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.
Wouldn't want to set a bad precedent...
Thanks - I did not know that.
Why should they? They either made a mistake, or missed something. If it was trivial they would have said so. Obviously they had some work to do.
That would be an odd filing deadline, as most quarterlies are due 45 days after EOQ.
George is a lawyer. They always say they are going to win in court. It's what they do.
You will never hear a lawyer say "this is a really weak case, we'll probably lose". At least not publicly. If they did, their client would immediately get another lawyer.
Well, it's about time. I have held LBRG shares for 6 years.
right - one of the biggest traps of the otc is that it is really easy to be way too early on a company
Hope you are right - it would be nice to see LBRG come to life.
FAKE - the link you provide does not come up with anything on the Delpack website.
Based on what has happened with WNFT I would not go wishing to see George Sharp involved here.
Not that there is any real chance of that - he goes for shells that are DORMANT, not businesses with some level of ongoing operations and active ownership drama.
You forgot number 6.
6. And, if you DID hear it from me, it still might not be true...
I don't think there is any way this goes away quickly.
Yeah - I had my hopes up too. I bought some shares on Friday after the fall that I plan to flip if there is any kind of a bounce, but I think the story will take until December to play out. My plan, which could change, is to hold my original shares until then to see what if anything comes into the shell.
Ummm...didn't it take 40 years to reach the promised land? Our new Moses has 39 more to play with.
I think he meant no new info IN THE POSTS HERE, which is a true statement...
Mavlo - if you think that anything under 2B o/s is outstanding...you definitely need to raise your standards.
What a ludicrous statement.
I agree - not grounds for a prediction (we have had too many). Just a straw in the wind.
They clearly stated that this factory was to be a test-bed for developing a larger facility, the location of which yet to be determined.
That suggests to me they picked the San Jose site because it was near to being production ready (existing facility requiring some retooling but not a ground-up build), and possibly near to a particular customer. This is turn suggests there there IS immediate demand for the product and some benefit in acting quickly to both meet some prototype orders but also to fine tune the engineering of the larger scale facory, probably incorporating feedback from their initial customer regarding both product specs and the manufacturing process.
If that is what is going on, spinning up a ready-to-go facility, even in a high tax state like CA, makes a lot of sense.
I believe (per info posted here some time ago) there is an standing rule related to insider trading forbidding such trades if the insider is aware of a material event coming within the next 90 days.
Since Lebby is pretty meticulous about the rules, this suggests to me that as of April 11, he was not aware of anything big scheduled to happen before July 11.
Things may or may not have developed since then. I was only observing that the "all clear" timeframe suggested by his April 11 buy had passed. I was not suggesting in any way that there was something on the immediate horizon.
Let's see what happens. While I don't expect anything to happen quickly, I don't believe that the WNFT story is over yet.
Well, if the point of Calasse's action was to put us "on lawyer time", he succeeded.
A little over 1.7B shares o/s for ILIM per OTC Markets.
I really hate the "b word" when it comes to microcap stocks...
Could be he was blind-sided by underestimating his opponent. Apparently Calasse is as butt-headed and spiteful as Sharp is.
Sharp might have been thinking "only a complete idiot would appeal, present nothing new and specifically NOT ask that the judge who had already heard the case twice recuse himself". But that is apparently what happened.
Calasse's reasoning might simply be "I know I can't win this, but by filing the appeal I can scotch the r/m (and screw Sharp) by forcing a 5 month delay". In other words, if I can't win than neither can he.
Seems like a high-caliber pissing match and we are caught downwind.
$200K for the RIGHT TO BUY 5 million at .32 over two years.
The question still remains - is there a market?
Speaking for myself, I have ordered from Omaha Steaks and other similar companies in the past. The quality is excellent, but the price is high. I can get as good quality in the meat department of my local Safeway, not to mention Whole Foods, or, at the high end here in northern CA, Lunardi's.
I can get whatever I need locally at better prices. While others may not agree with that, I don't think I am all that atypical and that is enough to keep me away from companies like PACV.
Ok - here are a few.
The PR states that the QCA factory, among other things, will serve as a poof-of-concept re: the design and engineering for a larger facility (location tbd). Do they have orders for the batteries (or ???) that will be produced from the San Jose factory? Do they have orders for the higher volumes of ??? that the larger facility will ultimately be capable of delivering?
