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.
ADCS still restrictions ?
Not really....
If the markets were to crash this year, and the DOW dropped to $1,000.00 , Good Ole MIKP would still be standing strong.
May ignite the MMJ sector, but not good here.
CC being developed because of current laws, this change in the law just made it obsolete before it even hit the market.
Typical Newbauer, 'Day late & Dollar short'.
Just don't wait too long. This has 2 strikes against it, in the SEC's eyes, as it is:
1) MJ related stocks are on their hit list.
2) Newbauer.
All it would take is a PR with over-inflated numbers or miss a filing deadline, and they may shut her down in an instant.
Thirty days prior, and then forever forward. If you make it on the OTCQB, from that point on you can never have a test bid below $.01. You will be dropped and probably lose any fees you have already paid for the year.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/content/doc/otcqb-fact-sheet.pdf
Unless it is to just pi$$ you off... He does read these boards, afterall.
Hey lucky.
I was poking around the Nevada SOS site and found this:
NEW WAVE INNOVATIONS
Business Entity Information
Status: Default File Date: 1/9/2014
Type: Domestic Corporation Entity Number: E0016252014-7
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 2/28/2014
Managed By: Expiration Date:
NV Business ID: NV20141021238 Business License Exp:
Registered Agent Information
Name: UNITED STATES CORPORATION AGENTS, INC. Address 1: 500 N RAINBOW BLVD STE 300A
Address 2: City: LAS VEGAS
State: NV Zip Code: 89107
Phone: Fax:
Mailing Address 1: Mailing Address 2:
Mailing City: Mailing State: NV
Mailing Zip Code:
Agent Type: Commercial Registered Agent - Corporation
Jurisdiction: NEVADA Status: Active
View all business entities under this registered agent
Financial Information
No Par Share Count: 0 Capital Amount: $ 750.00
Par Share Count: 75,000.00 Par Share Value: $ 0.01
Officers Include Inactive Officers
No active officers found for this company
Actually Lucky, since they let it get to the revoked status, Nevada requires them to re-file in paper form, can't use the online renewal system.
Most read board doesn't mean squat. EES*'s board was on the most read list for over 2 years after it crashed from the SEC investigation. (An interesting tie-in to ADCS is that when Mark first took over this shell, he was working out of the EES* offices as their IR.)
Mostly vague statements, but there are a few questionable tid-bits.
YEP...
Saved them all.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf
SEC. 27A. APPLICATION OF SAFE HARBOR FOR FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS.
(a) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply only to a forwardlooking statement made by—
(1) an issuer that, at the time that the statement is made,
is subject to the reporting requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(2) a person acting on behalf of such issuer;
(3) an outside reviewer retained by such issuer making a
statement on behalf of such issuer; or
(4) an underwriter, with respect to information provided by
such issuer or information derived from information provided
by the issuer.
(b) EXCLUSIONS.—Except to the extent otherwise specifically
provided by rule, regulation, or order of the Commission, this section shall not apply to a forward-looking statement—
(1) that is made with respect to the business or operations
of the issuer, if the issuer—
(A) during the 3-year period preceding the date on
which the statement was first made—
(i) was convicted of any felony or misdemeanor described
in clauses (i) through (iv) of section 15(b)(4)(B)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or
(ii) has been made the subject of a judicial or administrative
decree or order arising out of a governmental
action that—
(I) prohibits future violations of the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws;
(II) requires that the issuer cease and desist
from violating the antifraud provisions of the securities
laws; or
(III) determines that the issuer violated the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws;
(B) makes the forward-looking statement in connection
with an offering of securities by a blank check company;
(C) issues penny stock;
(D) makes the forward-looking statement in connection
with a rollup transaction; or
(E) makes the forward-looking statement in connection
with a going private transaction; or
(2) that is—
(A) included in a financial statement prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;
(B) contained in a registration statement of, or otherwise
issued by, an investment company;
(C) made in connection with a tender offer;
(D) made in connection with an initial public offering;
(E) made in connection with an offering by, or relating
to the operations of, a partnership, limited liability company,
or a direct participation investment program; or
(F) made in a disclosure of beneficial ownership in a
report required to be filed with the Commission pursuant
to section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
'Safe harbor' only protects fully reporting SEC companies. So until he files the form 10, he is not protected. Even after he files, any PRs prior to the filing are not covered.
Pink sheet companies just like to include the safe harbor statement in their PRs to make it look like they are covered, hoping to avoid talk of lawsuits.
SHOW ME THE LETTER!!
