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 one thing they are not is bankrupt. There is no way they could go Chap 11…a judge would toss it in a heartbeat. They are swimming in cash at the expense of the share price.
Yes. Many of us saw that, posted that, and explained why it was doomed.
Few listened…and so here we are.
I keep wondering why Michery only did a 1:9 RS….
I now have a theory.
Michery has little control over his financiers selling into the market stock they have already been issued.
Except one way…
If he only reverse split it to $1 then they would have to stop selling if they wanted to keep it off the OTC…which they would…less liquidity. He then thought the buyback would be the mechanism to keep it above $1 in the absence of the dilution.
The would explain why the moment they lost a $1 bid close the selling went haywire.
Had he done a higher reverse split say to $5 to give himself some room to maintain compliance they would have diluted it quickly downward…so while he might have retained compliance, the next time it went below $1 for 30 days he would not get a grace period.
With the 1:9 had he been able to maintain $1 even if they diluted after that to below $1 MULN would have been eligible for a 180 grace period because the cumulative RS was pass than 1:250.
That is $0.0028 pre-splits.
This isn’t shorting. It’s dilution. It appears that the dilution stopped to keep this above a dollar and the moment it was realized that it wasn’t going to happen … BAM …selling and a lot of it.
The diluters likely are rushing for the exits before this gets delisted…and volume drops.
Why would you…it’s about Kistler…and Kistler was involved with Mark in the VGTL debacle.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr-25594
SEC Charges Undisclosed Control Person and His Alter-Ego Entity in Penny Stock Scheme
Litigation Release No. 25594 / December 19, 2022
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brian Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. a/k/a NOBS, No. 1:22-cv-10657 (S.D.N.Y. filed December 16, 2022)
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Brian Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. a/k/a NOBS in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving the securities of Williamsville Sears Management, Inc. ("Williamsville").
The SEC alleges that between approximately February 2018 and July 2018, Kistler and his alter-ego entity, NOBS, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to take control of Williamsville, a dormant microcap shell company, and deceitfully pump up the purported value of the company and its shares in order to "flip" the company and/or its shares for a profit. According to the complaint, to carry out the scheme, Kistler made false and misleading statements to OTC Markets Group, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), and Williamsville's transfer agent. Kistler also allegedly made false and misleading statements to the public through Williamsville's public filings. In addition, according to the complaint, Kistler engaged in manipulative purchases of Williamsville stock in order to give the appearance of bona fide market activity in the stock. As alleged in the complaint, Kistler and NOBS benefited from this scheme. Specifically, Kistler, through NOBS, received $50,000 for brokering the sale of Williamsville, and NOBS received 100 million Williamsville shares. Kistler also received $32,500 to engage in manipulative purchases of Williamsville's stock.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Kistler and NOBS with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint also charges Kistler with a violation of the anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act under Section 9(a)(2). The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement, with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The SEC also seeks a penny stock bar against both Defendants and an officer and director bar against Kistler.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Laura Yeu, Kristine Zaleskas, Ricky Tong, Judith A. Weinstock, and Michael Paley, of the New York Regional Office. The case is being supervised by Sheldon L. Pollock. The litigation will be handled by Ms. Zaleskas and supervised by Preethi Krishnamurthy. The SEC appreciates the assistance of FINRA.
for the newcomers here….
The VGTL debacle was only four years ago.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/05/1748061/0/en/Mike-The-Pike-Productions-Announces-Acquisition-of-Key-Assets-by-VGTel-Inc.html
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/54560/Mike-The-Pike-Productions-Announces-Rescission-of-Asset-Purchase-Agreement-with-VGTel-Inc.-Assets-Returned
Boy this has really hit a tender spot…
Again, I merely said it was a name I had not heard in awhile.
There has been a dozen years of “time will tell”.
This is but the most recent installment.
Wow…this must be a sensitive subject LMAO.
I merely commented on a name I had not heard in awhile and the context of its connection to Mark.
But it seems to be a trigger
“looks like a handful of nervous hands dumping to me.”
