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.
I was surprised Payne pivoted quickly from Wes…but it sounds like he has heard his BS before.
Gotta love Schwab’s response.
I remember watching Payne’s interview of Brian Foote. It did have a bunch of softballs…and Foote didn’t do too badly. He still destroyed the stock with the dilution though.
LOL…he is a joke because he gives oxygen to these penny stock scams at times.
David just came completely unprepared to utilize the oxygen.
Maybe he will do better tomorrow.
LOL…he was fumbling badly…everyone could see it…if we want to get into conspiracy theories I wouldn’t be surprised if someone on his end shut off the mike to mitigate the damage.
And frankly he deserves a hard interview for the shenanigans he has pulled.
The believers just can’t seem to process that
We get to watch round 2 tomorrow. Unless Michery bails.
Payne did him a favor at the end and previewed some of the discussion points.
I did watch it…David mysteriously ran into “audio” problems on his end the moment he got hung up on the “compensation” question.
Payne was asking a very legitimate question that Michery was completely unprepared for.
Which is why the stock price then tanked.
It was a disaster.
“It was a set - up“
LOL…yeah that’s it.
Out come the conspiracy theories.
I wonder if he will sue Charles Payne now? LMAO.
What an unmitigated disaster.
But he is coming back for more tomorrow!
I am guessing the Payne interview didn’t go so well…given the SM and share price reaction.
There’s a lot of penny stock myth in that.
Especially this:
“if you're shorting a company, and they go bankrupt, the shorter doesn't have to return the shares and all the profit made from shorting that company, they don't have to pay taxes on, all the gains they made are tax-free. It's a tax loophole”
Exactly what “tax loophole” is that? LMAO.
It also belies a lack of understanding how the bankruptcy process actually works and the process by which a customer account on a short position pays out.
But besides that, a company with $200 million in the bank (at the expense of shareholders) is not going bankrupt anytime soon…unless someone ran off with the $200 milli.
Brokerages can lend out stock they hold in inventory. Nothing illegal about that.
Not sure what is different in that case.
The term “restricted shares” actually means something else.
But I now understand the context in which you are using it.
But again, that is only an issue between the costumer and the brokerage. The company has NO say about how stock is handled that they have already sold.
That is what makes the claim so bizarre.
I’d love to debate him on here. Someone tell him to get an account!
Payne is a bit of a joke. I remember when he had Brian Foote on when HMBL/TSNP was hugely inflated and let Brian pump his narrative of blockchain, web 3 BS.
The stock has dropped 99.95 percent since then.
LMAO.
It none of why they allege is actually illegal.
How someone handle the stock THEY OWN (as you said the shares are fully paid for) ha zero to do with a company.
And nothing is inherently illegal in why they actually describe.
What you are suggesting would be like someone who bought a lot of stock in a registered offering by the company and sold it into the market negatively affecting the price….and suing them.
It’s ridiculous on its face.
Yet another great example of the bullshit they are peddling in the complaint.
For people who don’t understand 15c3-3 that footnote certainly sounds bad.
But they should actually go an read the entire rule.
What Christian has done is to parse some words from a small component of that rule, create an overly simplified misrepresentation of it in that footnote and then misapplied to what is normally legal activity and then just flat out asserted it as being illegal.
Just more BS that will be dispensed with pretty quickly at some point.
I have said whatever the brokerages did ‘wrong’ would actually be between them and their customers.
Mullen is alleging activity that they have no claim or cause of action in….
…which certainly looks like they are simply trying to pad the complaint with more bullshit.
By my take on some of the comments…a LOT of people seem to be buying into the notion it was the evil brokerages and their clients responsible for the huge share price decline…and not the company’s dilution.
What is most ironic is most of what they allege is simply the natural result of the massive dilution the company has inflicted on the stock as the financiers and their brokerages have moved that stock into the market.
Anyone can make an accusation.
But for the most part what the information in the complaint alleges is activity that isn’t actually illegal.
In one case the company had already agreed to activity they later said was illegal.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172715779
LOL…why would they allow it if they thought it was illegal???? Which BTW it isn’t.
And generally when someone has proof of an “illegal” activity they go to the authorities…which of course there is no evidence Michery has done.
It’s all just BS to divert attention away from the reality of the massive dilution unleashed by Michery.
No I am not saying that.
Are there still issues some are having with using an iPhone?
I am using my Safari browser and often…(more frequent of late) pages load slowly or partially or not at all. The screen will freeze (can’t even scroll).
I am not having any issues with any other message board or website. I have a 100+ Mb/s Wi-Fi connection. I have cleared my cache, logged out and back in, reset my network, hard rebooted my phone.
Nothing seems to work.
Some times it is tolerable, but it is becoming more frequently almost unusable.
My desktop is fine.
Just throwing it out there.
The “high GTC” was always a favorite but people that fell for it didn’t realize it had zero impact.
BOO! 👻
lol.
“Others profit from it on purpose;”
LMAO! Of course they do! It this how it is SUPPOSE to work.
As does anyone who lends an asset, they get consideration for doing so.
Like getting interest on a loan or rent on a house.
smh.
“A bit paranoid too if you ask me“
Lol…like the person who got taken to the cleaners by Rory Cutaia, and scuttled away two years ago…and came back to follow me to this board.
Have I been living in your head rent free for that long?
LMAO.
By the way…I am a dude. But you always did fall for false narratives.
BTW your formerly favorite stock is a disaster. Exactly as I always predicted.
GL!
I have already addressed this one. And once again Wes is making something rather mundane and the normal course to sound nefarious.
So let’s cover it again.
Newly issued free trading stock does not show up as a DTC deposit until it has been first sold into the market. I could provide a detailed explanation as to why, but I doubt it would get anywhere…lol.
