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.
Close above $3? Setting up power hour!
For real, thinking the same thing! Why didn't I sell another position and get more in the .70s ahhh
$4 Fri close, anyone?
Anyone that doubted better pick them up while they're cheap!
Higher lows. Consolidate and we move onward!
Watch this link after 12p EST for distributor license. By Fri I bet it shows up. I found the manufacturing and the cultivation licenses when I suspected, so...
https://aca5.accela.com/bcc/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Licenses&ShowMyPermitList=N
So bummed I didn't have any powder to buy the dip!
2 mil volume and we're at $5 Tuesday!
I've been tied up all day til now and I've been freaking out trying to move my $5 sell "just in case"
Blue skies!!!
8k out! With specific answers to VBF, growing space, retrofit, talks for $2-3million in expansion capital, changing filing requirements (which IMO means getting ready for uplisting). WOW! We may open at $3 today!!!
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76519175
buy the open and thank me later
I also looked up the CA SOS filing for the restated registration on 12/20 and it has Valerie's sig on it as president plus a box checked that says "the corporation currently has outstanding membership interests and upon the filing of these Restated Articlea of Incorporation each outstanding membership interest shall be canceled without consideration."
Bottom line: VBF Brands is a for-profit and in SIGO's control.
I received a response:
"We shut the business down in September 2016. Then TJ asked if they could use it in March 2017 when they signed the lease which I said yes since it was shut down. Here is 8-K regarding that https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/859747/000147793217000904/opmz_8k.htm. Again VBF Brands was never owned by anyone since it was a non-profit. It was complicated as things had to be run for pubic cannabis companies but its easier now that for profit companies can operate."
New public Instagram!
https://www.instagram.com/vbfbrands/
LOL I'm working on it.
Of course I could be wrong. But I am the one on this board that found both the manufacturing and cultivation licenses before anyone else based on my due diligence, conversations with the company, and my own intuitive timing. You decide if I know what I'm talking about or not...
LOL! Unless the information is coming directly from the 3 authorities who actually approve the licenses, it could be a regulation that was in force up until Nov 2017 when the regulations changed. That's why I'm talking about rapid change, and likely the context to which SIGOs PR yesterday was referencing - the proposed licensing regulations used to be more complicated, but the state simplified them in Nov and Dec.
Links to the 3 licensing authorities can be found here:
https://cannabis.ca.gov/licensing/
I was verbally told that VBF was transferred in the reverse merger, and paid for with the shares. Wade has disposed of all those shares (our float). Thats why TJ's name is on it on VBF on the SOS website because he was using VBF for some of the edibles and manufacturing things earlier last year. Some of those plans are still moving forward and others have been scrapped with the changing regulated landscape.
At least that's what I understood from the conversations I've had with TJ and Wade. My conversations along with the documentation I can see via CA's SOS and the 8ks are validity enough for me. You can ask the company for further explanation.
Yes, and we know this further reduction hasn't happened - and that is OK in my opinion. At the end of Dec I asked the company to clarify.
My question:
In previous filings, the announcement was made about reducing the authorized shares to 60 million from 100 million. I've spoken with the transfer agent in the last couple days and it's been confirmed at 100 million still. While the greatly reduced number of outstanding shares has the most current impact on the state of my investment, why has this reduction of the authorized not happened yet?
Their response:
"The priority of everyone is the licensing process and that has taken everyone's focus. The Company is planning on reducing the authorized but will evaluate that after the licensing process is completed. The two may seem unrelated but there might be a major investment push from groups outside the US for licensed operations in California and the company doesn't want to limit itself at this time since the licensing process is pushing a number of growers out of business."
The landscape is just so fluid! To me that says we need to be EXPECTING things to change, which can include certain company strategies. In my opinion they've repeatedly shown with their actions and communications how committed they are to building this company with respect toward shareholders.
Yes but those rules are from Feb 2017 and in Nov & Dec the emergency regulations were put into place that changed/supersedes previous proposed regulations. If you can find that same language in the current Emergency Regulations than great. I cannot find it, however.
Yeah forget this one too. Guess I should have just asked the company like I've done for EVERY other question I've had rather than guess, haha.
So the explanation from their 8k on 1/5 isn't enough? How could they file to restate the registration if it wasn't in their possession already?
"On December 20, 2017, the Company filed to Restate the Registration of VBF Brands. The filing was processed by the state of California on January 4, 2018. Prior to December 21, 2017, VBF Brands was a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. The Company amended the registration to convert VBF Brands to a “For-Profit” Company."
I think I got it now. There's distributor, distributor transport, and testing. The documents below don't say anything about restrictions on manufacturer and distributor being held by the same licensee. Only lab testing is the one thats restricted from having any other license. I think the key is in the definition of what the license for distributor and transport means.
Distributor: Is responsible for transporting cannabis goods, arranging for testing of
cannabis goods, and conducting quality
assurance review of cannabis goods to
ensure they comply with all packaging
and labeling requirements.
Distributor transport: Allows a licensee
to transport cannabis goods between
licensed cultivators, manufacturers, and
distributors. A licensee may not transport
cannabis goods to a licensed retailer and
may not engage in any other distributor
activities.
