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.
Actually the company said that:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155608539
Our only production site
*on planet Earth
**in this dimension
changing that word would invalidate the statement. You can't liquidate companies and keep chunks of value away from the creditors you are seeking asylum from. But as has been pointed out, those items haven't been listed as assets and are not/never were.
I think you should go back to harping on the Visolis Transaction garbage. You'd have more success (albeit still close to 0) arguing against the LCY attorney letter begging shareholders to stop believing there is any value remaining than against the SEC not minding the omission of valuable assets on a companies' reports.
No one is working for or on behalf of the company to oversee any such foreign operation. Everyone went home, including the Monitor, who's charge was to liquidate everything of value from all of the companies.
I think what you'll see is a rehash of other debunked snippets, as opposed to new theories, once the 20th passes with nothing. Shockingly, a few months after the LCY lawyer wrote an open letter referring to the singular transaction as the "LCY Transaction" and promising no further compensation beyond what was agreed in the APA (obviously), there are new shameless "Visolis Transaction" posts.
Likely several months after this foreign plant exercise is over and the 5/20 date is a memory, there will be "new" posts about the "plants in Thailand and Brazil". And around and around.
But 2 things won't ever happen- 1) there will never be any payment to shareholders, and 2) the group whose identities have now become intertwined with their ability to "pick this winner", will never stop these intellectually dishonest arguments.
That’s just the countdown to the next countdown. There is absolutely no chance anything will change on that date or any date subsequent to that date.
As you’ve correctly identified, the “voluntary” bankruptcy narrative to create extraordinary value for those that followed the “hints” and total loss for everyone else (namely, the creditors) is an embarrassment. And then there is the idea that they voluntarily entered bankruptcy without the need for it, paid off creditors anyway in a secret transaction, shed the investors who didn’t follow the hints, etc. also an embarrassment.
The premise of your question involves the active execution of bankruptcy fraud.
So you held in order to take the tax write-off? That does not sound logical.
BTW I believe there was $3,300 worth of short interest at the time trading was stopped.
So you bought in 2018, before the failed restructure? So, when that was announced and that the Monitor was requesting (and was granted) enhanced authority to conduct the liquidation process, you just didn't believe them? And then when they released the 10th report, which was basically a plea to shareholders not to not believe them, you continued to not believe them?
So basically, you just don't believe in the process. You don't believe the Monitor (unless they are being "quoted" by a losing bidder), and you don't believe the judge. There is no way to otherwise describe the decision to hold.
No hunting for clues here.
Then hunts for clues.
Get ready the clues for the new narrative post 5/20.
Because I’m not still hunting for clues after the case was closed?
The case is already closed. There is no chance of him being wrong. There is only one legitimate interpretation of the outcome of public company bankruptcies.
Things clearly changed between the Monitors 3rd and 4th report. By the 4th report on 8/1/18/, the restructure had failed and it was only liquidation from there on out.
The Monitor and LCY said 100% you are not.
ah so it’s the secret documents that “can’t be posted “ that hold the key, not the endless array of repeated debunked snippets you throw out alongside useless open ended questions and accompanied by “Lmao”, and certainly not the organized, consistent, thorough (everything material of course) reports furnished by discharged monitor and approved by the judge.
Why wouldn’t we just cut to the end and look at the fully executed version that delineates all those things that were ultimately agreeable to be bought and assumed?
That’s the beauty of the “material” concept- it means I don’t have to worry about any other part of the Offer (which everyone knows is accompanying documentation required to effect the Offer)- if it was material (altering the stated transaction in any way reasonably expected to impact the share price) it would be stated with the same specificity as the purchase price stated therein.
To state the obvious, if another chunk of compensation was the other part of the “Offer” it is required to be part of the definition of Offer.
Well yeah. Liquidation is a form of restructuring. The process that sought to recapitalize the company as a going concern failed. Then the liquidation happened. This is what it says linnearly in the reports.
Not material. LCY has taken the same path as the Monitor now with a public of begging shareholders to accept the stated result. I’d rather argue “second shooter” theory than this debunked to death “affirming letter” theory.
The same thing. The liquidation was the second proceeding after the failed restructure (the first proceeding).
I’m waiting for answers at the end of every exchange you get stumped. Do you really want and need me to link the 6th report with the unredacted APA and then go through the mind numbing exercise of debating whether Transaction is different than the Purchase Agreement or whatever completely debunked nonsense you have in mind?
They aren’t worried. The judge effectively certified and indemnified them.
Gibberish. There are no documents missing. The APA is the Transaction and it’s been released in its entirety. And then everyone went home.
Yeah. You busted them. Then they got the judge to sign off on a clear APA and for good measure wrote the 10th Monitors report to beg shareholders not to believe anything other than the documented liquidation.
This is a trick question. There are no missing docs in an organized bankruptcy in a publicly traded company, at least, no missing documents with material information reasonably expected to have an impact on the share price.
What was posted is irrelevant as, like it or not, we’ve all moved into an era post-ruling of that case. And the result is all completely public, no matter what the company thought it was worth or hoped would happen before the bankruptcy proceedings began.
And I am now formally requesting a preview of the new theory that will arrive May 21,
This has no impact on the agreed and documented purchase price and/or on shareholders as of the time of trading cessation. I promise on May 21 a new theory will have to be dug up. And one no doubt will.
Nothing other than 4.34M makes any sense. That’s what was reported.
4.34m is the better than nothing. That was the best option. It could have been a lot worse. They could have waited to declare bankruptcy until a point where there were much greater liabilities than what they ended up with.
I haven’t followed any of the twitter action. I am absolutely 100% certain in the outcome and I would call it embarrassing at best and outfight nefarious at worst for anyone to claim otherwise.
Yes it’s over. There is no DD, that concept doesn’t make sense given the outcome. I’m only here observing the insanity.
This has been debunked and explained so many times and was ultimately settled by a letter from and LCY lawyer, which was overkill and redundant.
Yes, this has been shed light upon with a powerful blinding spotlight many times. What was described was that granting the bankruptcy relief of accepting the 4.34M keeping the creditors at bay and not pursuing intrusive legal action was in the best interest of all the stakeholders and the benefit of such relief outweighed the hardship of granting it.
Interesting, I had not understood that the debt wasn't discharged at the end of the bankruptcy. I suppose if it was it would have necessitated cancellation, so your statement makes sense as to why there wasn't a forced cancelation.
It was a bankruptcy with an initial desire to seek restructure. That failed so it went to liquidation. It is not cancelled because the executives resigned when restructure failed as they were not needed through the liquidation portion. Now there is no one to cancel the stripped shares, so FINRA did what was in their power and permanently suspended.
What? Wikipedia aggregates and mirrors other publicly reported information. This wasn’t a restructure. The best bid was accepted in the liquidation- that was in the best interest of all stakeholders. And the benefit of granting the bankruptcy relief- namely the allowance of an organized process to accept the best bid possible- did outweigh the potential hardships in the alternative. But make no mistake- you lost any investment here.
The information on Wiki is consistent with the Monitors reports, not a replacement for it. A summary would be a good way of putting it.