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.
Another article on the Alpine Convertible Note Issue:
THE FRIDAY THE 13TH CONVERTIBLE NOTE MASSACRE
April 12, 2018
HEY CONVERTIBLE NOTE HOLDERS – LET’S MAKE A DEAL!
Turns out that Friday the 13th is also unlucky for toxic convertible note-holders! I have been warning the toxic convertible note industry that there was going to be a reckoning with regard to how they lend money to microcap OTC Markets companies, and now, it seems that the chickens are coming home to roost. Several months ago COR Clearing decided to make it near impossible to clear any stock derived through convertible notes coming from OTC Market issuers. That decision was based largely on several issues, they key being that a convertible note is not a security that would allow an opinion to clear stock under a Rule 144 exemption. I won’t get into the legalities of this here other than to say to look up both the New Earthshell v. Jakoobit case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as the Reves v Ernst & Young US Supreme Court case. In the end, COR Clearing made a good decision – but not good for toxic convertible note holders. In fact, I had a well-known lenders counsel from Florida send me an article he wrote that tried to counter the courts decisions – that was a massive FAIL! Well, as of Friday, April 13, 2018, one of the last major clearing houses, ALPINE, is going to make it near impossible to process stock from convertible notes from issuers trading sub-penny (most are sub-penny after being pummeled by toxic convertible notes). Turns out that Friday the 13th is also unlucky for note-holders! Now-what note-holders? Your sometimes arrogant and greedy attitudes in dealing with small undercapitalized issuers needs to change and it needs to change quickly if you are going to save all that money on the street - instead of being worth 5 times that amount, being worth less than half of its principle value and in some instance, worth nothing.
Here’s how I see it – The options are limited:
Sell the note to a third party– Good luck with that. That was a viable alternative when the third party could easily benefit from tacking provisions from the date of the original transaction, but now the challenge is finding a clearinghouse, on shore, that would clear that stock. If you think someone will buy the note just to collect the principle and stated interest, think again. Not likely as most of your borrowers don’t have sufficient assets to take should your successor ever get a judgment. The only way to get rid of that note now is to sell it at a substantial discount to its face value, and again, good luck with that, you will be throwing money away if your lucky to find someone stupid enough to buy it.
Wait for Maturity then Get a Judgment– Good luck with that also. Most of the issuers have limited assets and limited revenues and it’s highly unlikely that you would ever collect. Plus, you will incur legal fees to commence, litigate, adjudicate, secure and collect on a judgment (if you can). On a note under $50,000.00, it’s just not worth it. That would just be throwing good money after bad. Almost every toxic note lender I come across has not been able to collect on judgments they obtain in either state or federal court relying instead on the tactic that once they get a judgment the issuer will fold and settle and fork over cash and/or free trading stock. In some cases litigation forces the companies out of business. They will probably just start all over again without you.
A 3(a)(10) Court Approved Settlement– Possibly, but the courts are starting to catch on to this end-around and have been denying approving such settlements. Also, the costs and documentation to get a 3(a)(10) settlement is almost prohibitive, but it is an option provided your issuer agrees to it. Based on the first two options the issuers may hurt their chances of doing a real deal that could benefit both sides, if they agreed to a 3(a)(10) settlement too early.
Give up and let the Loan Sit- Always an option. Many issuers experience a toxic note-holder who will sit on its' hands and wait it out, sometimes for years, hoping the company’s stock price improves or the issuer somehow is able to bring its' financial reporting requirements current, or better yet, some magical mystery investor that will hand over cash to pay off the notes. There are only a handful of lenders, mostly out of New York, Chicago and Massachusetts that will try on litigation to force you to settle or come up with money to pay them off. Usually, they want to force issuance of shares or they want a new deal for more shares – either way, its back to the prior discussed problems of clearing the stock. They may even try suing the CEO personally under some BS fraud claim and as we know now under the Jakoobit case, a convertible note may not be a security and if it’s not a security, there can be no securities fraud claims. Then its simple state based fraud claim and in most states, if there is a breach of contract claim, the fraud claim against the CEO personally usually fails.
LETS MAKE A DEAL!