Was the San Jose location chosen for proximity to a specific end customer (possibly to allow that customer's engineers to work with the ALPP team to fine-tune the process and output quality?), and, if so, can they name that customer or customers? Or was it just readily available? As an aside - maybe I should drive by that San Jose location in a month or so and see if I can spot any obvious "company cars" that are not ALPP vehicles - I don't live all that far away!
Assuming the POC is positive, and ALPP proceeds with the development of a larger scale facility elsewhere, what is the long term vision for the San Jose plant?
How is the expenditure for this factory being funded?
Let us know what you find out. Thanks!
Good point. Maybe people here will be less likely to blame FINRA/the SEC/OTCMarkets for all the delays in their stocks.
But probably not.
If and when ASKH pays out I am going to buy myself a really good bottle of single malt scotch to reward my patience. At that point I will deserve it.
ASKH won't have nightmares, it will continue to sleep peacefully.
Unfortunately, there is also no evidence it will ever wake up.
I believe there were some posts a while back commenting that Lebby's 1000 share purchase on 4/11 suggested he was not in possession of information, at that time, which would suggest a material event was coming within 90 days.
Guess what - 90 days is July 10. That is next week. We may not see anything next week, but the window is now open for SHOWTIME.
I don't think he can do that. Going forward, no r/m partner will do business with any of his shells unless they are sure George has accurately represented the share structure to them. If he settles with Calasse, then going forward he would need to indemnify prospective partners against something coming out of the woodwork after a r/m transaction. He can't do that.
Much as I would like to see him settle and move on, I think his entire business model falls apart if prospective partners can't be 100% certain that George's representation of the share structure (and any other issues, i.e. legal) for the shells is rock-solid accurate.
Putting it another way - if you controlled a private company and were looking to go public, would YOU do business with a custodian or shell CEO who had a track record of being surprised by claims for shares? I certainly would not - I would look elsewhere.
It does not matter how visionary you are if you are not looking in the right direction.
DBMM is way under the radar, let alone the visual horizon.
ALL delayed filings are by design, for all companies. Just like ALL on-time filings are by design.
Companies are always in full control as to if/when they file.
George HAS TO fight Calasse to the death. If he can't deliver clean shells where there is CERTAINTY as to what the share structure is, he does not have a business model.
To a prospective r/m partner, it doesn't really matter whether there are 100M shares out or a billion shares out. What they insist upon, with justification, is that there be no surprises.
Give the guy a break. Right now he's focused on world hunger...
Here's an interesting way to think on this. Sharp, as head of WNFT, can't come out and say "I am sure WNFT will be well north of .36". However, Sharp, in his capacity as CEO of FORW, **CAN** legally buy this warrant which has a break-even price of .36 - which clearly implies the same thing without running afoul of securities regs.
.36 would be a 44% gain from today's close of .25 (ish). While I doubt that many here are targeting .36 as their exit price, that would not be a bad return.
I have no real knowledge of what the split cost, but 200K seems very high given that doing such a split is routine stuff for a transfer agent. Possibly there were some fees associated with the name change etc.
Right. No one goes through all the trouble to get a shell and refurb it and then do a forward split just to bring in a company worth $200K.
Therefore, maybe a better way of looking at this would be to ask questions like:
What would WNFT be able to do if they had $200K cash available immediately? Maybe pay their lawyers in cash and not shares? Maybe something else related to the court case? Maybe pay Calasse to go away?
Does having 5M new shares (if the warrants were to be exercised) in "friendly" hands change the equation on any prospective shareholder votes? Presumably Forwardly is a "friendly" and would vote along with Sharp in any matter put to a vote.
It's not halted. We don't need over the top innuendo here.
I don't read much into the statement that numbers are audited, given my concern that book value may be significantly overstated.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that an audit would validate that the results were properly reported, but an audit would not in and of itself cause a review of whether the book value of an asset was overstated.
In other words, an audit would verify that depreciation was properly calculated given the book value of an asset, but would not affirm that original book value.
If the usual scope of audited financials included verification that market value of an asset was at least book value then we would see impairment charges far more frequently than in fact we do.