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.
The market is reflecting the analysts forecasts to the extent it believes them. By definition.
Hey whatever gets the message across.
It’s a very non-confrontational group.
That document was optimistic toward a sale in the first process, which was reported as failed, approval was reported as sought and received for a second process, which was a reported liquidation.
A lie? Its certainly not a lie. Feel free to provide your rebuttal for how a publicly traded product/technology can be more fairly independently assessed (i.e., not by your or my "gut" instinct), but the idea that my assertion was made disingenuously is in error.
SP is the only non-biased judge of whether any product is working.
So a 2 year delay in the transmission of highly material information between investor classes. What insane thought.
A lot of hostility here. None of the posters here sank this company. Don’t shoot the messenger.
You run for the hills, which is not necessarily the same as running hills.
And sure, AGP is a bottom tier firm. That was pointed out early and often. Of which this company was a client. Knowingly requesting their services. I still don’t understand why AGP doing what they do is/was a surprise that wouldn’t be blamable on the company itself that engaged them.
Yes the business that bought the assets and patents will continue to make payments to maintain them.
Its no longer in CCAA and you haven't heard a word about anything period. Because its done. There are no employees or representatives that are "up to" anything.
Yes, I appreciate that that seems to be the current narrative from the ever-scrambling DD group, and of course that narrative has is own fatal flaws/impossibilities, but this poster has always been clear that his belief is a transaction was concluded prior to end of bankruptcy and protected by confidentiality and also involved carefully crafted documents that led everyone to believe in liquidation, while technically leaving room for a second transaction, as crazy as that sounds.
The bankruptcy is literally over. What could be more definitive? While insanely unreasonable to expect redundant statements from everyone that no additional post bankruptcy transactions are planned, you actually got one from the most often quoted likely party to such post bankruptcy transaction.
Well there is the letter from LCYs attorney where the message was: “definitively, nothing more is coming from us.”
I still can’t believe you think the Monitor has reported all and gone home and the result is up in the air unless someone proves there isn’t an additional unmentioned deal. It’s like we are supposed to watch the NFL this season (hopefully) and wonder if there is a 5th and 6th quarter after every game.
So the guy with all the “DD” (under the worst definition of DD I have ever heard) state’s that the lawsuit had to be cleared out before any FUTURE transaction involving the equity can occur, yet the vast majority of believers acknowledge that any transaction to involve equity must have ALREADY HAPPENED and been appproved prior to bankruptcy and protected by some bizarre confidentiality requirement.
No need to debate, the markets present valuation will be clear in about 90 minutes.
I've shown the company is liquidated with no employees or representatives, and I've explained that when FINRA suspends the CUSIP, it does so forever so that the CUSIP is not reassigned, and it deletes the ticker. There is no one working for the company to wind it down any further, but rest assured it will never trade again.
You can have the top 3 posts, but you’ve lost 100% of the investment. Unfortunately.
Question about the facts: was this company liquidated or not? If yes, why are you rummaging around patent documents for clues?
It’s liquidated and everyone went home. “Dead” is apt in many ways but less so in some as clearly there is a tail for patent transfer as there was for the land title registry, etc. “dead” clearly does not mean you’ll never see the company name again, particularly inasmuch as the buyer will be doing what’s necessary to use the assets it bought.
Unless you mean this patent is evidence of the secret? Someone will have to let me know who gets to violate the secret. Courts- apparently no. Actually yes, they can hint at it (no hardships) but nothing else. Lawyers can’t. Actually they can a little. PWC can’t mention it at all- I fact they have to go overboard and practically insult shareholders (10th report) - oh wait then they get to drop hints by liking things on Twitter. Patent data stores seem like they have the most freedom to tell the world what shareholders didn’t even get to vote on.
Still on the patent stuff as evidence a deal happened without shareholders knowledge eh?
Gotta respect the never say die attitude on the face of absolutely hopeless odds.
There are no buts on this issue.
His point is that if the contract had value then bankruptcy wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place, and/or the restructure attempt would have been successful. But the company did go bankrupt and because the restructure failed, it was liquidated.
The judge was noting the shareholder attorneys assertion and did not otherwise opine on the issue other than to state that no bidder wanted the contract and the secured creditors did not think it worthwhile to pursue.