I have seen how entrenched these toxic note-holders are in how they have previously approached some of my clients. The funny thing is that every time we contest litigation based on certain usury statutes under state law, they jump up and down claiming that the notes are investments instead of loans. Well, ALL of the courts are now finding that these transactions all start out as loans. But the point here is that they “claim” they are investments even though the investment decision is made when they convert months after the original loan is made. So if they are an “investor” from the beginning, that means by definition they are taking a “risk” in the company’s success – yea, right. We all know the true and sole motivation of providing these types of loans and it certainly is NOT based on the success of the issuer but rather, on trading price and volume of the issuers public stock.
The cold hard reality is that from an economic position, the note-holders have just lost a tremendous amount of leverage and some of you CEO’s whose company stocks have been crippled by these transactions and those who have been tortured by message board posters would instinctively want to take revenge and put the screws to them. BUT WAIT! There is a solution that makes sense that is legal and puts both the issuer and the lender on better footing. The plan for a new class of convertible preferred equity designed solely to allow the convertible note holder to actually use the booked liability to really “invest”, short term, into the company. My group has been using this method of debt remediation rather successfully with no issues other than some lender pushback. Now with APLINE’s Friday the 13th massacre, I think that will change as well. The lender eventually gets what it wants out of the deal; the issuer gets the liabilities removed from its balance sheet allowing them to go out and raise more traditional capital; the pressure on the stock is alleviated, no more lawsuits, no more angst, its really a win-win for both sides. Less booked liabilities, more capital is available improving the company’s financial outlook, and in 6 or 12 months, the former lender, and now shareholder, can convert into common with no clearing issues.
In discussing Apline’s newest position with one of my clients CEO’s, Bob Silzer of DSG Global, Inc., a great company that is revolutionizing the golf information industry, we agreed that most OTC Markets companies should consider a fair and reasonable restructuring that can clean up their books, eliminate booked liabilities yet provide a similar return to their note-holders under a fair program where both sides win. It’s very hard to try to convince someone that their business model needs to change, but if change provides you with a similar or same return, then why all the pushback? The days of lenders forcing their position seem to be quickly coming to an end because the major clearing houses will not clear stock from convertible notes and the sooner these lenders realize that convertible preferred stock arrangement can allow them to realize similar returns while helping the companies they “invest” in to focus on their business to make it more successful can benefit everyone including its shareholders.
It could very well be that the current landscape for convertible notes is changing and I can only suggest that the lenders quickly, post-haste, contact their issuers now to work out a deal in which everyone wins. I also encourage the issuers, no matter how mad you are at the note-holders, to be receptive and deal with them fairly and provide them with a real investment structure to help them realize a return on the monies loaned to your company. At the end of the day its not only about the deal you make, but rather, being part of the solution that is way more rewarding than being the actual problem.
Mark R. Basile, Esq. is a nationally known corporate restructuring and workout attorney and is a member of The Basile Law Firm P.C. The Firm represents numerous OTC and Pink Sheet companies in litigation and corporate restructurings. www.thebasilelawfirm.com. Mr. Basile is also director of OTCWORKOUTS LLC www.otcworkouts.com
Okay, thanks. Apparently things have moved along further than I had known for the Alpine issue. I had googled for some indications on what was going on and didn't see anything along the lines of final days for Alpine to clear out of positions. This was the latest article I could pull up on the Alpine discussion. Dated April 2, 2018.
https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/news/securities-regulation-daily/ruling-in-sec-s-favor-on-sars-regulation-violations-by-alpine/49302/
Thanks for this xZx.
This was posted by 'nodummy' on another board. It appears relevant here as Alpine continues to be brought up. Speculation right now as to what will happen.
Agreed xZx,,,one thing that Joe Arcaro does is see to it that his shells become OTC Pink Compliant. Most I see leave that to the newco to get done. I, along with you, have not seen a completed reverse merger accomplished by David Lazars,,,yet. Maybe this and RARS will be unbelievable successes for his resume going forward!
Best DD on David Lazar that I have seen. For me, the moral is TAKE PROFITS AS THEY ARE PRESENTED.
Thanks for taking the time to make the call. I was surprised we didn't close higher than .0013 but I have no doubt we see much more buying volume coming in this upcoming week. Share structure isn't a consideration for a while yet. We need to get through the court's custodianship announcement then prepare for registration and then Lazar will need to determine share structure (hopefully he will be working through that process with the new owner - as I am of the opinion that private companies wanting to go public generate the custodianship process of the shell).
