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.
Your argument is not born out by actually looking at a chart.
Proving that the accusations of my lying are the lies themselves has nothing to do with the future prospects of ICNM.
Thank you for schooling everybody on Chong's status within the company by going the extra mile and retrieving the definition of an Insider.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insider.asp#toc-what-is-an-insider - Awesome link, thanks for finding that!
What Is an Insider?
"Insider" is a term describing a director or senior officer of a publicly-traded company, as well as any person or entity, that beneficially owns more than 10% of a company's voting shares.
What you will find above, is 100% proof that in no way is David Chong considered an “insider” of ICNM. Only simply a 5% shareholder.
It’s a lovely day to learn something new in the investing world. I welcome all to enjoy the above link, especially any claiming Chong is an insider. Schooled ;)
Unless one is a fellow company insider, one cannot possibly know how much influence he actually wields in the company. His voting rights are the minimum power that he wields - not the maximum. And he holds 6 times the power of even the CEO in that regard.
Claiming that he makes no decisions and won't ever is not something that is actually known by outsiders. That is purely conjecture being masqueraded as fact. However we do know that he was an officer right up until having to be removed on paper for the ICNM deal to go through. I find it highly doubtful that he wouldn't still have the same actual influence anyway, just now without the official title, at least as far as appearances go. Thinking that he actually got "fired" for the deal to happen seems a little far-fetched.
Plus if he had nothing to do with ICNM anymore he surely wouldn't be spending his precious time tweeting about it and its future, like the reverse split that is impending at some point.
Oh, sorry - "share structure restructuring".
Anyway, nice to see that now the argument is about how much power he wields as an insider. The claim that he is not an insider at all is easily proven wrong by just reading the filings.
Not an insider? He has literally 6 times the super majority voting rights of even Tan, the CEO. Every time that fact gets denied I guess I will have to repost the screenshots from the actual most recent filing proving that he is in fact a huge insider. Here is that filing so anyone can confirm for themselves I am telling the truth, https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/351368/content
Chong literally controls the company with two other people. He has 6 times the super majority voting rights of even Tan, the CEO.
Claiming that he is not an insider is ludicrous.
These screenshots are from the most recent ICNM filing, anyone can verify for themselves this information is real and not a lie in any shape, form or function. https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/351368/content
I just refuted each one of those false claims this very afternoon, see https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170948130
Claiming I am wrong is not the same as proving me wrong.
Actually, not so easy it turns out.
Repeatedly claiming a r/s can happen here before the 2 year contract is up. When in black and white the contract states otherwise and one cannot happen prior to July 2024.
Repeatedly claiming they can simply alter the shell sale contract with a written agreement all on their end. 100% false as Frank has to sign off on any changes to the previously signed shell sale contract.
Repeatedly claiming that Chong is directly involved with ICNM, when the opposite is actually true. In fact, he was specifically removed by Frank before he would finalize the shell sale contract.
Can't take what?
That's fine and dandy yet OTC CEO's use uplisting all the time as the excuse to placate investors worries when they pull a reverse split.
And then the uplist doesn't even happen.
It turns out that was just an "excuse" all along. Hey, it happens.
I had to restate it as the my original reply seems to be no longer available.
The Chong ICNM follow up tweet specified restructuring in order to uplist. The form of restructuring that tends to be done for that in the OTC is in fact the reverse split.
In this case, for example, to get to an uplist $4.00 share price it would need to be over a 4,000 to 1 reverse split based on the current share price.
Examples of removing shares from the treasury or using restricted shares for growth would not be sufficient measures in this case.
This part of the agreement demonstrates that "the company" is in fact in the hands of "the buyer" after signing. Or else why would they have to use the phrase "reverts to seller"? If something reverts then that means it has to revert from somewhere, which obviously means "the buyer".
It sure seems that they should have the amendment between "the seller" and "the purchaser" if Frank is to be involved. But that's not what it says. Instead it says between "the company" and "the purchaser".
From above, it seems that once the agreement was signed "the company" is now deemed in the hands of "the purchaser" and Frank is no longer part of it, hence the revert language above.
This could explain Kristin Simpson-Oloso's ILI* lawsuit with Frank. She was trying to issue shares for an acquisition but Frank was blocking her efforts at the Transfer Agent. It could make sense that she did the Amendment as both "the company" and "the purchaser" in order to issue shares but had not counted on Frank still being listed with the Transfer Agent and blocking her attempt.
It was a reply to someone that did not realize I had already covered it.
I had to explain it again for their benefit.
He was President of a trade organization for 7 years. I covered that.
