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.
It is interesting to note on that site if you go back 4 years and look at all the insider buying there are only two reported insiders buying for a total of $9,000 dollars. Since then there have been millions of shares issued and bought by insiders and there is no reporting? I do not know how accurate the information is.
Lorel If you read the financials you will notice that those earnings are based on a special settlement and are unaudited statements. The problem is how do you raise money to grow your new business when you are up against your equity authorization limit to afford your expansion plan.
You saw a newsletter??? Well then we have no worries.
The reality is how do you capitalize this company to take advantage of the new deal? Remember we were going to start hiring during this time period.If we are going to make projected sales we would need capital and human resources to complete sales. If we do not have the capital and we have to borrow I am afraid our remaining margins may be very thin.Lets hope the news that some people know is coming addresses these concerns.
Thank you, again my point is simple manage the business not the stock. If you manage the business the stock will take care of itself.
Hedge,
How is it you know about news coming next week are you being tipped?I thought material news was not supposed to be leaked. This is the problem as I stated before manage the business not the stock. Look at all the energy that has gone into promoting the stock and we are new lows if that energy went into building a business we would be off to the races.
Chairman of the Audit Committee?
They have not replaced the last CFO and are according to JS in dispute with him regarding money owed for services provided.I think you are thinking of a company with a proper hierarchical structure, this is certainly not that company.
Remember they were going to do a lot of hiring to facilitate sales, production and fulfillment holes in their human resource department this quarter. I suspect they would also need to replace the CFO, this of course will add to the burn rate and my concern as posted earlier is how do you pay for that burn rate?
The question that we also need to understand going forward is where is the money to grow the company going to come from? We are almost at the end of our equity base we have approximately 9 million shares left we could sell to raise capital then we are out unless we increase our float. I see we have had revenue from our past deals but they are gone for the most part. We still have a healthy burn rate so I hope we have a lot of sales in the pipeline with our new oil product or this Company will have a very hard time staying afloat.
Hedge I am sorry there are no profitable fundamentals. The
businesses that derived the revenue from the past are no longer here. The large increase for year end was the result of a settlement gain(no specifics). It is what I have been telling you, you will have to wait to see the revenue from the new business the tire crumb business.
Having this much volume over the last three weeks and no one knows who is selling I would bet everyone is selling. No MM would short millions of shares of a tightly held company at 2 cents that would be a risk that could wipe you out of hundreds of thousands of dollars no MM would make that bet.
When you break out the income statement a large portion of the eps were derived from a one time gain on settlement($4,320,659). This is obviously not a recurring number and if you back this out their results are not as spectacular. That is why the stock has not reacted in my opinion.
Has anyone seen the breakout on the financials? I went to Edgar but was unable to find them.
"We expect our revenues by year end to be over $5M on CR40, CRF40 bulk products and other related products such as containment booms, portable tote bags and remediation filters producing an EBITDA in excess of 20% of revenues."
Read carefully, the word expect is again the word you have missed. This means we have the potential to do this revenue so your comments we have 1 million locked up is misleading.
When you talk about the past we have heard many elevated predictions around revenue to either have them not materialize or to have the business that was generating them sue us or disappear.
Lets wait for audited statements and watch the sales grow and then we are on our way. My comments stand
I think that the oil deal has great potential. The problem is all the baggage from the past. If JS ever decided to stop trying to be smarter then everyone and actually applied himself to managing a company rather than managing a stock this would be a success.
Right all WLSA's filings are up to-date. Give me a break
Well go to post 7902 and look at the disclaimer make the call and ask the question who paid you to start the run up of volume prior to the press release?
Dear Newbie... follow the bouncing ball...WLSA announces they have a signed consulting agreement with a host of market promoters to get the word out about WLSA....the market promoters discloses this on this site....they are under contract to promote the stock...the volume increases prior to a press release...this creates additional volume...and a large shareholder starts to sell...this shareholder has to have paid less than the 8-10 cents per share...the most recent management team paid 8-10 cents...so who has millions of shares under 8-10 cents? If the stock was listed on a real exchange this would be self evident but here in the wild wild west it matters not.
