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 reported cost is less than $10 per barrel of oil produced.
Which is why, even with the falling oil prices, they have been able to maintain their level of production and sales for the last 5 years!
In any event, Ms. Hakala concluded her direct examination after some brief testimony about the Bloomberg chart and neither Mr. Stoecklein nor Mr. Frizzell cross-examined the IT specialist. Stockwatch
Did you really want them to cross-examine the witness? Let's see, how would that go:
Mr Hall, your numbers are very low, they are obviously wrong. Based on the shitload of unregistered shares we dumped on the market, those numbers just have to be much higher.
It's about damn time you placed the blame squarely where it belongs.
4p let’s play urbie and John Edwards when the doj subpoenaed the silver state bank on sept 5th 2004. Hey John bad news the sec and doj just busted us they found our 100 bank accounts, they caught us.
Absolutely brilliant Gus!! What's the next move, crowdfunding a lawyer? I wonder what Wes Christian is up to these days?
The facts are this data alone represents a huge naked short and is irrefutable proof of that.
What cases are you talking about? If you're talking about the revocation by judge Murray, then fear not. No trading data was used in the determination to deregister the stock. It was a matter of cmkx filing an erroneous Form 15, and refusing to file annual and quarterly reports as required.
Obviously, this outfit can't even do simple math on the 10Q. And obviously they don't care enough to fix it.
Also obviously, LR was on top of it:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133756868
Mr. Banerjea was taking $50,000 of salary per year in stock. I wonder how many shares he took with him.
'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.'
The only CONS around here are the ones that defend this company and make it seem like it has a chance
Having said that, it's worth noting, that Honest John is supposedly a genius.
RT DD confirmed that the company's founder played a significant role in the "illegal manipulation" of JBI/PTOI stock from 2009 to 2013.
What is this? P/E (Trailing Twelve Months) 1.80
Market Capitalization $2.25M
Shares Outstanding 124,756,000
P/E (Trailing Twelve Months) 1.80
The poster, riter1115, is a well known tout from the PCBM days. She and her hubby (who called himself spousalunit and who we renamed spousaleunuch) used to post the mantra that they would not sell "share one, 'til dollars." She continually supports all things scammy. That is who she is, it's what she does. She posts almost exclusively on the clueless board because she cannot abide any independent thought and is wholly unable to answer any straight forward questions. My personal opinion is that she is a compensated flack.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boARDS/read_msg.aspx?message_id=5720894
Spousal Unit
As a non-accelerated filer (less than $75MM float), the 10-K is due 90 days after year end. I'm still convinced that is the reason for the Sept 30 date.
There was some discussion as to whether the Registration Statement that the agreement relies on might expire upon the filing of the 10-K based on the share data reflected therein but I'm no longer convinced of that, especially given that the due date (extended or not) doesn't tie into the agreement expiration date.
Some people understand how the market works. Other people can write little ditties.
Well then, it looks like I stand corrected. Technically, the company could file by 9/1, and already be in the 60 day period.
For the record, I hope this learning lesson becomes a moot point.
I guess you are correct, the float as of today has nothing to do with it. But neither does the share price at 12/31/17.
In an attempt to be perfectly clear, float X share price on 9/30/18 determines whether or not the company can rely on the current S-3 to sell shares after that date.
Based on the current float, if the share price is .70 at that time, my statement is not valid.
"What does close on 9/30/18 is their ability to sell shares under the current S-3 registration."
I know that we've talked about this before. Based on the above I take it that you believe that the missing $ figure below, as it will appear on the face page of the 10-K, will be less than $75M.
"The aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates on December 31, 2017 was $---,---,---(XXX,XXX,XXX shares), based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock of $.70."
But I actually think ipix investors believe LEO placed those milestones in the agreement and that Leo did this because he KNOWS ipix will hit them.
What does close on 9/30/18 is their ability to sell shares under the current S-3 registration.
Appears to be another 8M for $2M.
This is false as of 5/21/18:
b. The Company is current in its reporting obligations as of the most recent fiscal year end and any subsequent quarters, and such information has been posted either on the SEC’s EDGAR system or the OTC Disclosure &
News Service, as applicable.