Therefore the DTC deposits are going to be less than a Broadridge reported share count or any count of non-restricted stock…especially while it is being issued…as there is a lag. The difference in the numbers is simply the amount of issued stock that has not been sold into the market.
Go look at OTC Markets where share structures are regularly reported now. You will not find a single instance of the DTC deposits being more than the unrestricted share count…and usually it is less.
This claim is therefore just more bullshit to dupe the believers and deflect from the real culprit.
I could not care less what people think.
lol.
And I see we have another one who doesn’t know how to use the reply button.
The non-reply reply.
That is one of the more ridiculous claims…that Wes created out of whole cloth and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.
That paragraph is a bunch of word salad.
But we are back to the basic claim that brokers used their customers stock in unauthorized ways…which there is no way Mullen would even know this.
Once again, that is only between the broker and their clients. If such activity occurred the client should report it to FINRA. If they have a cause of action they can sue their broker.
The company has nothing to do with it. None
But people are falling for this nonsense. Many of these claims will be dismissed out of hand…if it ever even gets that far.
“The defendant now has two options, one is the prove the claim has no basic…“
I assume you mean “basis”.
That is a funny take on the legal system in the US.
The defendant has to prove something??? Really?
LMAO…this place cracks me up.
I think you have that backwards.
No defendant has to prove anything.
smh.
You are kinda making my point. Any issue with a brokerage lending out or selling stock from a customer account without permission of some form is entirely an issue between the broker and their customer.
Not the company.
Ergo the claim is bogus.
And when I said “they” had no way to know…I wasn’t referring to the customer.
I was referring to Mullen. There is no way to for them to know what they allege.
I guess I have to be completely clear.
A broker is only allowed to lend out shares of a margin account according the the margin account agreement.
Now if they get permission from a cash account holder fine, but that is a one off and requires a request.
So your argument seems to be that the brokers were lending stock out of cash accounts without the holders permission…otherwise it is unclear what you are talking about.
I am simply working with that assumption.
My comment still stands.
1) how would they know?
but more importantly….
2) such activity by a broker is between them and their customer.
Well let’s just assume you are correct…and that the brokers were lending shares out of customers cash accounts without their permission…which BTW they would have no way to know.
That is solely an issue between the customer and their broker and has zero to do with the company.
That is yet one more example of why the claims are BS.
Lost? Not a single person has refuted the observation I made about the very first claim and the fact it was entirely contradicted by the company’s OWN filings.
LMAO.
Can you?
“This Lawsuit only covers the last four months, May through August.“
Which is when most of the dilution BY THE COMPANY was occurring.
The OS grew by 1100% in those four months.
Coincidence? lol.
Oh I understand what is in the lawsuit, probably better than most apparently…I am just pointing out it doesn’t make sense with how things actually work.
Stock lending and borrowing for the purposes of shorting have some pretty defined processes. And when one understands how that works they can pretty quickly see the ridiculousness of the claim.
There are other examples.
They are relying on the ignorance of most penny players to those important details in trying to sell the deflection from the only real culprit. The company itself.
Umm…stock can only be lent from a margin account.
So in order to make any sense of what they are saying the restricted stock would have to have been sitting in a margin account.
Not a cash account.
And your “borrowing fees” statement makes zero sense. LOL.
Again…everything they talk about along this line is between a broker and their customer…not the company.
Then why has Christian never won any of his supposed “naked shorting” lawsuits.
I have yet to find one.
Hope will spring eternal…lol.
But that is how it goes in the penny world…ignore what is actually said and speculate on what wasn’t said.
Akin to sticking one’s head in the ground to avoid the reality.
First of all, brokers can lend out stock from a margin account. Nothing illegal about that.
Second, in most cases restricted stock can’t be lent out because it is not liquid…and certainly not to cover a short already sold into the market as that is skirting Rule 144.
But in a case were the conditions exist for it to be lent out, it would be part of the brokerage agreement with the client.
But last and most importantly the process of lending out stock to deliver for a short position is completely normal. If it was lent out without the account owners permission or in violation off their account agreement that is broker and their customer…not MULN.
And there is no way to cover an open short position with more borrowed stock. That fairly complicated “loophole” was closed many years ago.
Yet another example of a claim that has no basis in reality. They are just throwing shit up there.
I don’t think the Christian is clueless…but he has been pushing this conspiracy theory for years and years…with little to no actual success. But that isn’t really the point for him. He is providing a service for which there is a market, penny stock CEO’s looking to deflect blame for a falling share price.
This claim is just a little more ridiculous than most…
I will explain it once more.
The majority of the complaint alleges supposedly “illegal” activity or “fraud” by persons who received stock issuances from the company.
That stock would have been received by them and then sold into the market via a brokerage.
Hence the reason they say “or their customer accounts” in the complaint.
The ONLY people or entities that received stock from the company are those already known to Michery…his financiers primarily and perhaps others.
And he agreed in writing and filed with the SEC to let them do exactly what he alleges is illegal or fraud…so how on earth can it be fraud if he agreed to it?
And shorting against the box, as they did, is not illegal.
So he does not have a claim based on the facts as we know them, or the law.
I understand why some people want to ignore all that…but it’s there in the filings black and white.
I don’t think it will ever get to the point where he discloses the John Doe’s unless someone wants to be the sacrificial lamb with no real impact to them in the settlement. Heck some of them may even being using the hype of this lawsuit to sell more…although the stock price has not responded the way some have hoped.
Limited evidence…it’s in the filings and the complaint.
Did Michery issue stock to someone he had no agreement to do so?
Of course not.
These guys are hoping on their believer’s ignorance to forget or ignore what they have already disclosed as it contradicts their claim.