Distributor license overview and regulations:
http://bcc.ca.gov/about_us/documents/17-191_information_workshop.pdf
http://bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/lic_reg_overview.pdf
Manufacturing: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/MCSB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/EmergRegsFactSheet.pdf
This site is the official one that links to all the other official sites:
https://cannabis.ca.gov/licensing/
Yeah you may be right. I do remember reading about the how the distributor had to be different but I asked and I thought they said it didn't matter for the ones they were applying for. I could be wrong, of course.
I think there may be some differences in the emergency regulations from Oct/Nov and updated as close as Dec last year. Things just keep evolving! That's the toughest part - knowing what's an actual regulation and what was proposed in earlier revisions. Anybody know or have connections to an attorney in CA?
Either way - they've been doing what they need to get the temp licenses approved so far, which gives me great confidence in where this thing is going - even if I don't I understand every regulation. I'll leave it to the expets, its worked so far!
For all the new faces on the board, be watching this first link in the upcoming week for the distributor licenses referenced in today's PR. They will likely be listed under "VBF Brands" which is a sub of SIGO (just like the 2 cultivation licenses and the 2 manufacturing licenses are).
Distributor license search: https://aca5.accela.com/bcc/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Licenses&ShowMyPermitList=N
You can also see our cultivation licenses here (select "temp license" and Monterey county):
https://aca6.accela.com/CALCANNABIS/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Licenses
You can also see our manufacturing licenses here (alphabetical, scroll to "V"):
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/MCSB/Pages/LicenseeLookup.aspx
Get through $1.41 and we close at $2!
So are my .63s and .70s! They're set at $5.88 (the highest Scottrade would let me enter lol)
Exactly, things change especially with the wild west of an unregulated to a regulated industry. And now I'm done discussing this matter.
Right! You are proving my point - SIGO's initial business, aka "consulting and advising," was why TJ was there in the first place. He had the experience and success on the manufacturing side, Bumblebee, etc. And started work on the edible line, etc. Wade had the licenses, etc. You are trying to draw a line between anything with the word "consulting," but if you really take the time to talk to all the parties involved and ask the right questions, you can actually put the pieces together with a decent degree of accuracy rather than assuming everything every party has said is a lie.
What I was told was that the $130k payments are for the consulting operation (NG Advisors, I believe) that was put into OPMZ and have nothing to do with SIGO. Because OPMZ dissolved the edible business and also transferred VBF to SIGO, there was nothing revenue generating in OPMZ so Wade put the consulting business into OPMZ. The way that 8k is written, it makes it sound like the entity we know to be SIGO would be making payments to OPMZ, but it's actually separate evebts in the same 8k. In a phone conversation with Wade, I directly asked him about it and he said that SIGO is not paying $130k a month but rather the consulting operation, and only if there is income that it can be paid.
I'm comfortable with what I've uncovered, which I've shared on here. I'm sure you could ask for more clarification from the company, or even directly contact Wade and ask him since VBF originally came from him. TJ, Valerie, and Wade have all been open books when I've asked them to explain something in detail or even to reconcile something that doesnt add up.
Temporary Cultivation Licenses Received!
Why under the "VBF Brands" name, you ask?
VBF Brands had previously been verified by the state as a non-profit (for medicinal). It was converted to for-profit and transferred into SIGO to be used for the license applications and avoid any potential setbacks or delays that might have occurred with the Battle Mountain Genetics or Sunset Island names since they had not been previously approved.
No. It's: "(1) Small (5,000 – 10,000 square feet) Mixed-Light Tier 2 Adult Use and (2) Small (5,000 – 10,000 square feet) Mixed-Light Tier 2 Medical Use"
SPREAD THE WORD. $SIGO can cultivate, manufacture, and soon to distribute.
We got our cultivation licenses!!!
LOL I've never had more answers than I do now. Because I've taken the time to investigate on all fronts. Yes, the price probably will drop, go up, drop, go up - a thin share structure allows for this. No one is surprised at it.
My understanding from some conversations with involved individuals as well as OPMZ & SIGO filings is that VBF was included in the merger (the 4 mil shares), and hence the reason why TJ's name was listed on the VBF website for awhile. Those shares comprise the majority of the float that we can trade. The pancake/edibles subsidiary was the one that got dissolved. TJ really wanted to make it work, but they found out that there wasn't going to be a state license that covered the edibles (or something to that extent that would not directly work in their favor) and decided not to pursue that route. Much like the Envirocann certification, a change in strategy NOT to pursue something due to the changing landscape doesn't make it a scam - its a business decision based on what is or isn't going to be profitable.
Here's an excerpt from a recent OPMZ 8k. SIGO is the "client of the company."
"Q2. Is the company still operating a cannabis business?
A2. No. The Company previously operated an edible business. However, the Company divested itself of any operations involving cannabis in September 2016. The previous subsidiary that was engaged in production of the edible line has been dissolved and the collective that was formed for the cannabis business was transferred to a client of the company. As part of dissolving the cannabis company the company merged a consulting company that was created in January 2017 by our officers as described above."