Yeah that is usually how it is rationalized.
What news?
That $200 million is going to be tempting to alot of people…both inside and outside of Muln.
LMAO!!!! VGTL had supposedly bought the assets of MIKP.
What a cluster that whole thing was.
As I said…it has been awhile since I have heard that name.
I’m the meantime…MIKP’s stock price has been slowly eroding since the “pink current”.
…as predicted
Well yeah…except for the large dumps…lol.
That’s a name I haven’t heard in awhile…
I see the stock is going illiquid again….lol.
Or to put another way…situation normal.
Everything Michery has done has been in the filings with the required notice. True to form though, many koolaid drinkers have ignored all that and kept “believing” and buying….and then when it goes all to hell, like many predicted it would because of the dilution potential (before it even started in earnest)…
…suddenly it’s “how can he do this!?!?!?!”.
I swear to god some people are complete and absolute morons.
And people like Michery feed on them.
They make this a team sport…then they are on to something!
Does that Frank Nez moron ever do anything other than regurgitate the company press releases?
IB is the only one I know…but it is very expensive from anyone I have heard from who has tried it.
Well unless they pull off the RS by Monday assuming they are even allowed to do it, it won’t matter.
“you guys don't have a clue“
Yeah that must be it.
Ah I see…I will file that under “Wild Ass Conspiracy Theories” along with Chem Trails and the Moon Landing Was Faked”.
LOL.
The SEC has zero to do with the filing of a shareholder lawsuit.
Do you not understand how that works?
And how is the SEC “collecting so much money on this scam”?
This I have to hear….
Yes he will and he won’t get anywhere close to what he would need on the OTC.
“No lawsuits....all filings are up to date and legal”
No lawsuits? LOL. They currently are dealing with SIX separate shareholder lawsuits that have been already filed.
The status of their filings has zero to do with whether or not more would be filed.
“you guys are just” correct way too often? 😉
I have been thinking about your option 2. I was looking at the language in the proxy and it only says “reverse split”. Usually when a Board is giving a reverse split limit that could involve multiple reverse splits they say “one or more reverse splits totaling no more than 1:100”.
Now can he just try to do it? Perhaps…although Nasdaq could cry foul because of the proxy language which appears to only approve one reverse split.
I am beginning to think he actually doesn’t want it to stay on Nasdaq but had to look like he was putting up a fight.
He has $200 million so Naz served its purpose…now time for some serious pumping on the pinksheets.
However, a lot of the “institutional” investors will have to divest if it gets delisted.
They might as well hang in there until it is on the OTC. Easier to pump….how many OTC tickers have $200 milli in the bank?
Lol. I bet if they get knocked down there are a ton of shareholder lawsuits coming wanting a piece of that $200 M.
How’s that stock price doing….?
I wonder how much money they are going to light on fire today?
I can only fathom it was some CYA language. Usually it is meant to cover a purchase followed by a sale inside of six months.
Just saw your edit…it would be risky to play games with the Form 4. It shows as a PURCHASE. Money had to change hands…and it would have been the amount shown.
Now if the PR is misrepresenting the transaction as an open market when it was private…well, that is a material misrepresentation.
If that is what it has come to for him than the walls really are closing in.
But they form 4 and PR are pretty clear. It was an open market PURCHASE by him.
What confuses things a little is the designation they may be a matchable trade with the transfer last June.
Perhaps, but the PR said it was an open market transaction…not a private transaction which it would have been if he bought the stock from the person or had 102,040 shares returned to him.
And it is odd to see the short swing language for a transfer followed by a purchase. How would they be matchable?
Not sure what this means…never seen anything like it before:
1. The Reporting Person's purchase of common stock reported herein may be matchable under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to the extent of 102,040 shares, with the Reporting Person's transfer on June 15, 2023 of 232,331 shares of common stock (reflects 1:9 reverse stock split effective August 11, 2023). The Reporting Person has agreed to pay to the Issuer the full amount of the profit realized in connection with the short-swing transaction.