Some how your belief is that your questions will be answered and the nonsense on this site will stop. The questions posed on this site are reasonable and are part of assessing managements capability.
When a thousand repeating posts show up with record volume it is reasonable to ask questions, after all the CEO ought to know what is going on. When the company gives limited information and is always missing its commitments, up listing,audited financials this is the problem.
The answer to put the VRT into New Look because of its Corporate registration is great, however it begs the question about the relationship between the two companies they are clearly arms-length transactions. This needs to be monitored.
They did not have sales of 5 million those are projections. If we found the technology and secured the rights why would we put it in another company? Not being negative just trying to understand.
I have also sent emails to JS asking for clarity. They were never answered.
If you do establish contact I would love to understand why if Mike Duffy works for us was the VRT deal put in New Look and why do we have to pay a fee for a technology we apparently secured.(according to the press release and comments by Claire Shoemaker).There was a performance clause on the original Europlasma deal. Did we achieve the performance goals and if not did we renegotiate the terms of that agreement?
If we renegotiated the terms should we not release that information around those terms as it is material in nature. We cannot keep expecting the share price to increase without understanding the simple business drivers.
Why did the VRT tire-crumb deal get put into New Look Industries? If Mike Duffy works for WLSA and he secured the deal why was put it in New Look?
Was there a performance clause on the Europlasma Technology?
JS owns most of the shares along with the disgruntled ex-management team. I do not believe any sane person would short at these levels so it is people who have paid for there shares hoping to recover some money before the buying dries up.
If these questions can get answered perhaps the selling will stop.
SHAREHOLDERS DESERVE ANSWERS!!!!
Previous PRESS RELEASES said that Mike Duffy the CAO of WLSA negotiated the deal for this technology. Duffy works for WLSA.
In the release Claire Shoemaker claims she has made the toughest decision in her 40 years after deliberating over 5 offers from major oil companies she has sold VRT to New Look Industries. This decision was based on the knowledge, vision and capacity of the Vertility Environmental Energy Team. Claire loves the vision of VEET and sells her interests to a different company(NewLook)? Then Verility announces it has secured a license agreement to supply this tire crumb product that New Look has acquired.
Why did the technology go into New Look Industries instead of WLSA. Now we have to pay a non-arms length company to supply us with the technology according to press releases
Please some clarity
Hedge Party has some facts wrong . On post 7924 You suggest that WLSA may get big because of Enwise and Plasma technology.For the record Enwise is no longer part of WLSA according to Company filings.
The Plasma Technology was based on a performance license. I suspect that the license cannot still be in effect as WLSA has done nothing with this technology. If you know of new information that is not in the public domain concerning these matters please let JS know he should put out a press release clarifying these matters.
So for all you research types. Here is the full research abstract that is in the Press Release and the New Look Filing.
http://www1.ntut.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/academic/76/academic_51680_2267407_58742.pdf
The question I have is why was this technology split between New Look and WLSA? New Look acquired VRT which is a consultant but also produces the oil absorption product(?).Wlsa secured a license agreement from New Look? (no terms / non-arms length)to sell the oil absorption product.What is their sales capability? Is this product exclusive to VRT?
The research does not show who owns the rights to the technology a simple phone call will help us gain clarity.The results look awesome we just need to understand the deal.
We continue to ask JS for clarity and he has heard us... consider the following;
The press release dated Feb 02/12 contained on Sedar concerning New Look Industries JS's other company claims to have purchased 100 percent of VRT not Vertility(WLSA). VRT apparently has the "secret sauce" to the tire shredding business which is good for picking up environmental oil spills. The research abstract concerning this is in a previous post of mine.
In the release Claire Shoemaker claims she has made the toughest decision in her 40 years after deliberating over 5 offers from major oil companies she has sold VRT to New Look. This decision was based on the knowledge, vision and capacity of the Vertility Environmental Energy Team. (What team???) Then JS thanks Mike Duffy the CAO of Vertility for landing the deal. No background in the oil business but out maneuvers 5 major oil companies.
So Claire loves the vision of VEET and sells her interests to a different company(NewLook)? Then Verility announces it has secured a license agreement to supply this tire crumb product that New Look has acquired.No terms on any of it. Clear as mud.
