Company own more than 70,000,000 shares of ANYT. ANYT has only 188,000,000, or less, shares outstanding, so your group, acting in concert most assuredly meet the terms of Rule 144(a)(1) which reads:
An affiliate of an issuer is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such issuer.
Having more than 18,800,000 shares meets the threshold of ten percent ownership.
70,000,000 shares is 70% of their published float.
Unless you are lying about what Sky & Company own, than you are an affiliate.
So, an affiliate of ANYT is posting negatively on the message board of a company in which they are in a "dispute"?
It could be, do you have any knowledge that shares have been issued? I know at December 31, 2009, they hadn't issued a single share since June of 2009*.
Also, MEDT doesn't have a lot of debt. They list $359,000 in total liabilities, $250,000 of which are contingencies and $75,000 is deferred income (thats total REAL debt of $34,000).
Contrast that with the $4,958,802 in debt that is owed by another company we KNOW you are acquainted with.
Speaking of which, aren't you the Sky of Sky & Company, a group who, by your own statements, acting in concert, own, control or are attempting to own and control the float of that other company?
Are you attempting to do the same here same thing here?
* "During the quarter ended September 30, 2009, the Company issued no shares of Common Stock.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2009, the Company issued no shares of Common Stock."
You responded directly to my query as to who was selling and stated it was that "other company". That other company had 18.5 million shares, or 9% of ANYT.
Who were you referring to?
Yes, I qualified facts that I don't know. I believe things will be made clear when ANYT posts its March 31 numbers, but I don't know they will clear things up as ANYT posts horrifying disclosures that are filled with gaps and inconsistencies and statements that need to be refiled to make sure that no one thinks they meant bad "shell" when they really meant good "shell".
No sir you did not.
You said “Most of the drop from .25 is due to a large size holder selling to fund operations. More for US! Lol” and you also said, “AND that company that should RETURN those shares instead of SELLING them is my reference!”
Most is more than half. You also didn't say several you were very clear that the ONE seller responsible for more than half of the drop is "that company"
I stated facts, and qualified things I don't know.
Other people maybe more categorical in their support of Forward, but I don't know.
You, without some facts, and loads of opinions, have stated categorically, that the other people are scammers. They may be, they may be not. I don't know. I hope they are right, they are probably wrong. Its a crap shoot as I see it.
On the other hand, its pretty clear that their are serious scammers playing in ANYT and they are taking actions that are hurting that "other company" and its going to bite them in the ass.
Thank you, but I think you have that wrong. The individual I referred to stated very clearly that he was referring to "that company that should return" their shares in the post that I originally replied to.
Blaming "that company" for ANYT's woes is wrong.
What special knowledge do you have that "that company" is selling anything at all? Do you have access to their trade data. They stated that they sold 1,875,000 ANYT shares last year to some JO, way below market, for cash, but beyond that they had the balance on March 29, 2010*. ANYT has been heading towards $0.01 since before then. Lets see $0.25 on January 13, and 0.10 on March 29, now 0.065 on April 28. So assuming what you say is true, and "that company" is selling, then they can only be responsible for the drop from $0.10 to 0.065 or 0.035 out of a drop of 0.185. So, following that logic, $0.035/0.185 = <50% of the drop? My math says it's at most 18.9%. This also assumes that "that company" is doing ALL of the selling. There were 31,000,000 shares traded (bought and sold) from January 13 until March 29. Their have only been 8,000,000 shares traded (bought and sold) since. 81% of the decline in price is attributable to other parties. Wonder who that might be. Can you say 504?
Additionally, on what basis do you state that "that company" is somehow required to return the shares? Moral obligation? "That company," has an obligation to its shareholders not to give them back.