Alright while I still completely believe there is no way to read the collective documents and believe anything other than the stated deal is the result, let me rephrase my last assertion more in line with directly refuting the poster:
There is no way to read this document and believe there is any value to shareholders in the Vinmar contracts, as they were not desired by any bidder, and the secured creditors (those that had the most to gain if they did have value) opted not to spend any time or money pursuing further.
The judge did not say they had any value. The judge said that Crane asserted they had value. The judge went on to say that no one wanted the contracts and the secured creditors did NOT want to spend any money or undertake any risk in pursuing whether the contracts had any remaining value.
There is absolutely no way to read this document and believe any positive could be coming for shareholders. No possible way.
2. The premise is not remotely appropriate as the relationship between the companies is aspirational by every possible measure, rendering the question useless at best and disingenuous at worst.
Yeah I don’t think in the early days their target was bankruptcy and liquidation.
Always do.
The closing of the bankruptcy is definitive.
It’s been figured out.
It went to 0 unfortunately in 2018. There is no “if”.
100% certain the outcome was known before 2020.
So you have made 3 points that are all akin to blind faith in a team/product, preceded by questioning whether I understand that I'm accusing you of having blind faith in a team/product?
your points:
1) great, so as an investor, you reach this conclusion and then you measure it against progress
2)ok- how have they been working out issues- the stock is down huge
3) very dangerous statement- a "new" pivot will "cure all their ills"?
"I love what they are doing" - fine, but you just have to be willing to admit when things are working out, or not.
Not trying to torture you, I just think the long contingent in this stock, more than any I can think of, could really benefit from some critical thinking, rather than constantly starting from the conclusion they want and working backward.
Yes, it makes sense to pursue the high margin business, and yes it has been going up (a bit)- its not crazy hard to go up from a very low number. And the increases take a ton of effort- look at those costs. And its SG&A, NOT R&D.
These reports weren't good- check the SP action. That doesn't mean they never will be. But its up to you whether you hold this group accountable or simply applaud their every move no matter what- I'm just warning what that has meant, and could continue to mean, for your investment account.
100%, an apt comparison!
The fans thinking the umpires are deep in thought behind the scenes contemplating announcing a retroactive rule change that would change the score to 21-20, meanwhile the umpires are not thinking at all about the game.
And can we provide a link the umps aren't working with league officials about a retroactive rule change?
No board, no employees, no judge, no Monitor- hard to believe anything could be done with the shell.
But the good news, I guess, is the lawsuit is irrelevant and is only related to a specific time period.
There was a lot in the Monitors reports. One thing that is not mentioned is anything about waiting. It’s all closed and everyone went home, including the Monitor.
Another poster today wondered about the "10M capital raise just before the bankruptcy" here:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155768054
and this snippet reminded me that I could not find anything about 10M raised. What I did find, that Mr. Eno takes credit for in his generously worded bio, was a 7M raise.
So the second week of February they announced a 10M underwriting that failed and came in at 7M before fees and expenses, so a net of just over half the original desired amount. With 4M in cash at the end of 2017 and a crushing run-rate, it is very easy to see why the company was delisted 2 weeks later, received notices for failure to timely provide a quarterly report (and never made one again), and then declared bankruptcy.
So you are saying Mr. Eno went for 10M, got 7M, and while receiving the flurry of delisting notices/tardy report notices, likely tons of investor inquiries and finalizing his own resignation, he was concurrently working out this secret deal to be enjoyed AFTER he is gone??
What exists? The liquidation/Visolis Transaction?? Of course it does- How could that POSSIBLY be denied????
This is just nowhere. The board approved the sale before resigning? Amid a flurry of delisting/failed capital raising, etc they hatched a plan to defraud the investing public by dropping hints to only astute investors?
The biggest offense is the inconsistency of what was allowed to be revealed. The CEO could reveal the secret on linked in but you can read the entirety of the Monitor's reports (after the 5th of course where there was still talk of a recap) and never see any mentions of anything beyond liquidation.
How does this square with LCY's lawyer issuing a letter begging shareholders to accept that they (LCY) would not be enriching them?