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.
Dog, you're spot on (as usual, interestingly enough!)
There's nothing like a cool $124 in gross volume to chart a trend!
Remember, "numbers never lie!".
It just gets better and better!
very good my friend, very good indeed....ROFLMAO!!!
Only doctors & nurses have "patients"......
Any reasonable investor's patience has long been exhausted with the ridiculous level of contempt and ill-founded commentary that has characterized RVGD heretofore.
We know it's not raining and we know why our legs are wet.......
This is supposed to be a Company in the "Automobile Business", NOT in a vanity creator of singularly self gratifying "Automobile Art", (have any of his highly self proclaimed "awards" made a nickle for a single investor here?..... I didn't think so)
It's nice for Peter that he can assemble pretty things.
It's not nice for the shareholders that he doesn't seem able to run a business or create any vestige of shareholder value.
Perhaps an art gallery might better suit his abilities more appropriately, because we haven't seen any of his last two auto show creations actually do something like, for instance RUN, GET PRODUCED or GENERATE 10 CENTS IN SALES VOLUME!!!!
As far as anything he creates actually generating a return for anyone but him.... well I guess all of us pretty much know the answer to that one by now.
And may I assume that we've heard the last of any kind of hollow, bleating "production" comments....???... thank you!
Going Into Production Like The:
1,000 Revenge GTO's
$80,000,000.00 contract
? number of Honda Ridgelines
New building construction
GTM-R's
GTM-R Production schedules
Promised financial transparency documentation
Is that the kind of production you REALLY want to count on?
Whoa flptrnkng.... no fair using facts!
This is the RVGD board after all.
At least weave some "magic shares" and "end of the year share anouncements" into your posts.
Doesn't tradition mean anything anymore?
Just what were you thinking, anyway.......?
It just gets better and better
yes...Nogunha......build them and they will come....
I've got it zgoldies2...... how do you like this characterization:
"Revenge, the "Field of Dreams" of the auto biz.......!
nogunha, read your links first before you post them and you'll learn that of all the angel groups that are listed, virtually every single one (with the single most notable exception being "Gathering of Angels" which I personally belong to here in the Naples FL branch) bases their investments on criteria involving certain types of "business specific" i.e. tech, bio, pharm, building, etc. opportunities or geographic locations, neither of which apply even marginally to RVGD.
I understand that you have no exposure to angel investment, so I'm going to give you a summary snapshot of how it works.
First of all, the applicant usually (one way or another)comes into contact with a member and a conversation about the company ensues. If some degree of merit is perceived, the applicant is then asked to provide a business plan and personal / financial / references and records. The data gathered is then analyzed and the applicant is subjected to the questions, criticisms and comments of the group (or a designated representative).
A valuation of the company's potential is then performed and an offer (if one is made) will be based on a weighted formula that takes into consideration the current status of the company (some refer to this as the relative "fragile status"), the judged ability of the founder(s) to actually get the business plan to work and what the timing and financial magnitude of what the angel's eventual exit strategy would be. Typical adjunct codicils to any angel investment would include non-dilutive rights, first refusal rights, a degree of financial control, numeric control board membership positions, and fulfillment penalties in conjunction with claw-back privileges.
A couple of things stand dramatically in the way of RVGD securing angel funding, first and foremost being the fact that it's already a public company, which would necessitate doing a total restructuring, and that wouldn't bode well at all for current shareholders.
Secondly, please know that the comprehensive body of due diligence investigation that a company goes through to get the first nickel from an angel investor is "beyond extensive", and that less than 10% of angel investment applicants get past this stage alone.
RVGD has too many current structural obstructions, too many long established warts and too many already documented shortfalls to generally appeal to an angel investor, they want new, they want fresh and they want clean..... don't forget that angels have chosen able to be angels not just because they're financially well positioned, but that they are real businessmen who pretty commonly have well above average ability to judge and evaluate the companies and the people they choose to work with.
Angels are the toughest investor nut to crack, they don't really have gossamer wings, bright smiles or halos,....metaphorically, even..... my group wouldn't even consider looking at a company like Revenge, particularly once they invested 10 minutes in some google research.
Just for the fun of it, watch "Shark Tank" on ABC or "Dragon's Den" on BBC and you'll see angel investors at work..... and they're not "angelic" at all..... they truly are "sharks and dragons"!
I have no idea about that at all....
No, I googled names
No, I googled names
"Just No" Says It All!!!!