Just a joke here!!
Don't have private messaging. Lido Key and all of these beaches down here are beautiful. I have been down here a little over 4 years and wish I had found this place 40 years ago. Sorry you can't make it this year.
Just got in from fishing and see we held up very well. Filings can't be far off and this baby will flourish for all of us! Joseph Arcaro has a planned blueprint which does seem to work very well for these Reverse Mergers.
I have to say again, this board is so much better than some of the others where whining is so prevalent. Almost like seasoned pro's vs. amature hour.
Thanks.
I stayed on Long Boat Key for a month when I was searching for a place. I found Pinellas County much more active and fun. My town is actually Gulfport, 1st exit after crossing over the Skyway Bridge on 275. Next time bring your golf clubs, I live on the 18th.
I live across the Skyway Bridge over in St. Pete's Beach. I suppose you have been over to Armand Circle for some shopping and site-seeing. Head over to Holmes Beach -- good food there. Gorgeous weather today. As high tide is starting at 1:47, I am heading out right now to catch a few grouper, stop off on my way back to the house to pick up some crab. Will be eating on my back porch drinking a couple of cold brews and watch the sun set.
Enjoy your stay. You made it down here to heaven!!!
Everyone should chill a little. If you need the money you invested in this ticker desperately, sell. In 2 or 3 days once the broker has cleared the transaction you can use the $ to invest elsewhere. Otherwise, pull up your big boy panties and wait for the news.
Reading all these posts and everyone crying reminds me of the first t-ball game of a season. The participants don't know or have a clue what is going on here. Buy a vowel. Just because you heard this or someone told you that,,,doesn't make it so. You should be old enough to take responsibility for your trades and knowing what you are buying into. Good God, Know What You Own!!!
Thank you for selling though,,,it has allowed me to reduce my average pps.
To those who understand RM's and timing,,,have a good weekend. I am off to catch my dinner -- grouper.
Hopefully, however the SEC is normally a lot of talk and not much action. Maybe slapping a few wrists.
I believe we start seeing the PPS and volume pick up today. The court's information (verification - IMO) will get out and people better have positions locked down. GLT
You're correct xZx,,,suspicious activity reporting -- Over 1/2 way down is a short paragraph on Shell Companies involved with the SEC investigation (in bold):
From Securities Regulation Daily, April 02, 2018
Ruling in SEC’s favor on SARs regulation violations by Alpine
By Joseph Arshawsky, J.D.
In a closely watched case, the SEC obtained partial summary judgment on an exemplary series of suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed by Alpine Securities Corporation, finding all of the SARs presented to be deficient as the SEC claimed, a federal court has ruled. The court only denied the SEC summary judgment on a recordkeeping issue. The court also summarily denied Alpine’s motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings (SEC v. Alpine Securities Corporation, March 30, 2018, Cote, D.).
Alpine is a broker-dealer that primarily provides clearing services for microcap securities in the OTC market. Most of the SARs at issue were originated by a brokerage owned by the same principals. The SEC alleged in this case that Alpine violated Exchange Act Rule 17a-8 by filing fatally deficient SARs or by failing to file any SAR when it had a duty to do so. Rule 17a-8 requires compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations that govern the filing of SARs by broker-dealers.
At the court’s invitation, the SEC moved for partial summary judgment using exemplar SARs in each of four categories. The SEC alleged that Alpine: (1) failed to include pertinent information in approximately 1,950 SARs; (2) failed to file additional or continuing SARs for certain suspicious patterns of transactions in approximately 1,900 instances; (3) filed at least 250 SARs after the 30-day period for filing had elapsed; and (4) failed to maintain supporting information for approximately 1,000 SARs as it was required to do for five years after filing. Alpine submitted its own motions arguing that the SEC was without authority to enforce BSA regulations.
Alpine’s motions. In Alpine’s motion for summary judgment, it argued that "because the gravamen of the SEC’s complaint is Alpine’s alleged failure to comply with the BSA SAR regulation," the suit was not actually brought under Rule 17a-8, despite the complaint. The court disagreed, however, ruling that the Commission’s suit was brought under the Exchange Act.
