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 payoff to get the petty lawsuit to go away""
A bogus lawsuit doesn't need a payoff. It just needs to be heard in court and it will be thrown out. The fact that CC was awarded the $4M shows that there was cause for the lawsuit.
"The fact that CC accepted 25k instead of fighting for the full amount tells the truth that it was a set up scam in order to try to get pyct to go away. "
If the purpose was to destroy PYCT then they would have kept up the fight to the very end- NOT settled for anything.
The content of your own posts is proving that what you're saying makes no sense. Give it a rest.
"Would they loose if Paychest became successfull?"
I'd love to see any feasible argument for the idea that a market maker like Knight could be brought down (financially and criminally) by shorting a non-reporting company like PYCT.
Feasible means the nonsense about a 4 year plan to burn the shorts is excluded. Market makers make tons of money in legitimate ways day in and day out- with big board and pinks. They don't need to worry about PYCT.
The fact that there's only 2 or 3 people here in a world of about 6.9 billion people that seem to think so it rather telling.
I partially agree. IMO it was undoubtedly part of Mario's mess but the company inherited the mess and had to agree to any arrangements made.
The bottom line is the "bogus law suit conjured up by the market makers" garbage is nonsense and borderline libelous.
I say borderline because quite frankly, it's so ridiculous it wouldn't warrant the time of day from the folks at Knight or any other entity mentioned here.
1) Why would a real company such as Knight try to shut down a any company with a bogus lawsuit knowing that such a lawsuit was without merit and would have no affect whatsoever let alone shut them down?
2) If the lawsuit was bogus why would PYCT fail to answer and allow a $4,000,000 judgment be entered?
3) If the lawsuit was bogus and had no merit then why was there a judgment entered against PYCT? If the lawsuit was bogus then if would have been thrown out and not even allowed judgment.
4)Why would PYCT, a company that owed absolutely nothing to Carter Care (which would have to be true if the lawsuit were bogus) agree to pay them $25,000?
Please quit with the nonsense.
"It seems that some of the claims are either not able to be patented or may not be worded that the way PCT wants it."
Things seems a bit unclear.
It's usable which is a good thing, yet not inventive.
Maybe they've seen this stuff in the past few decades as we've discussed here.
"You said you don't recall the naysayers telling anyone to sell. I haven't either"
Very good then.
Hmmm... the sample looked new given that it hadn't been used.
I'm not sure when the sample arrived as I wasn't at the home it arrived at when it arrived. I had requested it a few days after the PR came out and had it earlier this month.
I assume it is newer but as pointed out, there's no way to tell.
And my outlook is based on reality IMO. I disclosed to the board when I bought and I didn't change my tone one bit simply because I bought. Reality doesn't call for that.
That's not news, it's the same thing we've heard for years now.
In truth the product appearing in a handful of stores would be a nice thing, so I don't get why some have to set up the unreal expectation of the product being in every store in the world or whatever the story is.
We're talking about now dc. No product in stores.
I bought shares in late 2006. If you look back you can find the post if you care too.
Bought for the heck of it, like anyone else.
Some do believe I'm sure. Those same believers made the penny boom of 10 years ago possible.
"No one paying .0002? That's an incorrect statement also. The Hong Kong investor group is a private group of business men and women who reside in Hong Kong. They bought all the preferred shares."
If they bought preferreds at .0002 then where's the funds? Shouldn't they be reflected in the filings rob?
"John Banks is involved, as well he should be."
I'm not so sure he should be- we've seen what he does to a public company he controls. :(
" The burden is on the one making the claim"
Very true, therefore those making the claim that there is a short should post proof. That is what started the topic so that's where the burden lies.
Lack of said proof indicates no short. Those claiming a massive short have changed their story many times over the past couple of years- further proof that they have no evidence and that no such short exists in PYCT.
The only reason for touting a short is to get people to buy with promises of a huge 10,000% gain (or was it 40,000%?). I don't recall the "naysayers" telling people to sell but I know I've seen promises of huge gain by others that constantly encourage others to buy.
So who exactly is it that's trying to manipulate PYCT?
Yeah, IIRC someone claimed that they had their daughter try it and it was wonderful.
She was very sweet to involve herself like that and for that I thank her.
Banks can easily benefit by using this 'legit' business as a tool to drum up interest on the side.
As you've pointed the financial end of things is kept quiet by utilizing outside sources. Banks can get all kinds of people sucked into this by making PYCT and Flushaway seem legit. Bernie did it, so can anyone involved in a pinksheet company who has stupid contacts.