Sadly there is simply no evidence whatsoever that RVGD is the real thing in terms of eventual production capability and hypothetical eventual benefit to shareholders... nothing, not a single documented shread of profitable documented operational credibilty exists about this currently highly vague (and getting vaguer by the day) possibility.
The only actual documented tangibles that are evident when conducting a valuation and examination of the Company lie in the continued failure to deliver on the written representations that they've made to the same long suffering shareholder base, i.e.
No 1,000 GTO's
No $80,000,000 "contract"
No new building
No 100-unit-plus dealership relationships
No promised financial transparency
No promised production schedules
No GTM "All American Supercar" production (or dealerships!)(or a single sale, for that matter), stated representations to the contrary notwithstanding
No "Magic Motor" installation centers
In fact, No "Magic Motors" at all
Ergo, "No Verde" in the foreseeable future
In fact, just an all around "No" pretty well sums things up....
"Revenge Design".......... "Just No" says it all......
I believe that it's Peter's fault that he made a bad deal with Carnes.
Further, I believe that Peter was fully aware that the shares were being traded.
What I do believe that we do not have the full body of information at hand as it regards both the SEC action and the DTCC decision.
There are simply too many moving parts, if, ands, buts and maybes and unprovided information to make a definitive statement about how these shares became free-trading, as previously indicated.
The outcome will make for yet another interesting chapter in the highly confusing, factually challenged and result bereft saga that is currently RVGD.
All in all, this has been a pretty humorous evolution of circumstances / situations and actually might make a good funny movie!
Maybe Peter can be played by Mel Gibson, I'll bet he'd like that!
Permit me to clarify how the issuance of unregistered stock is handled:
When a Company authorizes (and thus directs) it's transfer agent to issue shares (which may be issued legally for a variety of purposes by said transfer agent), the TA then stamps every share certificate with a 3x5 red stamp indicating that the underlying shares are being issued under Rule 144, subject to the conditions of Rule 144, and must be registered before public sale. The stamp is unavoidable when looking at a share certificate.
One of several things may have happened here:
The "Carnes Debt Repayment" shares may have been issued as free-trading registered shares as part of a piggy-back or special exception registration agreement which may have been a part of the loan agreement executed with Peter. Thus, they would have to have been represented as such to the TA and authorized by the Company.
Carnes was able to convince a securities attorney to issue an opinion letter to the TA and the Company which could hypothetically have allowed the shares to become registered.
The TA AND the brokerage firms AND the clearing houses all just kind of let things slip through the respective cracks... a lot! Obviously, this is highly unlikely.
In my opinion, when the day is done, there are aspects of this entire exercise that we are not yet privy to.
DTCC is doing nothing but pro-actively covering themselves, and it's not that uncommon when the status of so many shares in the float have been declared by the SEC as being unregistered.
What they're doing is attempting to mitigate their potential financial exposure, undoubtedly at the direction of counsel and their respective E & O insurers. The nominal dollars that they might make by continuing to work with RVGD stock
given the circumstances is nothing compared to their potential problems when and if the legitimacy of the significant number of outstanding shares is finally determined.
They're simply being prudent. I would suggest that any shareholder wishing to transfer shares away from their "family" firms suggest that they execute hold harmless agreements as an incentive if nothing else seems to work.
Of course Peter knew that the shares were being sold, he had to, because one of the primary jobs that a transfer agent must do is to transmit daily / weekly transfer sheets indicating who bought and sold what shares to the Company.
I for one am extremely tired of the ridiculous "babe in the woods" characterization that is so often attributed to Peter. If nothing else, he most certainly would have been given a fundamental A-B-C explanation of how stock things work by Chad Sykes.
Don't forget, this didn't happpen just once, it was part of an ongoing practice and nothing but a deeply discounted and opaque method generating cash.
Apparently the links don't want to post, go figure.
My associates and I have known Mr. Burns for many years and do not hold him in high regard. He is charming, extremely engaging and superficially knowledgeable, but most certainly, to our experience, does not bring a record of success or reputation for responsible and sound fiscal action or management to any endeavor with which he was affiliated. He has apparently been involved in bouncing through several "schools of entrepreneurship" (running about one new replacement affiliation a year, as near as we can tell)and organizing different groups. We believe that Mr. Burns is a classic characterization of form over substance, simply put, which, of course, is just an opinion based on knowing him for over 20 years.
To access the cases, the outcomes (very one sided against Mr Burns, both in Florida and Arizona), just go to Maricopa Co AZ Clerk of Superior Court, and Lee Co. FL Clerk of courts. Below, please find just some of the legal circumstances Mr. Burns has been involved in.
