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.
Karma is a funny thing. I would be careful with that and stop wishing for Peteygrans. The guy died from brain cancer and I'm sure his family suffered. Karma is real
There aren't a lot of Steve Jobs running OTCQB companies. Think you'd agree? Unless of course you can point to one stellar management team on the same OTCQB that SHMP trades on.
There is nothing nefarious. Do I believe they overpaid. Yes based on my knowledge. However, they idolized PL and wanted to do right by his widow. They overpaid probably, but nothing illegal.
I don't agree. Deborah loves Gerald. She is radiant in his presence. Just telling you what I know. Mr. Pickens was very fond of Gerald. They would watch OSU games together. Just what I heard
That isn't what I heard. Apparently T Boone was very fond of Gerald. Called him a true Texas gentleman for his daughter who he loved.
Did T Boone think Gerald was a smart one? Rumor is he liked Gerald
Correct the patent is licensed from KSU
Step 1. Search Peter on the SHMP message board
Step 2 Look at 1 of 5000 posts about Peter and you should be on you way
You lost me Willis. Petey gram related SEC filings. What?
Refer to post 105673
Maybe T Boone Pickens owns them. Hard to go after him based on the circumstances. Anyone know who voted on behalf of the dead guy. Maybe Franny knows more than we think. If they were owned by a deal guy, then technically no one owns them. Maybe the estate?
Actually you didn't. Who owns them and what was the purchase price?
Let me correct the SEC has no standing to enforce the 33 ACT. LMFAO. This really gets better on a daily basis.
And the fact that no one owns the preferred but someone is using them to vote is not a problem is even a better joke.
Pretty obvious you're talking with the company. Res Judicata only applies to the parties. Has zero bearing on the SEC and zero bearing on non parties to the hearing. Don't ask SHMP's lawyer because they may not know that. Ask a real lawyer. That is a fact.
PLEASE REFER TO POST 105673.
It gets better folks. Now the SEC has no standing. LMFAO. This is bizarre.
So if someone uses them to exercise voting power, what should happen to that person. No cop outs on answer please
That is a very sad response. Try that with the SEC. A lawyer who owned NSH shares who didn't tell the judge he was a relief plaintiff stipulates with NSI that he he can exchange his shares. I hope the regulators don't come and that isn't the response from defense counsel because that will not work.
So who owns them?
Franny, here is your problem.
There is no record that can exist unless it's faked that will show that the NSH shareholders had a right to exchange NSH shares for NSI shares. Even if SHMP tried to make that argument, they would have a very serious problem on their hands because at the very least, they would have to refile every Q and K since 2015. However, I would highly advise they don't go down that road.
The court hearing was an exchange. Therefore, the only legal excahnge that can occur is the Series A for the new shares that were just issued. The Series must have been immediately cancelled.
However, 2 reasons why. One, SHMP may run out of shares so the Series A will allow them to avoid a shareholder's meeting. Two, they don't want to have a shareholder's meeting for the merger so they can avoid a shareholders meeting.
You can dice and slice this any way you want. If a regulator looks at this, they have a problem. The joke about this is they essentially admit in the court hearings to problems that the SEC does not know about including unaccredited shareholders. It is actually in the joint motion. This in itself is a problem.
Franny, you're wrong. In 2015, the pubco bought all assets of the private company. All set.
Then NSH exchanges their shares which they received for preferred shares. In order to have an honest conversation, state why that transaction was done. And at the time the transaction was done, the NSH shareholders were owed nothing in fact, they received more than they bargained for.
The court case actually created a much larger problem. Now, the NSH people have more shares than they received in 2015 AND someone controls a Series A
So I'll ask again which you refuse to answer. What was the purchase price for the Series A
That answer is the problem. That answer is the fiasco. And that answer is a quagmire which will not yield a good result if anyone from a regulator office questions it.
Franny:
This is where you lose me.
Rights being taken away is prima facie damage.
Please be fair in your analysis.
SHMP allowed only NSH shareholder to exchange their NSH shares for the Series A when the transaction originally was done. At that point, damage was done to every NSI shareholder because no one would have said I don't want to part of that group.
When the lawsuit was filed, the NSH shareholders had a Series A preferred which allowed them to exchange their Series A for 50% of the company. Undeniable fact!!, Call it about 500-600 million shares they were entitled to. They received less than 90 million shares. That math indicates there was damage.
That is damage number 2.