There's a number of reasons why a company gets messed up in a non-reporting company who releases PR after PR that never comes to fruition- legitimacy isn't one of them.
"Even I/R said no NEW product has been made"
I recall that the company stated that the product being sold at a few websites is old product but I don't remember anyone stating that IR said the samples were old. Where did you read that?
While I agree that they didn't buy a ton of expensive equipment for production, I don't think that it would cost a ton to get a few prototypes made. They probably still have old connections that they could have reached out too in order to get something thrown together who knows.
It sure would do a lot for their credibility to show this equipment though... nice shots of their production plant etc. Something tells me that isn't going to happen.
If it explodes I would have more money but it wouldn't affect my emotional status at all.
And IMO most experienced pinksheet traders (current or former) are negative about the stocks they trade because they're realists. They aren't fooled by the forward looking statements/smoke and mirrors nor do they travel the "make up a bunch of positive nonsense to make this stock look good" avenue.
Best of luck to you.
He did post a picture of a pad from some time ago so while I don't doubt he has old product I agree that no one really knows what they've been sent.
Has anyone had the company flat out tell them that they received the latest version touted in the PRs? I haven't been able to get IR to say that. Has anyone gotten such confirmation?
And please, no one bother claiming that many people in "your group" has gotten this confirmation. I'm only asking for believable feedback.
Bought shares, got sample, ready to discuss.
My apologies for the misunderstanding, makes sense at second glace.
And I doubt this will ever die so there will always be discussion to be had.
Companies legitimately raise capital through selling shares all the time, that has little to do with judging if a company is a scam.
Now say a company claims that product is going to roll out and then produces nothing, said company might be a scam. When a company produces questionable fillings, chances are they could be a scam. When a company claims that they're going to reward a dividend and fails to deliver for years, chances are they could be a scam.
I could go on but I think these types of points have been made already. Ignoring them doesn't make them non-existent.
"corperate offices"
Of course they might which is why some people may have believed you when you posted last year.
I don't expect my local Walmart greeter or the like to know anything about a product that hasn't even started production as of last report. Perhaps you're the first?
"If you don't like the way the company is operating sell your shares and move on."
No thanks. I'd rather discuss it here once in a while. Sorry if that is an issue for you.
Anything is possible.
Fed hath spoken, time to trade.
"whats there to talk about on this board ??"
As a frequent poster here I suppose you have your own answer to that.
Have a good one.
"why put all that info out now"
The folks at other public companies are a bit busy as well but seem to have time to make sure that their companies are runiing well and seem legit.
Then again, this is indeed a one of a kind company.
Hmmm.. no- I see tons of companies who report on time, have a product and actually make money.
Now I would agree however that it sounds like any other stinky pink company out there...
Yes, so people would not base their investment decision based on posts here. It doesn't mean that the posts are not to be discussed.
If you don't believe that posts should be discussed then perhaps you should move on.
Quite true. As far as the settlement- if you sue someone for $4M and know that they'll never be worth much then you settle for what you can get.
In this case Cater Care decided that PYCT is only worth $25,000 at best. And they're suposedly a market maker puppet right? LOL So the market makers who are involved with this and who are horribly short have decided to be on record with the idea that PYCT is worth only $25,000.
So the conspiracy theorists have exposed the truth about the value of PYCT I guess- it certainly isn't very flattering.
Cool, so they could actually lose millions of dollars and never report it... sounds legit to me. Why would a company with nothing to hide need to hide?
They covered the private investor in the filngs as far as I'm concerned- they were loaned $200,000 by the privaste investor- not millions that was spent on anything.
"how can they afford to spend $millions of dollars"
They can't and don't. There is a link in the IBox to the filings, check them out.
All they have is a $200,000 loan.
Yes, apparently they can't sell them, they can only give them away.
"If PYCT really wants to be credible..."
PYCT has never been worried about credibility. That's the funny thing about Flushaway going this route. If they wanted to be taken seriously then they could have done it in a more credible manner.
Instead some would have us believe that this was all part of Pillay's plan to burn shorts instead of focusing on an actual product. Indeed that's panned out well after 947 marked posts.
So perhaps Banks will start rambling about Sith Lords... more power to him.
Those were sponges. Perhaps she had a thing for O.B.s too though.
Borrowed money doesn't impress anyone.
So we'll look for Coorey's lawsuit PR.
I look forward to him rambling about Sith Lords the way Byrne did.
"Whatt happen to the folks running Overstock and Spongetech?"
One thing is for sure- they didn't strike it rich because their stock went from .0001 to 13. lol