Name Name Type Case Number Name Case Type Filed Date Disposition Date Disposition
BURNS PETER DF 86-SP-004232
JOHNSON ENGINEERING INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER Defendant SC Damages CV 12/5/1986 4/8/1987 Default Final Judgment
BURNS PETER DF 91-SP-002848
SANIBEL CAPTIVA SHOPPERS GUIDE Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER Defendant SC Damages CV 7/19/1991 8/28/1991 Default Final Judgment
Burns, Peter DF 84-CC-000471
TRADEMARKS INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER III Defendant CC Damages 3/30/1984 6/4/1984 Other
Burns, Peter DF 87-CA-002603
REINHARD ALLEN B Plaintiff vs FISHER CAMERON A et al Defendant CA Foreign Judgment 5/5/1987 6/5/1987 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter DF 84-CA-003262
SOUTHEAST BANK Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER III et al Defendant CA Damages Monetary 7/13/1984 10/17/1984 Other
Burns, Peter DF 87-CA-000475
EVANS JAMES O et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER III Defendant CA Monetary Damages 1/26/1987 10/20/1988 Suggestion of Bankruptcy
Burns, Peter DF 89-SP-002805
UTTAMCHANDANI JACK Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER Defendant SC Damages CV 7/10/1989 8/16/1989 Default Final Judgment
Burns, Peter DF 90-CA-007525
FIRST INDEPENDANCE BANK Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 9/28/1990 2/28/1991 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter DF 95-CC-000358
CUTRONE SELMA SEIDENBERG Plaintiff vs CRUSE TOURS CONSULTANTS et al Defendant CC Damages 2/3/1995 3/30/1995 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter DF 95-SP-003970
JOHNSON ENGINEERING INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER III Defendant SC Damages CV 12/13/1995 11/18/1996 Abatement Before Hearing
Burns, Peter DF 96-SP-001598
AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER Defendant SC Damages CV 5/15/1996 6/26/1996 Default Final Judgment
BURNS PETER III DBA DF 84-CA-005447
PERIWINKLE PARTNERS LTD Plaintiff vs ECKERD JAMES DBA et al Defendant CA Damages Monetary 11/28/1984 10/3/1989 Abatement After Hearing
BURNS PETER J DF 87-SP-000321
BARNETT BANK LEE CO NA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant SC Damages CV 2/2/1987 6/19/1989 Abatement After Hearing
BURNS PETER J DF 84-CA-003262
SOUTHEAST BANK Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER III et al Defendant CA Damages Monetary 7/13/1984 10/17/1984 Other
BURNS PETER J DF 93-SP-003962
AUTO FINANCE SERVICES OF LEE C Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant SC Damages CV 12/14/1993 1/12/1994 Default Final Judgment
BURNS PETER J DF 95-SP-001030
PULLMAN LEONARD Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant SC Damages CV 4/5/1995 11/22/1995 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 83-CA-005114
FINNIMORE MICHAEL J Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CA Damages Monetary 11/28/1983 8/20/1984 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 87-SP-000320
BARNETT BANK LEE CO NA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J JR Defendant SC Damages CV 2/2/1987 6/19/1989 Abatement After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-006187
CAPE COD FIVE CENTS SAVINGS Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CA Foreign Judgment 10/29/1986 11/29/1986 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-006186
CAPE COD FIVE CENTS SAVINGS Plaintiff vs BURNS THREE INCORPORATED et al Defendant CA Foreign Judgment 10/29/1986 11/29/1986 Final Judgment
Name Name Type Case Number Name Case Type Filed Date Disposition Date Disposition
Burns, Peter J DF 85-CA-000996
CARTER JOHN A et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Foreign Judgment 2/25/1985 3/30/1985 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 85-CC-000417
FINNEMORE MICHAEL J Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CC Damages 4/5/1985 11/5/1985 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-004457
AM CASS LEASING INC Plaintiff vs BURNS THREE INC d/b/a et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 8/6/1986 1/6/1987 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-005269
VAN RAAPHORST LEONARD F Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 9/16/1986 7/30/1987 Suggestion of Bankruptcy
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-006085
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 10/23/1986 11/25/1987 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-000015
NAPLES FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 1/5/1987 5/18/1987 Summary Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-000145
DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 1/13/1987 6/9/1988 Summary Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-000874
PAWTUCKET INSTITUTION FOR SAVI Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 2/13/1987 7/30/1987 Suggestion of Bankruptcy