The DTC sends out a letter to the company, when they remove a chill, where is it?
Mark got them to remove the chill from his other company, the letter is posted in that company's I-box for all to see. (Of course the SEC stepped in there a few weeks later and locked it down again.)
So, if they removed it here, Mark should be able to produce the letter.... Waiting Mark.....
Too many 't's and not enough 'p's
Working fine for me.
http://mtpprods.com/
Known Mark for years, not him.
They are talking about the alleged accountants doing the supposed audit.
His reply to somebody, in his facebook post of the Family Ties theme song.
You know, the song that starts out:
Feels like we've been together for a million years, and we'll be together for a million more.
ooops!!
Mark B. Newbauer FYI I am really excited about our Form 10 but I don't know who misinterpreted what to fuel the rumor about April 15th being a deadline we gave but we never said any such thing. For the record,in fact, what I told a shareholder was that our Auditor is slammed through April 15 due to tax season which is why it's taking longer than we hoped (the audit)
51 mins · Like · 1
So, is he trying to tell us that it will be another million years?!?!?
Supposedly, it is in the hands of the auditor, so Mark can blame them when it isn't done in time. After all, it can't be his fault...
You are joking, right?!?!?
If we become fully reporting, our EOY financials would be due by April 15th. So I think Mark sees that as a good target date to get us back in the game, current filings and on time.
GLTA
Wrong...
CANN suspended March 27th:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2014/34-71814-o.pdf
Moved to Greys April 2nd:
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dailylist_detail.asp?mkt_ctg=ALL&d=04/02/2014
Wrong site:
http://www.advancedcontentinc.com/
Maybe the State of Nevada...
https://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=807
The Secretary of State may refer any non-compliant business to the Attorney General's office or respective District Attorney for further investigation. Actions subject to complaint and possible administrative action pursuant to NRS include without limitation:
Conducting business in Nevada as a NRS Title 7 entity (Corporation, LLC, etc.) without filing the appropriate organizational documents (proper registration) with the Secretary of State.
Sole Proprietors, Partnerships, or others doing business in Nevada without maintaining a state business license with the Secretary of State.
NRS Title 7 entities conducting business in Nevada while in a revoked, permanently revoked, dissolved, merged out, or any status other than active or default.
Very factual, charter is revoked.
The company reports, at the link you provided, show that they are a 'Nevada Corporation'. And since that is the only 'Advanced Content' anything registered in Nevada, that is either the correct information or they have been lying in their financials.
Incorp Services is the registering agent, an entity that sponsors companies that want to be registered in a state without having a physical presence, Which they did not have until recently.
I have seen that before. RSs are required to round-up partial shares, but sometimes that rounded up share comes a little later. Probably due to the logjam of paperwork for the TA from the large number of shares.
GLTA
Everybody here has said he is a bit on the arrogant side.
My theory is that the attorneys were telling him all along to give up, but he thought he could bamboozle the judge into wiping out his mistakes (toxic debt). When the judge didn't give him full access to the DIP financing, he realized the battle was lost.
For all we know he may have just walked away, since we haven't seen any filings since the letter.
GLTA
I heard a blurb on the nightly news a few weeks back that said the Feds offered to give some lee-way to the banks. As long as they followed state guidance in those states where legal.
The banks basically replied 'Thanks, but No Thanks', who is to say the next administration won't rescind the changes and then they are stuck holding monies that could be considered tainted.
I installed a new standard tanked unit just before buying here three years ago. Do you suppose they will have this ready for production by the time it gives out, in about another ten years??
GLTA
The way I read it is that they can object to the court's choice of trustee, not the Chapter 7. They already had their chance for that, and withdrew it.
GLTA
'Merchant Services' = Credit/Debit/Pre-paid card processing, which they already announced.
I figured you were probably stressed out, from trying to knock some sense into the peeps over there.
I read the 8Ks.
It wasn't payment in full, it was nearly payment in full. It was $2.75 million of the $2.8 million principal and did not include any past due interest or late fees.
Maybe we, as shareholders, can sue ADC* for theft of our IP. That must be the only reason they wanted to buy SN from us back then. They just wanted to see our secret documents showing how SN works!!
GLTA
Plus, the quote in the PR regarding the 'school fuel' card, is pretty much a direct copy from the original SN site. You know, back when SN actually existed & worked, prior to Mark.
If he does 'pull something out from his pockets', I'm sure the judge will want to know exactly when that 'something' came into existence.
If the judge finds the Scheer was holding back information from the BK proceedings, upset shareholders will be the least of his worries.
Can you say perjury, contempt of court, ...