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.
Wasn't there supposed to be a company news release today?
I agree with you 100%...I would never suggest anyone invest/not invest based on what I have posted. The information I post is reliable and verifiable information that shows the history of the company and it's management. My posts are for those that haven't been able to DD the company, or may be new to investing and haven't yet had the opportunity to learn as much as they may want/need about the company.
Regardless of the "reliable source"...I'm NOT a source for the information. All the information I've posted has come directly from the company in the form of disclosures. PR's, and occasional filings that they themselves have disseminated to the public......what myself and others have done is shown the inaccurate, illegal, and untruthful information they have put out, along with their trail of miserably failed attempts to operate this company, and many other failed companies. Keep in mind that a PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY is required by law to disclose truthful and accurate information to the investing public. If they FAIL to do so, then one of the consequences is a suspension of trading and an SEC investigation of the information THE COMPANY has put out to the general public.
I agree with you 100% on that...we don't really know who is currently "CEO". of Pilgrim Petroleum. I would venture to say that regardless who is, Pinedo still has his grubby little fingers involved in one way or another.
well...who really knows for sure. The information put out comes from the company. The state of Texas did not go to them and ask, nor did the State of Wyoming, or Delaware. The information in the disclosures provided by the CPA's ( Quarterly/Annual reports)wer all derived from the information the company submitted to them. Soooooo.... it appears they have disseminated inaccurate information on several different occasions.
here ya go. Pinedo has been in control from day one for "Pilgrim Petroleum". The name was changed from "BNP Petroleum" to "Pilgrim Petroleum" on n 7-5-05 By Pinedo, who was the "President" of BNP Petroleum at the time.
below links show Pinedo as President. I know these aren't "official filings" with the SEC...but they are publicly disclosed information put out by Pinedo/Pilgrim Petroleum.
This is the Delaware Doc showing the name change..No company pesonnel named. One would assume Pinedo submitted.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=PGPM&id=12285
Corporate bylaws showing Pinedo as President on June 1, 2005
https://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=PGPM&id=12284
This was back in 2005.
This one shows the name change
https://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=PGPM&id=8673
This one shows Pinedo as President of BNP Petroleum before the name change
https://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=PGPM&id=3863
Here is a question for you. What is the difference between "CEO" and "President" of a company? Specifically in regards to a company such as Pilgrim Petroleum that is an extremely small company within the realm of business size.
If a person is the "President" or "CEO" of an extremely small employee sized company, one would assume that person is in control and has the ability/authority to make command decisions that affect the Company's business decisions and directions. So one could easily assume the titles "president" and "CEO" in this case would most likely be the same position, and interchangeable...just a play on the vernacular is how I see it.
The guy is real, and he lives in the Dallas area.
would the corporate bylaws showing Pinedo as President/director satisfy your concerns?
Pinedo was in control well before 2012. He was listed as "President" of PGPM. Would one assume that also could/would imply "CEO"? a good question.
yeah...it just amazes me how a man with access to over half a billion dollars has sooo many little problems...like filing for bankruptcy...getting his house foreclosed on...owing the TRCC hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgements...maybe he can hire his wife to be his secretary so he doesn't forget so many things.
Jeffery Fanning has been involved for a long time...and AIRTRONA is another of pinhead's past failed companies.
That isn't true...at least about him coming on board.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/pilgrim-petroleum-reports-2007-record-profitability-and-performance-frankfurt-phv-816266.htm
SOURCE: Pilgrim Petroleum Corporation
January 31, 2008 10:56 ET
Pilgrim Petroleum Reports 2007 Record Profitability and Performance
IRVING, TX--(Marketwire - January 31, 2008) - Pilgrim Petroleum Corporation (PINKSHEETS: PGPM) (FRANKFURT: PHV) is pleased to announce its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. Exceeding expectations, Pilgrim's Net Revenues for the year totaled $410,096 as compared with $1,471,507 in 2006, a decrease of 72% compared with 2006 as a result of debenture of properties last year. Net Income, on the other hand, was $33,725,949 compared with $516,814 last year, demonstrating an escalating increase year after year. On profitability and efficiency measures, Pilgrim proved to stand above average, showing a return on equity (ROE) of 94% and an ROA of 80% for the year ended December 31, 2006. On its financial leverage side, Pilgrim kept debt ratio at its minimum, reflecting just 15% while debt-to-equity ratio showed only 17%. Additionally, the company declared a 25% stock dividend to the holders of record as December 12, 2007. Additional developments worth mentioning are the board of the directors will be approving additional dividend options for holders of common stock and new additions to management.