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-007007
MARINE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCI et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 11/24/1987 7/18/1988 Summary Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-007085
ISLAND BEACH COMPANY INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Injunctive Relief 11/30/1987 1/27/1988 Suggestion of Bankruptcy
Burns, Peter J DF 87-CA-007363
FLEET FINANCE AND MORTGAGE INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 12/14/1987 2/11/1988 Suggestion of Bankruptcy
Burns, Peter J DF 88-CA-000397
EVANS JAMES O et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 1/20/1988 7/14/1988 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 88-CA-000648
BLOEMPOORT JAN D et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 2/2/1988 6/28/1988 Voluntary Dismissal After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 88-CA-001638
MANATEE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Plaintiff vs ISLAND WATER SPORTS OF CAPTIVA et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 3/16/1988 5/24/1988 Other
Burns, Peter J DF 86-CA-006432
CAPE COD FIVE CENTS SAVINGS Plaintiff vs SNOWS CYCLE CORPORATION et al Defendant CA Foreign Judgment 11/12/1986 12/12/1986 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 89-SP-000321
PAPAGNO JAMES G Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant SC Damages CV 1/20/1989 10/25/1989 Order of Dismissal After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 89-CA-001551
TAHITIAN SURF SHOP INC Plaintiff vs FUN RENTALS INC et al Defendant CA Declaratory Judgment 3/8/1989 4/4/1990 Order of Dismissal After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 89-CC-001857
MCSHAW INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CC Damages 9/18/1989 2/9/1990 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 89-CA-006423
BICYCLE CORPORATION OF AMERICA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CA Monetary Damages 10/2/1989 2/28/1990 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 89-CA-006982
SEAGO GROUP INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant CA Monetary Damages 10/24/1989 7/31/1990 Default Final Judgment
Name Name Type Case Number Name Case Type Filed Date Disposition Date Disposition
Burns, Peter J DF 90-SP-001368
RAISIN COMPANY INC Plaintiff vs BURNS CONSTANCE BRIEGS et al Defendant SC Damages CV 4/4/1990 5/1/1990 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 90-CC-001616
ALLEGRA INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CC Damages 8/21/1990 4/17/1991 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 90-CA-007222
BANCFLORIDA f/k/a et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Mortgage Foreclosure 9/20/1990 6/6/1991 Summary Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 90-SP-004944
BOB KIRK AUTO UPHOLSTERY INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant SC Damages CV 12/21/1990 2/13/1991 Default Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 91-SP-003749
ISLAND LOCKSMITH & SECURITY Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant SC Damages CV 9/23/1991 5/18/1992 Order
Burns, Peter J DF 92-CA-000501
NELSON HELEN A Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CA Monetary Damages 1/21/1992 11/25/1992 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 92-CA-000643
FORD CONSUMER FINANCE COMPANY et al Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 1/27/1992 5/26/1992 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 92-CA-004323
CANNONDALE CORPORATION Plaintiff vs CAPBEL PROPERTIES INC et al Defendant CA Monetary Damages 6/1/1992 9/27/1993 Abatement After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 93-SP-002655
OLD DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III et al Defendant SC Damages CV 8/17/1993 1/25/1994 Voluntary Dismissal Before Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 94-CA-000764
EATON FINANCIAL CORPORATION Plaintiff vs CAPBEL PROPERTIES INC et al Defendant CA Replevin 2/3/1994 5/23/1994 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 94-CC-002447
BIKE RACK INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CC Damages 8/8/1994 12/19/1994 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 95-CA-006107
FUN RENTALS FRANCHISING INC Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CA Monetary Damages 7/31/1995 11/22/1996 Voluntary Dismissal After Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 95-CA-008228
FINIZIO AUDREY LISA Petitioner vs BURNS PETER J III Respondent Injunction: Domestic Violence 10/25/1995 12/8/1995 Order
Burns, Peter J DF 97-CC-000754
SANIBEL CAPTIVA SHOPPERS GUIDE Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J III Defendant CC Damages 3/11/1997 5/21/1997 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 97-SP-003448