We continue to ask JS for clarity and he has heard us... consider the following;
The press release dated Feb 02/12 contained on Sedar concerning New Look Industries JS's other company claims to have purchased 100 percent of VRT not Vertility(WLSA). VRT apparently has the "secret sauce" to the tire shredding business which is good for picking up environmental oil spills. The research abstract concerning this is in a previous post of mine.
In the release Claire Shoemaker claims she has made the toughest decision in her 40 years after deliberating over 5 offers from major oil companies she has sold VRT to New Look. This decision was based on the knowledge, vision and capacity of the Vertility Environmental Energy Team. (What team???) Then JS thanks Mike Duffy the CAO of Vertility for landing the deal. No background in the oil business but out maneuvers 5 major oil companies.
So Claire loves the vision of VEET and sells her interests to a different company(NewLook)? Then Verility announces it has secured a license agreement to supply this tire crumb product that New Look has acquired.No terms on any of it. Clear as mud.
I believe there is a problem with the decision to delete posts between the two companies. They are, as you can see from my post an interlocking relationship between the two companies. Just look at the history of asset transfer between the two entities as well aw the partnership deals.
I do agree to getting rid of the name calling would be a welcomed relief.
We continue to ask JS for clarity and he has heard us... consider the following;
The press release dated Feb 02/12 contained on Sedar concerning New Look Industries JS's other company claims to have purchased 100 percent of VRT not Vertility(WLSA). VRT apparently has the "secret sauce" to the tire shredding business which is good for picking up environmental oil spills. The research abstract concerning this is in a previous post of mine.
In the release Claire Shoemaker claims she has made the toughest decision in her 40 years after deliberating over 5 offers from major oil companies she has sold VRT to New Look. This decision was based on the knowledge, vision and capacity of the Vertility Environmental Energy Team. (What team???) Then JS thanks Mike Duffy the CAO of Vertility for landing the deal. No background in the oil business but out maneuvers 5 major oil companies.
So Claire loves the vision of VEET and sells her interests to a different company(NewLook)? Then Verility announces it has secured a license agreement to supply this tire crumb product that New Look has acquired.No terms on any of it. Clear as mud.
"The past can be your best friend or your worst enemy."Given that Shoniker person's record I would say that is a very true statement.
So for all you research types. Here is the full research abstract that is in the Press Release and the New Look Filing.
http://www1.ntut.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/academic/76/academic_51680_2267407_58742.pdf
The question I have is why was this technology split between New Look and WLSA? New Look acquired VRT which is a consultant but also produces the oil absorption product(?).Wlsa secured a license agreement from New Look? (no terms / non-arms length)to sell the oil absorption product.What is their sales capability? Is this product exclusive to VRT?
The research does not show who owns the rights to the technology a simple phone call will help us gain clarity.The results look awesome we just need to understand the deal.
Well now that we are all on the same page lets get our go forward plan together. I re-read carefully the claim put forward and it seems to me it was structured in a fashion to attract the regulators and authorities to address the issues in both these frameworks. The Tomassoni family seem to have a good "street fighter" lawyer. His bet being if he can get the authorities to start an investigation it will lighten the financial costs to the Tomassoni family.Sometimes as has been pointed out in previous posts it is not the truth that prevails but rather the best legal strategy.
Where does that leave us ...the shareholders.
We have the makings of a credible deal with Bill Packer if he deems the technology to be valid and the deal solid. He is easily capable of taking over JS's position or appointing someone to do so and turning this in a real company. We need to let him know we would support him on this if we feel this is an option.
Thoughts?
Oklahoma 1960 post 7154 is where the new document appears. It takes a while to load but is 46 pages in its entirety.It is not the earlier version on legal documents which were merely affidavits signed for a Bankruptcy hearing.This document is a law suit with claims set out at the JS, and his main people.
As forasdfghj you have 1 stock that you follow and have 1,139 posts regarding that stock, most defending JS, getting excited about any upward movement on the stock price or trying to discredit any serious discourse with sophomoric responses. Enough of you. As for you requests for quotes why don't you do some home work, download the 46 page filing and see if you can find where the allegations if prove true may make my statement, "this will negatively impact the future stock price" stand.