I also believe it was you that posted that the Series A was created to control the company. That is damage. There was also no law that would support the original Series A transaction. At the very least, it obliterated Nevada law.
Also, it blows my mind that no one has ever stated the real reason why the Series A was created. It was a sham transaction to circumvent Nevada state law.
You shouldn't be. Judges are not detectives. If 2 parties agree to settle, any judge in America is thrilled to remove it from the docket.
I agree. See I am fair. Has no relevance
I know you have an agenda. I don't
Yes he did say that but if you review the transcript, that statement was informal and not really part of the motion hearing. In addition, I'm sure you would even agree the fact they were growing shrimp or they were dead was not relevant to the court's decision. It would have been the equivalent of the attorney saying they're doing wonderful.
Stick to the script. The more important issue is the judge was not told about the terms of the preferred. He was kept in the dark. That happens when two parties get together to scheme a court.
Great question and I'll explain to you what I've always explained.
SHMP has a math problem.
The number of 22.6 means final per shrimp weight at harvest. Those are heads on. It is a biological shrimp fact you will lose 1/3 of body weight when removing the head.
You are now at 14.66 grams per shrimp.
There are 453 grams in a pound.
That means they will be selling shrimp at 32 per pound heads off.
I would suggest you visit about 100 seafood stores and see what the RETAIL PRICE is for those size shrimp. Average will be about $8.00. Shromp's cost is $6 plus (which I don't believe) but even if you use that number and consider a both wholesale and retail markup, their shrimps will be sold at prices of at least double of the average retail price you can find.
That is why cost to produce is important.
The model does not work.
If that is not enough for you, look at the amount of shrimp their owns docs say they will produce (call it 1,000,000) pounds). Then assume the 3 facilities will cost close to $20,000,000. Assume sales of $10,000,000 if they can sell them to wholesalers at $10 per pound. Assume a net of $2,000,000. That means the payback to recover the initial costs is 10 years. That of course assumes no depreciation which is a real cost. Electrical equipment does not last in 84 degree environments in humidity.
The model still does not work.
And this is a perfect scenario.
It don't matter what you can't read. Stock should take a 10-20% nose dive by the end of next week.
Your response tells me all I need to know. Read before reacting. Slowly next time and you'll realize I am referring to the shareholder vote. As always, A for trying
A little price action. Several weeks ago, there was a real stand to keep the stock north of 6 cents. Eventually broke. The same thing has been going on at 5 for about a month. IMO, looks like it will break now and head into 4's for the time being
I absolutely believe there is a chance they raised some capital. Of course, those with an agenda will deny that fact. However, I am quite sure the terms were not peachy.
Investors that believe things are formalities wind up with egg on their face. I am 100% sure this deal is not done. I am north of 50% sure this deal will not close
Three reasons.
1. The stock action tells me so
2. If this deal was done. Yotta shareholeers would gladly provide loans right now knowing they can great deals on a bridge.
3. Most importantly and if this deal was done, Yotta attorneys would tell SHMP they have to have a shareholder vote because of the fiasco regarding the Series A.
And the chance here if the SPAC votes No is ?
The Reg A price was raised. No Reg A shares being sold here
Public value of float is $110,000. Market cap of $200,000. If they did something semi real, the stock would go
I agree with the first sentence. Fresh never frozen is a logistical nightmare. Forget about live shrimp. You would need specially equipped trucks.
No it would not. It would entail selling guaranteed fresh, never frozen received live today. To say that wouldn't be important to any consumer is absurd. I'll repeat. Can they deliver and make a profit at $10.
The same thing that happens to the live lobster. Is that straight forward enough for you. The issue is getting live shrimp to a restaurant and making money at $10 a pound.
I disagree regarding your statement of the $10 shrimp, There would be a market. The issue is they can't make money at that price. That would have to be 16-20 per pound $10 per pound landed
Complete hogwash. A company does not have to have enough shares authorized to cover fully diluted and there is no Nevada or federal law you can point to that would refute that.
Allow me to educate you. There is no such thing as SEC regulations. There are things called federal laws that the SEC enforces and those laws are restricted to federal securities laws. However and since I know you like to argue, go ahead.
And yes, I do agree that SHMP has issues in that regard. At the very least, they have material omissions in their disclosures.
So when the SPAC votes no, you will acknowledge I was correct and I of course will do the same if you are correct. Based on the current stock action and based on the fact that the SPAC has not called a vote, they are voting No. That is my opinion