AMSOUTH BANK OF FLORIDA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant SC Damages CV 9/12/1997 12/23/1997 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J DF 97-CA-007565
ESKEW MILENA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J et al Defendant CA Breach of Contract 9/29/1997 11/6/1998 Abatement Before Hearing
Burns, Peter J DF 98-CC-002157
AMSOUTH BANK OF FLORIDA Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J Defendant CC Damages 7/20/1998 3/5/1999 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter J PL 85-CA-003755
BURNS PETER J III Plaintiff vs PELLIGRINO DAX Defendant CA Monetary Damages 7/19/1985 5/25/1989 Abatement After Hearing
Burns, Peter J PL 86-CA-000610
BURNS PETER J III Plaintiff vs HARRIS JOHN et al Defendant Accounting CV 2/3/1986 6/2/1989 Abatement After Hearing
Burns, Peter J PL 95-CA-000513
BURNS PETER J III Petitioner vs FINIZIO AUDREY L Respondent Injunction: Repeat Violence 1/18/1995 1/18/1995 Order
Name Name Type Case Number Name Case Type Filed Date Disposition Date Disposition
Burns, Peter J PL 95-CC-000394
BURNS PETER J III et al Plaintiff vs FINIZIO AUDREY L Defendant CC Replevin 2/8/1995 3/31/1995 Order
BURNS PETER J D/B/A DF 85-SP-001630
MANLEY WILLIAM PAUL Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER J D/B/A et al Defendant SC Damages CV 5/14/1985 7/9/1985 Other
Burns, Peter John DF 95-CA-006010
BURNS WENDY WOOD Petitioner vs BURNS PETER JOHN III Respondent Injunction: Domestic Violence 7/27/1995 8/9/1995 Order
Burns, Peter John DF 95-CA-006443
BURNS WENDY W Petitioner vs BURNS PETER JOHN III Respondent DOM w/ Children 8/11/1995 6/3/1996 Final Judgment
Burns, Peter John DF 96-SP-003809
MURRELL RANDALL K Plaintiff vs BURNS PETER JOHN III Defendant SC Damages CV 11/12/1996 12/2/1997 Abatement Before Hearing
Civil Court Cases Maricopa County AZ Civil Court Case History
Case Number Party / Business Name
CV2005-013371 Burns, Peter - DOB: N/A
CV2007-015548 Burns, Peter - DOB: N/A
CV2008-050231 Burns, Peter - DOB: N/A
CV2009-025173 Burns, Peter - DOB: N/A
TJ2008-011698 Burns, Peter - DOB: N/A
Peter J. Burns an AGEL Director?
SEC filings indicate that Peter J. Burns is a director of AGEL and holds a substantial common stock position.
If anyone may understand why this might be considered be somewhat alarming, please use the following url information to learn more about Mr. Burns.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/do...
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Case_List_...
this Lee Co. FL court URL must be filled in to get the pages of legal issues that Mr. Burns encountered in FL prior to moving west, including at least two domestic violence injunction applications.
See Below:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewsecfiling/articleid/3385990
Well, it's been going on a year since I checked in, but as I see, the more things change, the more they remain the same!
The verbiage out of the auto show is remarkably similar to that of last year, as everyone who followed the GTM-R fiasco can well remember and attest.
When all is said and done, there are still no financials, substantive shareholder communications or realistic development projections coming out of Peter, his numerous comments to the contrary regarding transparency and responsible communication notwithstanding.
Sadly, the leopard has not changed his spots, they're just "green" this year.
A few passing comments:
Peter had to be fully cognizant of the fact that the unregistered Carnes shares he settled the Revenge debt with were being sold. The transfer agent provides the Company with transfer sheets weekly, which indicate who sold what and to who and for how much. While it's conceivable that he may have missed this once, the material provided in the SEC complaint clearly indicates that the exercise went on for some extended period of time, covering months, so any comment to the contrary would be wholly disingenuous obviously (as the SEC has undoubtedly already duly noted).
The entire "Peter was just an unaware babe in the woods" conceptual scenario is, as we used to say in South Georgia, a "dog that just won't hunt".
DTCC is doing nothing but pro-actively covering themselves, and it's not that uncommon when the status of so many shares in the float have been declared by the SEC as being unregistered. What they're doing is attempting to mitigate their potential financial exposure, undoubtedly at the direction of counsel and their respective E & O insurers. The nominal dollars that they might make by continuing to work with RVGD stock
given the circumstances is nothing compared to their potential problems when and if the legitimacy of the significant number of outstanding shares is finally determined. They're simply being prudent. I would suggest that any shareholder wishing to transfer shares away from their "family" firms suggest that they execute hold harmless agreements as an incentive if nothing else seems to work.