If the allegations(and they are only allegations at this point) stand the main points of the case are not the $$$ amount of the claims but the gross misrepresentation, potential fraudulent behaviour,regulatory infractions, and the threats that were allegedly issued.
I am not neutral on this because it will deeply impact on the future share price.Management or what is left of it will be spending there days defending themselves to various legal and regulatory bodies. The statements sworn to in this claim are very serious. Am I the only one who sees this? Or is this just oh this is just a crazy family and that JS and Peter Shoniker are pure as the driven snow. The would never do any of the many things claimed in this lawsuit it is all without merit.
Again just allegations for now but certainly worth watching very closely.
Wlsapope,
Have you read the court document that flieer posted. You would be less concerned about oil spills. This is going to get ugly.
Flieer,
Thank you for the court documentation.I have read through this document and the allegations are, quite frankly, astonishing. As I said in my earlier post if it is proven at all to be even partially true this would account for the mass exodus of senior management and someone is going to jail.
I think I understand the venom that is in a lot of your postings if you are acting as a whistle blower and this document has any shred of truth then I thank you. Shareholders money is not for the personal consumption of the CEO and clearly you or someone you know was deeply hurt through this fiasco so I think you should stay vigilant. In the end the truth always prevails.
Why was fliiers post regarding the law suit with Fanotech taken down. It is a matter of public record. It alleges many issues around both corporate governance, regulatory breaches, potential fraud and the nature of the management team that we have invested in. These are allegations and need to be defended and judged upon in a court of law but I believe we have a right to review these allegations as shareholders. I believe they are material in nature. Please put fliiers post back up or it will simply be regenerated. It is not the mediators job to only post positive promotional information about JS and his team it makes you suspect if you do this.
I am neutral of this as I applauded the transaction with Packer's company and am encouraged by this development however the law suit is equally important in helping investors understand the nature of the management's capabilities.
Trades like that are usually arranged, its not like you showed up with a million shares and some one just happened to be there saying I will buy those. It is one of these reasons either some one moving shares around to trigger beneficial tax treatment or a distress seller and Js is helping by finding a buyer or a new player is coming on board and is cleaning up the overhang. That volume does nothing to benefit the company and the fact that there is no follow on buying means it was an isolated transaction. It would be interesting to start tracking the investment houses that are buying and selling this stock.
Do not mean to be negative just skeptical. Here is a video on what it takes to make a WTE facility.
You have answered your own question. If he did the deal why was he not out front? Clublink was a public company, and there is lots of information available out there. Here is one story, after reading it do you believe JS was the driving force behind Clublink?
http://www.camagazine.com/archives/print-edition/2002/april/features/camagazine23427.aspx
Notice the next Company was Minacs same story.
Discourse however unpleasant is what is needed on this site. Many of the inflammatory comments made on this site have in fact had some truth behind them. Pushing the emotional content to the side we are left with the facts.
JS has been very poor at communicating clearly any deal that he enters into.There are no terms to which we are able to assess the merits of the deal. This leads to more rampant speculation.
His success record without his family members (Clublink)is pretty pathetic over the last few years so it is not a wonder people are skeptic. Fliier has brought forth useful information to this post once the emotional content is removed.
"I disagree with what you say but will defend to my death your right to say it" Voltaire
I must say that is a great announcement, of course terms need to be set out so one can evaluate how much benefit will accrue to WLSA.I would love to know who was the lucky person to own all the shares before the press release. But I have to give credit where it is due and if Packer is going to put his $$$ and resources behind this then this definitely has a shot.
So let me see if I understand WLSA , JS looks to buy undervalued companies. He does minimal due diligence with his then girlfriend,brings in Senior Management "to help" not hire them as professional executives. He then asks them to finance his deal. Then he says sorry it did not work out have a nice day I don't need your help any more. I have a new WTE business to build. I sure there will be no fall out from this style of leadership.
What about Mark Donovan right his wife did not want to move.
Give me a break, this is like the black night in the Monty Python movie entitled the "Holy Grail" "its only a flesh wound"