Next, Alpine argued that the rule itself is not a reasonable interpretation of the Exchange Act, and the failure to update the regulation or engage in notice-and-comment for the 2002 revisions precludes enforcement. The court found, however, that Congress’ express delegation to the SEC of rulemaking authority was proper and that Rule 17a-8 was a reasonable interpretation of Exchange Act Section 17(a). The court had no problem with the rule’s incorporation of Treasury regulations under the BSA. "It is reasonable to conclude that the same reports that help the Treasury target illegal securities transactions for its purposes also help protect investors by providing information to the SEC that may be relevant to whether a stock or a market is being manipulated in violation of the nation’s securities laws," the court stated. Finally, the text of the regulation itself, as well as the SEC’s 1981 notice of final rule, unambiguously demonstrated the SEC’s intent for the nature of the Rule 17a-8 reporting obligation to evolve over time through the Treasury’s regulations. Accordingly, Alpine’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
Alpine’s motion for judgment on the pleadings argued that the SEC failed to allege that Alpine negligently or willfully violated Rule 17a-8. Although Alpine’s intent is relevant to the remedy, Rule 17a-8 has no scienter requirement.
SEC’s motion for summary judgment. The great bulk of the opinion sets forth each of the SARs in detail and analyzes their insufficiencies against the SEC’s four categories. In all but one case, record-keeping, the court granted the SEC partial summary judgment. The largest category involved fourteen SARs whose narrative section, the SEC alleged, lacked certain required information. Within this category are seven subcategories.
Basic customer and suspiciousness information. The SEC argued correctly that Alpine omitted some of the "five essential elements" (Who? What? Where? When? Why?) from some narratives. For example, none of the narratives described who the client is by describing the nature of its business. The narratives also failed to explain why the underlying transactions were suspicious. Alpine argued that the SEC failed to prove that Alpine knew or suspected that the transaction at issue was criminal. But there is no scienter requirement, only an objective test that a SAR must be filed when the broker-dealer has "reason to suspect" that the transaction requires the filing.
Next, while Alpine could rely on the SARs filed by the introducing broker, Alpine carried the burden of showingthat the introducing broker filed a complete SAR, which Alpine failed to do. Finally, none of the SARs indicated that it was being filed voluntarily and not because of a legal duty, and therefore "it would have been unreasonable for Alpine to assume that FinCEN and the SEC would know the SAR was simply a ‘voluntary’ filing." The SEC’s motion assumed without resolving the issue that Alpine had a duty to file each of the SARs at issue. Because the SARs at issue lacked a "who" or a "why," the SEC carried its burden of showing that each SAR was deficient as a matter of law.
Criminal or regulatory history. The SEC successfully argued that certain SARs were deficient as a matter of law because Alpine failed to include the relevant regulatory or criminal history of the customer, contained in Alpine’s back-up files, in the narratives of the SARs. The SEC easily carried its burden of showing that each of them was deficient as a matter of law for its omission of the criminal or regulatory history of a related party, which was a violation of Section 1023.320(a)(2) of the BSA regulations. Alpine argued unsuccessfully that the regulatory and criminal history was a matter of public record. However, there is no exception to the duty to file a SAR based on a determination that the government may also know "through other sources the very information that Alpine was required to report." Accordingly, the SEC was entitled to summary judgment on this category as well.
Shell company involvement. The SEC successfully argued that certain SARs were deficient because their narratives did not state that a shell company was involved in the transaction. The SARs narratives did not disclose the involvement of a shell company that would help a regulator understand either the customer or the transaction at issue. Alpine’s argument that the shell companies were not suspicious did not save Alpine from summary judgment because once the transaction was otherwise required to be reported on a SAR, Alpine was required to disclose the use of a shell corporation to the regulators. In another case, Alpine failed to report that an issuer had no website and there was a stop in place for trading shares of that issuer. Accordingly, the court granted the SEC summary judgment.
Stock promotion. The court agreed with the SEC that certain SARs were deficient for their failure to describe the evidence of stock promotion activity (a possible "red flag" for "pump-and-dump" penny stock schemes) that appeared in Alpine’s files for these SARs.
Unverified issuers. The court also agreed with the SEC that Alpine was required by law to include in its SARs the fact that it could not locate information regarding proper registration of an issuer, such as the failure to renew its incorporation, or the lack of a website. The SEC was granted summary judgment with respect to the omissions regarding the issuers.