This is interesting:
Name of Control Person Address (City and State only) Number of Shares Owned
Richard Heddle, President, CEO
and Director
20 Iroquios St, Niagara Falls, NY
14303
5.6%
Jason Aspin, Director 20 Iroquios St, Niagara Falls,
NY 14303
0%
Lee Brain, Director 20 Iroquios St, Niagara Falls,
NY 14303
0%
Well, it's obvious they're brown shirted nazis. I can't wait to hear your theory of why these nazis were in navy boats intentionally heading into Iranian waters. Please tell me, to what end?
Hey Pedro, long time no see. Just curious where you found your info, particularly 2015? The tax return posted to the website shows zero for salaries, and the statement of other deductions, where the other expenses you listed would have been detailed, was omitted.
I think she means the $10K a month for Steve.
My understanding is it's the due date of the 10K, not the Q.
You're probably not surprised that the language regarding the S-3 in the 10-Q confuses me. Is it your understanding that if the unaffiliated market value is <$75M when reported in the next 10K the company will not be able to issue any more shares under the existing Aspire Agreement?
It appears they can continue to rely on the S-3 filing until they have to re-assess the float when the 10K is due. If the float falls below the $75 million at the time the 10K is due, they cannot use the S-3 registration to sell any more shares until such time as the float goes back above $75 million.
"Of course, pursuant to Rule 401 under the Securities Act,
registrants are also required to recompute their public float each time an amendment to the Form S-3 is filed for the purpose of updating the registration statement in accordance with Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act — typically when an annual report on Form
10-K is filed."
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8878.pdf
B1 appears to say that only registrants with more than $75 million market cap can use S-3 to register shares to offer. Not sure what happens when the registrant market cap dips below $75 million subsequent to S3 registration.
B6 is an exception to B1, for registrants with less than $75 million market value, but they have to be on a national exchange to use the B6 exception.
In order to be upset CMKX might trade again, I would first have to be able to conceive the fact that CMKX might trade again.
I can't, therefore I'm not.
Janice did you listen to the meeting...it's been 14 years and CMKX is still alive...why?
Thanks for proving my point Willie.
CMKX trading again is the key.
For your consideration -
Roger Stelma
And since you're including PCBM, Ed Thompson.
Slot them where you will.
Yes, Ameritrade bought those shares to cover the shares they sold to...............wait for it..............RETAIL!!!!
John Martin worked with Phxgold who showed that the share raises never hit retail, in fact they were used to cover Ameritrade and others. That is the chirp f4d got when Bill Frizzell was the owners group lawyer. Bill got the JEFF letter in May 2005, it outlined that Ameritrade was the buyer on the JEFF transactions. They bought 180 billion certs from the share raises, but pretended those shares were sold to us.
Not true. All shares held in street name are in cert form as well (Cede & Co.).
Very few retail shareholders hold their shares in certificate form, so the above doesn't apply to them.
Are you sure? How do you know that all naked shorts didn't cover?
And no one has yet pointed out a provable example of this forced naked short covering CUSIP change nonsense.If anything it was shown to be a failed theory and if I had suggested it I'd be putting as much distance between it and myself as possible.
I disagree with this:
The number used to identify that a shareholder owns x number of shares of a company doesn't change because the name changes. So that wouldn't have forced any change shares be surrendered and re-issued.
Happy Friday Janice. Gates is a private investigator hired and paid by a shareholder group led by "oldepro" and "vngntn" years ago. I believe the lunatic you are conversing with used to post under the name of "gus jarvis".
When the only offers to buy the stock come at the bid, they have no choice but to undercut the ask. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's like magic, eh?
currently known one long's buy @ bid .. tho' input (paraphrasing here) was that the bid was @ 035 (NITE) .. but time stamp shows UC on ask by CDEL for the *trade* something many of us have seen b4 .. legit bid becomes the UC ask .. so the next round of *shorting* down can transpire by NR ..
surprise .. surprise
Wasn't one of the "whales" named Friedman? Any relation?