If anyone believes that the newly formed corporations embodying the Revenge name have been formed for any purposes other than sell-serving ones for Peter, then I suggest that they begin a series of reality checks forthwith. He incorporated them for a reason, and Peter's reasons for doing things have historically served one person only, and that's Peter himself. A great deal of RVGD enterprise value appears to me to be in a tenuous position right now.
I cannot begin to list the bold faced lies that he's personally told many of our shareholders or the unfulfilled representations that he's made, but suffice it to say, he holds no credibility with many of us whatsoever.
I note that many of the old timers have gone and that many new posters have become involved. Good luck to all of you!
Interestingly enough, does anyone think that it's unusual that so many of the "to the moon" posters that so kindly shared their "expertise" with you during the share run up have now disappeared completely? And how many of you even got a kiss when it was over, anyway?
Like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same, particularly at Revenge!
annnnnd of course, this is all my personal opinion!
With all due respect, In 2008 alone, DTCC settled more than $1.88 quadrillion in securities transactions.
This is not a conspiracy, it's just an ungodly immense entity covering themselves against liability, which undoubtedly is at the direction of their respective counsel and the exercised coverage covenants of their many insurors.
From the "dollar impactive" standpoint as it relates to their overall operations, RVGD probably doesn't stack up too well at their triple zero prices when the whole two quadrillion dollars worth of shares factor is taken into consideration.... they don't matter whatsoever except as a problem that they're going to avoid.
There is no conspiracy here whatsoever.
I interpret the current RVGD situation somewhat differently than most here, and have divested myself of virtually my entire position, at a modest profit.
There are entirely too many new faces hyping the living beejesus out of the stock to provide me any sense of long term comfort. I consider the manipulation level here to be substantial, material and growing.
Further, I remain troubled about the future source(s) of finance for the Company, and feel that what we’re seeing right now is only temporary respite from the last several months of PPS gloom, generated, in my opinion, to provide an outlet for the sale of additional treasury shares, which I believe has been and still is happening.
Perhaps due to my age, I still regard the best predictor of future behavior to be past actions, and I have yet to see the indices of downstream success that would assuage my feelings.
Good luck to all………….
Dog, I'll reach out tomorrow and see if I can make contact. My phone numbers for him are GM based, as is his email, but let me work on it and if I can't locate him directly, I believe that some former colleagues will know where he can be reached.
When he was at Chrysler in 1990, Lutz became interested in a company we'd funded that featured the Chrysler mini-van as the platform for handicapped operator use (no bump in the floor due to FWD, so a wheelchair bound driver could come out to his vehicle, via a remote control have the mini-van squat to a position where a hydraulic ramp would distend and lower from the sliding passenger door area, and he could then scoot his wheelchair in, lock the wheels in custom slots in front of the steering wheel and then use hand controls to drive).
Anyway, Lutz loved the idea that we were buying 200-300 minivans at a time and got involved as much for the "good cause" aspect as for the sales.
Of interest was that Lutz thought that all the handicapped adaptive equipment would significantly impact performance, due to the added weight, so he hooked us up with the 230 hp turbo 4cyl motors that Carroll Shelby had done for the Chrysler Omni, which made for perfect sleeper red light grand prix racing by gearheads in wheelchairs.... very cool stuff!
"The Perfect Advisor "..?????
Bob Lutz is probably the foremost high profile full spectrum "car guy" in the US and he has had a substantial exposure to the Holden, which in light of the Australia based GTO & G8 DNA might make him somebody that Peter already knows. Since his recent resignation from GM, I'd guess that he's been awash in opportunities, but it may well be worth a shot to approach him.
Regardless, Lutz is highly respected and his insinuation into the entire ongoing Revenge equation would do a great deal in terms of enhancing credibility on both the automotive AND financial fronts. I've met him on several occasions, and would guess that this kind of project is right up his alley, at least on the initial interest side.
He's a dead-nuts, died in the wool car goober and Revenge may well intrigue him, particularly due to the fact that it lacks a top-heavy and highly politicized corporate infrastructure.
I strongly doubt that he would want to be on a BOD for the obvious liability and potential time demand issues, but he would be a magnificent advisor / consultant...... (perhaps for compensation via stock options that are now perfect in terms of the low grant basis now sitting out there).
Well presented Dog, as usual..... Thanks!