There is almost nothing that can be done to get the shares back short of suing in Nevada. Nevada courts have let almost no one get shares back, ever, and no one after they were free trading, and as regards restricted shares, only in the case of outright fraud. Do you have evidence of fraud? Do you have a copy of the contract they supposedly breached? Nothing in ANYT's language suggests fraud. "The status of the agreement is in dispute, based upon the failure of 'that company' to fulfill the terms stated and implied in the performance of the agreement." This is breach, not fraud. Funny how it isn't listed in relevant section as a potential suit. ANYT is required to list any probable suits by or against them. What are the terms stated that "that company" failed to fulfill? I won't even bother with the implied failures. What this all reads like is sour grapes.
When are you people going to give up on this wet dream where "that company" is going to give anything back? If ANYT could have, they already would have gotten them back. Also, if anything of what you are saying is true, then the legend has been lifted (To sell shares they would have to be.)
Finally, as far as any potential suit or injunction is concerned, the time for any suit would be when the shares are/were sent in to be freed up. If they have been freed up, there is, ipso facto, no longer any dispute. If they haven't been freed up, there has been, ipso facto, no selling.
By the terms of "that company" policy, they could only have sold 800,000 shares (10% of the volume) in the market, at most, since March 29; 3,900,000 since December 31. Assuming they sold anything at all, who sold the other 35,100,000 shares since January 13; who sold the other 7,200,000 shares in the last month? When are you going to stop looking for scapegoats and start looking at your own house?
One last thing. The SEC does not like Pinks. FACT. NOT OPINION. THEY HATE SHELLS. THEY HATE REVERSE MERGERS. As a general rule, government agencies do not like people or entities outside their jurisdiction, and Pinks lie in AND out of the SEC's jurisdiction. They HATE this. They now have a policy of suspending trading on companies that file Form 15's. If that policy were in place in 2009, there would be no ANYT, in 2007, no "that company". If a formerly reporting company wants to cease their reporting obligations, they must file a Form 15. If they don't file one, the SEC can halt them for failing to file their reports, if they file one, the SEC will now halt them for failing to file their reports. Nothing I said means ANYT can't get an S-1 through, but not before October and probably not this year. I can just imagine the comments on the 504's. The SEC HATES 504's. Ask them.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml
Read the reasons and look up the EDGAR files of the companies suspended; notice a pattern?
The SEC wants companies to file S-1's on startup deals or S-1's or Form 10's for established companies and go though the process they set up for registration and commencing trading, not backdoor into old dead companies. That is just the way it is. The shell game is on its last legs. Sorry to see it go.
* March 29 is important because "that company" last published their financials on that date and if they had sold any shares prior to that date, they needed to list them. Maybe they failed in that regard, but we will all know how many shares they have sold prior to March 31, 2010, when, and if, they publish their first quarter numbers.
They came up with information, not due diligence, then they distorted that information, in order to knock it down. Its the same houses that ran it up this morning as ran it up two weeks ago and its the same houses selling right now.
No Reverse? Mike Head and myFreightWorld are now in control. They changed the name to myFreightWorld Technologies, Inc., they have a new board selected by Mike Head and they are spinning off the old company leaving only the new. Sounds like a reverse to me.
They don't get to pick their new ticker. MFWT is mental masturbation. FINRA gives you the ticker they choose. TTT!
120 days? First the SEC doesn't have to respond to a filing for 30 days, then you have 30 days to file a response and amend your filing, then they have 30 more to comment on your comments, then you have 30 days to respond to their second round, and so on and so on. Two rounds of comments equals 120 days. No pink filing an S-1 gets just two rounds. No pink.
The SEC does not like pinks. They think everyone involved in a pink is a scammer by default, and the thought that they would just let ANYT join the cadre of reporting companies with a registration of new shares, or old shares of insiders (the only reasons to file an S-1) is patently ridiculous. Not that it can't be done, but it is not happening this year if they go S-1. They could form a new company, S-1 that, then RM into the new company, but all the shareholders of ANYT would be left waiting for six months before their shares would be free trading unless they do an S-4, but then we're back to the same comment process.
