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 cash flow positive comments feel like active deceit at this point several quarters later when it’s now clear that there was absolutely no basis for such a prediction.
Despite the fact that the short interest has been declared here many times as negligible, around 3k at the time of deletion.
Nothing will happen, will be the same stuff. For a long time.
I was going to note this as well as I do not have an explanation. I would have thought the market had priced in a flat quarter expectation. And I thought such a dip and the debt would been below a reasonable “worst case” scenario. I mean it’s not clear there is even a path forward here as they would have to dilute 1/3 this market cap to get through another year like 2019. I can only think of 2 things- 1) the market was ahead of me in its pessimistic expectation for Q2, or 2) it is taking a wait and see approach to q1.
There’s no board. And no, they didn’t approve a material transaction before they left without telling anyone.
Verb is not growing. Buying a company (and losing a ton of market cap in the process) with low margin revenues does not make it a growing company. And the fact that those revenues have progressively shrank is not positive for investors. There is nothing positive for investors here.
It’s crazy. I haven’t looked up when they did the staggered equity raise, but I can only assume they were racking up the debt anticipating that funding.
It’s just crazy that they were talking about GAAP rules in November while they KNEW revenue was falling and debt was building to scary levels.
I see they were riding current accounts to survive before the next financing which frankly doesn’t have that great of a horizon at this rate. I recall the tenor of the discussion when last earnings was unimpressive DURING this reported quarter when half of this result was known, which is actually quite wrong.
The restructure attempt was reported as failed and so a new process was approved for liquidation. And then that liquidation was reported in excruciating detail and approved by 2 judges. So yes any restructuring scenario would have been done in secret as it directly conflicts with the results reported.
Its up to you when and how you accept the meaning and intent of the infamous "best interests and no hardships" language. It is present in every bankruptcy case, as it is the Monitor and judges duty to arrive at a conclusion that is in the best interest of all stakeholders. That does not mean all the stakeholders are happy with the conclusion. It also doesn't mean that the Monitor is capable of a Sermon on the Mount event where they produce more recovery than what was otherwise possible because they've promised full recoupment to all the layers of financing. It also FOR SURE does not mean that they accepted a way better deal behind closed doors, reported a fraction of the deal to the public, winked at the investment community with this "clue" language, and then plan to reveal the spoils many months later.
It comes down to this. Why wasn't the 2nd deal laid out? If the answer is because it needs to be kept a secret, then why wasn't it kept a secret ("best interest...no hardships"). Why can the judge drop hints if it is required to be a secret?
Covid was not relevant from a business disruption standpoint in SoCal and generally the rest of the country until maybe March, so there is zero impact on performance through December of 19 and I think negligible through end of March.
If there is no growth through December, you were mislead in November.
Eventually yes, q4 and q1, no.
Is there a problem with setting goalposts to measure the companies progress against?
Standard stuff for a release.
The numbers in the reports are not affected, however, it is reasonable to say the preparation of the reports was impacted or at least could have been. And even if they weren’t, it’s reasonable for the company to take the time afforded them for any reason that they think is beneficial.
But just saying again, beware any commentary on needing to wait more quarters for growth to meet set expectations based on the virus. It was not around through the end of q4 and would have had minimal impact on q1.
Fair enough. My point is look out for the believability of the actual effect here based on the tenor of the quality of the quarter(s) vs expectation.
GAAP rules had nothing to do with the last quarter not meeting expectation and Covid had nothing to do with however q4 and q1 went. But sure, it may have affected q1 reporting, certainly from a convenience POV.
There is nothing wrong with the company taking any time or concession granted to them, it’s no different than a citizen trying to minimize their taxes. However, the extension was made generically and the impact to this company should be minimal, again, through at least q1. I bring it up because the market will take context into account, as it always does whether it works for or against some company you’re rooting for.
The GAAP excuse for slower growth than I guess some anticipated was a bad look, and a virus commentary on these reports would be as well.
If there is no excuses made and/or the growth promised on the MLM business is as promised when investors were asked to temper their expectations again last quarter, I’d be the first to say that’s positive.
I agree.
I hope there is improvement and it helps all the investment dollars here.
It was very unflattering when GAAP accounting rules were incorrectly used as an excuse in a prior quarter, and I sense the virus will be cited here, which again would be very unflattering. I think it’s fair to say the virus could have had impact, or even substantial impact with respect to Q1 financials in their preparation, but not really the results themselves.
The other thing to watch out for will be whether the prior trajectory of urging investors not to worry about this (Last) quarters financials as they are shedding the lower margin business for the higher margin business is still the case or whether everyone is asked to wait again on the fruits of the latest pivot to show in subsequent financials. If this is the case, it doesn’t mean there isn’t hope or merit to the new business, but it just goes to the history of unmet expectations and pivots.
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.