I've read the amendment clause. It does not require "the seller" to sign - they are not even mentioned in the clause.
Yes, he led trade organizations as I posted. I was already aware.
But lookie lookie he has never been CEO of a company out to make profits like one would like to see as experience for being CEO of an OTC company.
"Project director" isn't exactly CEO.
"Committee member" isn't exactly CEO.
"Various roles in many IT organizations" almost sounds like he couldn't hold down a steady job at the time, frankly.
I was aware of his experience back in June when I DD'd him. I'm also the one that broke the news that he was not the CEO of Ban Choon when people were lying that he was. They only had similar names.
Actually, you may not be correct in that.
The amendment clause is to be signed by "the company" and "the buyer".
It does not actually say "the seller" in it at all..
Before the agreement is signed, yes Frank is "the seller" and "the company".
But after the agreement is signed then the "the buyer" is also "the company". Frank is no longer a party in the amendment clause.
You forgot to post the part of the agreement where amendments can in fact be made, they just have to be agreed upon in writing.
How many times has it been claimed that it is impossible to amend the the shareholder protections just to have it finally revealed that there is in fact an amendment clause that can be enacted if the situation dictates?
Yes, it was deemed "absolutely impossible". Then it was revealed that it just takes writing down to amend things. That's all.
No, I did not forget. That's when I DD'd Tan and realized he has never been CEO of anything except maybe a trade organization that puts on conventions and stuff.
There is an amendment clause. The agreement can be changed at will, just needs to be in writing.
What lies? Every time I ask I get ignored or a response that I then blow out of the water.
It was quite easy last June when I did it, thanks.
Actually, I've done my DD. That's why I know he has never been CEO of anything that translates over to running an OTC company.
The closest I'm aware of was running a trade organization and putting on like conventions and crap.
How does one get to a $4.00 share price when starting from trips and a 10 billion share OS other than a reverse split?
He has absolutely no history in the OTC.
In fact I think his only leading of anything himself was just a trade organization, wasn't it?
Does he actually have any experience as CEO of a corporation out to make oodles and oodles of profits? I sure would like to read about any but I'm not aware of them.
Help a brother out, what has he been CEO of?
And Chong literally just tweeted reverse split last week "LMAO"
Oh, sorry - "share structure restructuring".
The acquisition deal was actually signed in December, just FYI.
If I may quote you, ICNM has also not accomplished these:
you need to demonstrate organic growth as well as revenue requirements audits number of shareholders among a few things
One cant assume something will occur unless its has ocurred in the past which it has not ever here hmmmm
Or they could just do what happens all the time in the OTC, ignore all that and just whip up the reverse split anyway while telling investors it's in preparation for uplisting.
Yup, it happens all the time - reverse split without the uplist part that the CEO mentioned.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The tweet specified restructuring in order to uplist. The form of restructuring that tends to be done for that in the OTC is in fact the reverse split.
In this case, for example, to get to an uplist $4.00 share price it would need to be over a 4,000 to 1 reverse split based on the current share price.
Ouch.
Your restructuring examples of removing shares from the treasury or using restricted shares for growth just don't cut the mustard for an uplist here.
I can't help but notice that you never posted Chong's reverse split tweet the other morning. Only posting some but not others, eh?
Funny, that.
Oh, sorry - I meant "share structure restructuring".
There is no law saying that one must post every single tweet just because they post one.
And missing some is not at all the same thing as claiming he has nothing to do with the company for one tweet but totally embracing him for another tweet.
Now THAT is hypocrisy.
The reverse split tweet was a follow up tweet to one that mentioned only ICNM and AAPT.
Oh sorry - "share structure restructuring".
I love it. When Chong puts out a pumpy tweet everybody is yelling about it.
When he tweets reverse split everybody denies he has anything to do with the company.. Oh sorry - "share structure restructuring".
And if the 8-K said Commons then you would have been wrong the whole time, so there.
I went by what they said, not conjecture about what they might have meant.
Next time let's hope they realize they should fully communicate what they mean and not leave out some words which are very important.
In your dreams.
It was still jumping to a conclusion that was not borne out by the actual wording that the company used at the time.
I didn't make an assumption, I trusted that the words they used were the words they meant, no more, no less. And they did not use the word Preferred.
Hopefully next time they actually say what they mean.
I posted on that ticker when the CE hit. That was less than a year ago. The claim that I've been known to post there in previous years is in fact incorrect, false, even that word that begins with an L when someone knowingly makes a false statement.
Well, when they were an officer and had to be removed on paper to let a deal go through while still having insider holdings then they are more than just a random tweeter.