PRweb costs a max of $360 per release with no membership fees
PR Newswire charges just under $200 to join for a year and a max price of $340 per release
The preceding two releases "go everywhere" via such outlets as AP, etc
There are a variety of more limited, target specific markets for releases that cost less
The cost of press releases certainly does not seem so financially prohibitive as to preclude their use on that basis
Dear Mr. Dripz....
hmmm let me think.... interesting concept, hoping for magic as an investment strategy... so here's my answer:
No, of course not, why would any intelligent and prudent investor put money (to say nothing about MORE money) into a company they know absolutely nothing objectively meaningful about except that they have a too-well documented history of unfulfilled representations to their shareholders, they are totally NON-transparent, there are no numbers to work with and they're on the cusp of a significant reverse split that they have yet to reveal the final figures on.
They have made a prototype car, and that's nice, but probably not the kind of occurrence to base an investment on. A good investment idea is to know more about a company than that.
Of course, that's just me and my opinion......
There is just one material fact underlying our entire situation right now, and that's more important than the puff piece about the show (remember the previous puff pieces about Peter's excellent sales trips, etc?), the gazillion handouts distributed and all of the wonderful pats on the back from the journalists (who, by the way, pat every exhibitor on the back to retain access)and the cutesy arms that were written on.
What is the story with the R/S, and is Peter going to reduce the A/S by the direct proportionate ratio and then not simply authorize more?
Are we going to be diluted into nothingness?
I'm over reading about the love-fest in Detroit.
It's time for facts.
I dunno CaptainJim.........
does that tiny little fine print at the top say anything like "acme toy co. jr. forger's kit"?
sorry.... after all the ridiculous lame garbage that has been gone through about the only body of obviously legitimate documents ever presented on this board (by you & TP), I just had to do it....! ROFLMAO....
This whole "hard fact" thing is obviously too slippery a one to have readily grasped on the Revenge board..... maybe if you had included some 80 gazillion dollar "contract" language written in crayon it would have been more easily absorbed...!
White is the color used to hide flaws...
Only flat black (not a standard gloss auto paint, but a "camo" type often used over primer) is ever used to cover flaws, but not applicable to a "painted" car per se
It's long been known that light colors such as white and yellow are the best choices for covering any body flaws. Black shows them up much more readily. The opinion voiced is mistaken.
see CarCraft magazine, 8th paragraph down:
"If your bodywork is really bad, then white and bright yellow are always safe bets, since they reflect the most light. Dark colors are the worst when it comes to revealing body flaws"
http://www.carcraft.com/howto/cheap_auto_painting/car_paint_tips_10_to_18.html
see Edmunds:
"Black shows every flaw"
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2007/12/not-every-car-has-a-silver-bodybut-most-still-do.html
see Autovations: 13th paragraph down
"Remember that the darker the color, the less forgiving it is. A black car will show every flaw, wave, finger print or dust speck. Restoring a black car can be a real challenge and a test of body and painting skills. However, few colors are as striking and impressive as black when it is properly executed. Lighter colors are "hide-a-dent" colors. Because they reflect so much light back at you, especially whites and pastels, it makes it more difficult to see the flaws, and will also show less road grime when dirty.
http://www.autovations.com/autobody.htm
2.5 billion total shares R/S on a directly proportionate basis would result in the currently O/S of roughly 2 billion R/S'ing to 2 million, and the current 500 million A/S that have not been issued R/S'ing to 500,000 shares.
If this indeed is what is going to happen, then few of us would have any initial grounds upon which to complain.
Every fiber of my being and more years of experience than I care to discuss, however. screams that this isn't going to be the "final" outcome.
If the R/S is put on the basis stated by Emily (apparently she got "stock savvy" recently!), then I would look for there to be another step by the ceo, which would increase the A/S to a significantly greater number of shares. in that manner, Peter could adhere to the letter of his statement, but the result would be the same for the shareholders, lots and lots more A/S, of which many may well likely be sold into the open market, which is of course not good for the current shareholders.
The saga continues..............and of course, thanks for the much appreciated information...!
Dear Mr. Dripz:
Here's what the word "decay" means in this usage:
"to decline in excellence, prosperity, health, value, etc.to deteriorate"
I think that all of us have had our PPS investment value decline in just the manner described. In fact, I believe that in this instance, it's probably even being used in an over-polite context.
Further, I believe that your personal average PPS in the stock based on your April 3, 2008 posting (see below) would most certainly have decayed per the preceding definition.
Have a great day!
************************************************
Posted by: EyeVeeDripz Date: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:40:42 PM
In reply to: BeauBeau who wrote msg# 73966 Post # of 102568
I'm following, because this is the first stock I've ever invested in (except for 401k stuff).