Low trading volume. The court also agreed with the SEC that Alpine should have disclosed the large size of their transactions relative to much smaller daily trading volumes. A transaction is suspicious if it is a "substantial deposit, transfer or journal of very low-priced and thinly traded securities." None of the SARs included the information about the low trading volume that was in Alpine’s file. Whether the government is aware or not of criminality, the court noted, the duty to report suspicious activity exists. The SEC was entitled to summary judgment on this category as well.
Foreign involvement. Finally, the court agreed with the SEC that certain SARs were defective because they failed to disclose the involvement of a foreign individual or entity in the transaction. Alpine "was required to include in the narrative sections for the SARs the information about the foreign connections to the transactions that it had in its files." Reporting a foreign address in a "subject information" box does not excuse the requirement of identifying why a transaction is suspicious in the narrative section of the SARs. Observing that "Alpine’s SARs were woefully inadequate," the court granted summary judgment as to all seven categories of missing information in the SARs.
Deposit-and-liquidate patterns. In another category, the SEC argued successfully that Alpine violated Rule 17a-8 and Section 1023.320(a)(2) when it failed to file new or continuing SARs in connection with the liquidation of share positions. Alpine filed SARs to report large deposits, but no additional SARs when they sold off a large proportion of those deposits within a month or so of the deposit. FinCEN has identified as suspicious a "substantial deposit of very low-priced and thinly traded securities," followed by the "systematic sale of those low-priced securities shortly after being deposited." That pattern of transactions requires supplemental reporting as a matter of law, and the SEC was entitled to summary judgment to the extent that it proved that such a pattern occurred and that Alpine failed to file SARs reflecting that trading.
Late-filed SARs. The court agreed with the SEC that Alpine violated the law by filing five SARs between 189 and 211 days late. The court was loathe to grant Alpine its argument for an indefinite delay during deliberations. Alpine generally had 30 days from the transaction to file a SAR. Accordingly, the SEC was entitled to summary judgment on the late-filed SARs.
Missing supporting documents. The SEC argued that Alpine had not produced the supporting documentation for five SARs, which the law required it to maintain and produce upon request. Here, the court denied the SEC’s motion for summary judgment as premature given that the SEC did not produce evidence that it reviewed the 2016 document production and failed to locate the supporting documents.
The case is No. 1:17-cv-04179-DLC.
A very good move and congratulations!!
Yes, clueless. I guess he has slept for 11 years,,,Rip Van Winkle, Jr.
Just wanted to remind all that this is NOT a Joseph Arcaro RM but is being handled by David Lazar.
My apologies if my post was confusing,,,I was just trying to show how long we may be waiting to hear.
As some must need to feed the family and sell at these prices, I am sorry,,,but I thank each of you!!!
Just went back to look when clerks posted that Joseph Arcaro was awarded custodianship of LRDR.
Judge heard final motion on 3/20 and the Clark County portal was not updated until 3/28 that Arcaro was awarded Custodianship.
It was reported on the LRDR Ihub board that Custodianship was awarded on 3/21 and the order was found and copied on 3/22.
So, unless someone can talk the clerk into letting the cat out of the bag tomorrow, we may not hear anything from the courts portal on the OWVI hearing until 4/18 or 4/19. Just my opinion.
And you are pumping stocks with over 7B O/S? Which is tanking by the way. You should spend more time looking after your affairs rather than others.
Exactly Right PepsiMan:
No, I haven't. Do you have a phone? I know what I own!
Go back and look at my posts on $OWVI,,,you will see a couple of my posts from last week and this week which explains that we will not hear the courts ruling until Friday or early next week. You can also go onto the Clark County 8th Judicial Court web-site and read for yourself. It takes time for the clerks to draft the hearing notice. Sorry the clerk didn't personally give you a call about the judges ruling!
Here is the last post I mentioned the timing of news:
Put in a bid then wondered why it wasn't taken. WOW,,,now I know why!! Still probably cheap here @ $9.00.
I knew I should have rolled the dice more on this Monday. I will be looking to pick up a larger position. Damn!
Wow, another wonderful Arcaro play. He just doesn't stop. I knew I should have jumped in a much larger position Monday. I am only small potatoes in this, but will be taking up a larger position.