The SEC is far more likely to admit a company under a Form 10, which registers a class of shares (common?), but does not lift 144 restrictions (free trading is still free trading). THis is a much shorter process, though it too, could take months. Get an audit, Write the Form 10, get a legal opinion and file, if the SEC doesn't comment in sixty days, its all done. The SEC comments on new Form 10 filings about 25% of the time.
"Most of the drop from .25 is due to a large size holder selling to fund operations. More for US! lol" What does that mean? ANYT holders are selling to fund ANYT operations? That would be illegal. You have no idea who is selling, unless its you, or someone you know, but I bet the 504's didn't help.
I didn't say it. The person I was replying to said it.
"Once audited and fully reporting ANYT/MFWT can be uplisted as this is a requirement for NAS. This will be after the ticker change IMO (but I also thought ticker change would have been made by now). And in the last PR they stated they would try to be ready for this by May 1st."
That all said, the part of the PR you referred to is not possible either. They were still in the "pre-audit" on March 17, 2010. So, give or take 90 days, thats June 17, 2010 before they can start anything with audited financials. May 1, 2010 is right out. If they haven't got then on April 28, 2010 they won't get by May 1, 2010. Audits CANNOT be conducted in 6 weeks. The auditor ha to send out confirmations and receive back response from a variety of parties. It just isn't possible to do in less than 3 months, unless the audit is a sham (See PCAOB and SEC vs Moore and Associates).
This is the reason that companies have to put out "Forward Looking Statements," disclosures in their PR's. It' also the reason why it's a real bad idea to put dates in PR's.
Also, if they think they can get an S-1 through on an ex pink that did a reverse merger within 120 days, I will eat dirt on camera. The easiest route is a Form 10, if it can be done at all. I can say that reading the comments on "Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities (3 years) will be a hoot. The other part I'm looking forward to is the section regarding owners of more than 5%. I have seen companies spend three years on S-1's, on Form 10's too and never get through comments.
As for six steps, I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Step 1: Audited Financials
Step 2: S-1 filing completed and filed. Financials and Legal Opinion attached
Step 3: SEC Comments
Step 4: Responses to Comments
Step 5a: Effectiveness by SEC; or
Step 5b: Withdrawal by potential registrant.
Step 2 can be broken into two steps, I guess. But five steps is more realistic.
Step 2a: Write S-1
Step 2b: Legal Review
Step 2c: Rewrite S-1
Step 2d: Legal Review
Step 2e: File S-1 with financials and legal opinion attached
Step 2b and Step 2c can go on endlessly as well, which would necessitate new audit opinions.
Also Steps 3 and 4 may be repeated endlessly until Step 5a or Step 5b.
S-1! LMFAO!
ANYT will not be reporting by May 1. May 1 is Saturday. They have to finish their audit (at least 90 days from start to finish, minimum) first. Then they have to file a Form 10 which isn't effective until 60 days after filing (or sooner if the SEC says OK, which won't happen by Saturday under any circumstances.), then they become fully-reporting.
They could reverse merge into a reporting shell, but that would put us all on hold for a year or six months (Rule 144)
Maybe they can finish their audit by May 1, but it sounds like May 1, 2011 to me, not 2010. I can't see how they would accomplish their audit process prior to spinning off ABOL and Anything Green.
That all said, why does it matter if they get fully reporting or not? Audited financials are enough for me.
You are spot on. A stock DOES NOT go up by locking up the float. It goes private. ANYT needs to DO something. Anything (no pun intended)!
People who don't own ANYT need to hear about ANYT and get excited about it and dividend games are not it. How about an acquisition, merger or joint venture or expanding sales.
Get the word out! I want to be back to $0.20
Well,
Once more, I will say that your statements are very reasonable and informative. I still assume that 60 barrels is a lot less than a truckload, but then again maybe not, I'm out of my depth on that, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the information you stated probably should be given to the public. I just am not sure it belongs in a PR. It should probably go into a disclosure report like the one due pinksheets on May 15.
Ahh! So you're shorting. Thought as much.