I really can't afford one of the cars. I drive a second hand '95 Acura Integra lol.
I'm just learning the ropes here. I find it is more fun/interesting to learn the ropes when you have a dog in the race. I've got a measly $150 invested, but if I could afford to, I'd sink a whole bunch in.
Fo Sho yo!
EyeVeeDrip
This 100% "Reality Thing" may not be what many of you want to read about, but the facts are irrefutable.
You can choose to deal with them or not, but they are wholly valid.
Even Peter couldn't think that kind of BS would stick!
CaptainJim and the body of shareholders including myself who are critical of Peter have good reason to take that position, as we all well know.
Peter has done nothing for the shareholders except preside over the continuing decay of their investment, and the sole blame rides on him, period.
So if there are 5 vehicles and we conservatively assume that Peter and wife use one, Emily has one and Peter's son has one, that allocates just two cars for balance of the staff as near as I can figure.
I'd have to think that significantly more employees would be necessary if they're going to be doing the manufacturing / assembling / painting and fitting there.
ahdioyoda, based on the number of vehicles normally parked around the Revenge facility, what's your best estimate / guess about how many people they have working there normally?
Again, thanks for all your good recon work!
Do you have a point, please?
The quote came from your post.........
Spot On ford......!!
Excuse me for a moment please Mr. Dripz......
As a reader of RVGD material going way back, my first thought would be to look at the document in terms of any possible, infinitesimal, conceivable way in which it could be misconstrued or otherwise interpreted.
There's quite a bit of history here involving the "corporate culture of printed vaguery" of Revenge that revolves around what we as shareholders perceived to be simple objective statements but which were later characterized as something else.
As kind of a veteran of this exercise, I look at the printed Revenge material differently now.
Here's what I mean……. let's start with the statement from your post:
"Please be advised that the A/S will NOT be staying at 2.5 billion, it will be substantially reduced in proportion to the R/S ratio"
The way I read it, based on experience gained from the past characterizations from the ceo, is that while it says that the A/S will be "substantially reduced" (substantially being a subjective term of measure, of course) "in proportion to the R/S ratio", it doesn't say that it will be reduced in a direct proportionate ratio, with the key objective term of measure "direct" being the knife in the soup.
It would have been quite simple for the ceo to say that it was being reduced directly proportionate to the R/S... easy stuff. But he didn't, and that tiny, barely noticeable minute suggestion of vaguery has been precisely what the Company has used to debunk such prior written information as the big "contracts", the building permit applications, the production schedules and just a whole lot more.
It would be great if things could simply be taken at apparent logical face value here, but that has simply not proven to be the case heretofore.
When the fact that the A/S number of 2.5 billion was continued and carried forward in the R/S filing is taken into consideration, many of the shareholders have been forced to ask themselves if they can believe what may be more written vaguery or should they believe what has been legally and formally filed with the State of Nevada.
Many things may change before the R/S is finalized, nobody knows, but as it stands, the reason that the RVGD ceo is put to such an incredible level of skepticism laden scrutiny is based primarily on his past actions, and that circumstance and subsequent loss of credibility has been solely self-inflicted by him.
So ThinkpadX60 would this mean that there is NOT a false R/S signing conspiracy?
JCMoney....Master-Mod...!
Here's your info......
The Company does not pay tax directly on funds raised through the sale of shares.
The sum derived from the sale of shares, however, would be noted on their balance sheet as "proceeds from financing activities" (if they were a real company with real financials, of course.... who knows what they will do, but under GAAP, that's how it's "supposed to be done"... but then again we have the whole "real company" caveat thing again).
If an individual sells shares, they are liable for whatever tax may be owed resultant from the specifically applicable details of their particular return, with their profit (or loss) from their sale of these owned personal shares to be based on the difference between their cost basis and what they sold the shares for. It would be taxed on either a straight income or capital gains basis predicated upon how long the shares were held.
The Company will be required to pay taxes on the appropriate basis required by applicable code / law, whether they are a reporting company or not.
Always happy to help.....LOL!
Have a great evening!
CMoney, belated congrats and good job bringing ford on board. Whether or nor everyone is always 100% in agreement or not, the current mod structure is comprised of articulate & intelligent guys, which I believe for one, constitutes an excellent balance and a good venue for respectfully differing opinions.
psssst.... JCMoney hang on in there... remember, no good deed goes unpunished....lol! (just kidding yah!)