Yep, don't forget that Lazar has a custodian hearing today for $OWVI. 3:00 Eastern. I don't anticipate hearing the outcome today as too close to market EOD. Clerks will need time to get info out. Maybe a Friday news day.
Why would he be hiding? Today will show that cream rises to the top.
I saw that,,,never got any momentum behind it. Hoping $OWVI gets some loving today!
Here is this again. Bottom discusses why TD doesn't allow trading stops:
I just read this post over on the RARS board from art35. I thought it is a good read for all here,,,especially with the problem using TD and Fidelity!
Why Joe Arcaro, Lazar and oravec are held in high regard!!!
The prospective custodian of a dormant Nevada company must meet requirements set by state law. First, he must be a shareholder of the company.
We know from court filings that our applicant purports to have purchased shares of stock of each entity he’s interested in before he files a custodianship petition.
A custodianship action may be brought in two circumstances: if the company directors are so divided that any vote they may take would be split; and if the business has been abandoned, and no steps have been taken to dissolve, liquidate or distribute its assets.
Applicant relies on the second option, seeking shells whose management has not made any filings with the state for several years.
The applicant must also provide certain information specified by the Nevada statute, along with an affidavit in which he swears to its truth and accuracy. He must include a list of all previous applications for custodianship of a publicly traded company filed in any jurisdiction; if those applications were granted, he must supply a detailed description of the activities he performed as custodian including reverse stock splits and share issuances.
The custodian must also append a description of the current corporate status and business operation of those companies. He must in addition disclose “any and all previous criminal, administrative, civil or National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., or Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, violations or convictions concerning the applicant and any affiliate or subsidiary of the applicant.”
That would include sanctions by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFC), and any state or federal actions, no matter how old. We note many custodians hiding behind their affiliates such as corporate egos to conceal required disclosure of background matters despite representing to the court that no such matters exist. Examples of administrative actions includes actions by the CFTC, state and federal administrative actions no matter how old.
These high standard of disclosure was created because custodians are fiduciaries to the other shareholders of the corporation whom they are obligated to protect even above their own self interest. Lastly, he must provide evidence of an attempt to contact the officers and directors of the company in question. That is practically achieved by serving them through the company’s resident agent, if it still has one, or by mail at the company’s last known address.
If the custodianship is granted, the applicant must set a date for a shareholder meeting, and inform all shareholders of record of it; he must then inform the court of actions taken at the meeting.
He must also reinstate or maintain the company’s corporate charter, and show that he is “continuing the business and attempting to further the interests of the shareholders.”
Unfortunately, custodians of dormant penny shells often disregard those fiduciary duties, performing reverse splits and other actions that may affect the size and value of the holdings of the very shareholders the custodian is obligated to protect. ((THIS IS WHY SOME FIRMS LIKE TD and FIDELITY DO NOT ALLOW PURCHASES))
These actions are taken to make the vehicle more attractive to a potential buyer. Once the vehicle is purchased, the custodian and his associates pocket the proceeds from the sale as payment for their purported “services” as a fiduciary and custodian.
Here we go!!
Taking their penny profits from the table. MM's getting what they want,,,for now.
I agree,,,I have no doubt the Judicial Officer will support David Lazar's appointment for Custodianship and added to my position yesterday as this PPS is ridiculous.
Yeah, sure you did. This way you just can't lose,,,can you? POS
While the hearing is tomorrow, the earliest it could be heard is 3:00 Eastern, 1 hour before the OTC Market closes.
I don't anticipate hearing anything tomorrow and depending on how long the clerks take to provide the information, it may not be disclosed this week.
It is possible to contact the clerks office, Mark Bailus after a day or two OR contact the Lead Attorney, Peter L. Chasey's office to see if they will provide the court's position. Sometimes they will provide the courts opinion.
That's a stretch Longterm, someone married to him,,,LOL
$RARS almost up 70% today. I'am looking for $OWVI to clear $.0021 today then see a huge spike tomorrow. All in my own opinion, as that's all I have.
And that shouldn't take long.
Yep, Lazar just filed the Form 15 for $RARS,,KABOOM,,,now he can concentrate on this ticker. Good news is coming! GET IN/ADD/ now! IMO
Good things come to patient people!