Rafael Pinedo, President and CEO of Pilgrim Petroleum Corporation, commented, "2007 results definitely exceeded our expectations. Management strongly believes that Pilgrim Petroleum is a young, fast growing company with great potential. Every year Pilgrim commits to incremental improvements and with this strong start, Pilgrim will continue its growth strategy and development of its properties for the new fiscal year."
quite possibly OTCM has a glitch and showing an older page...who knows...the pilgrim website however still shows Smith as the CEO, and Bulloch Dupertuis Seger & Company as the CPA.
http://www.pilgrimpetroleum.com/investor.html
So that would put 10 years right in there.
actually Pilgrim has been "around" a lot longer than 11 years. The name Pilgrim Petroleum PLC was first incorporated in Delaware on 7/11/1979 File Number 875737. There is a second Pilgrim Petroleum PLC incorporated in Delaware on 12/3/1998 file Number 2972929.
OTCM shows an incorporation date of 1997, so I believe we are concerned with the 1998 Pilgrim Petroleum.
soemthing interesting I noticed on OTCM...they no longer show Smith as the CEO...it again shows Pinedo as the President.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PGPM/profile
They are also as you know, incorporated in Wyoming.
Below is the Wyoming info...see if you can find the discrepancy.
I would say about 10 years worth of data and links.
how will anyone get "refunded"?. where would the money come from?
short volume is approx. 12.7 mil...at suspend price that is around $50k value.
http://otcshortreport.com/?index=PGPM&action=view
at .0001 that is a decent profit for shorts...depending on how many....but a drop in the bucket compared to the $600+ mil Credit Facility Pinedo set up for pgpm.
We have a guy that filed for bankruptcy a few years back, lost his house, has a judgement against him from the TRCC for several hundred thousand dollars, has zero profitable companies, all "business" transactions are shown to be basically with himself or companies he is/was CEO of...do ya wonder where this $600+ million dollar credit line is coming from?...is it real...or just paper.
The NEW CEO has yet to prove anything...we do know he has another company called Striper Energy, ticker CPCCD that was suspended by the SEC for essentially the same reasons that pgpm was suspended...that company is STILL on the grey sheets over a year later.
not much of a warm fuzzy here.
I disagree...when you are being investigated that means they ALREADY have information that they believe shows something that is NOT legal.
Next step for the company is to try to disprove that belief. ( hire Attorney, CPA ) Could be the company didn't disclose information that justifies a position/claim/status...could be the company failed to include specific required information...could be an honest mistake on their part and they need to resolve with disclosure....could be they screwed the pooch on this and got caught....and are now attempting a CYA.
Either way...hiding isn't what they are going to attempt unless they decide to physically run to avoid jail....which by the way did actually happen in another case...and that company CEO is now in FTC Oklahoma City and gets out in 2031.
you know he won't answer..I asked him pretty much the same thing for his "Q&A"...totally ignored my questions....lol
Most likely that's why they hired an attorney and a CPA firm...in hopes of NOT going to jail.
the biggest issue now is not the suspension...it's getting their ass(ets) in a LEGAL, ACCURATE, and compliant filing. And finding an MM that is willing to spend the time doing the DD and submit a 211. The SEC wants answers...who knows how long it will take to satisfy them..if that can even be done. The 211 can take months by itself just to get approved,(FINRA is never in a rush) let alone finding an MM willing to risk their marbles. Everyone now knows the SEC will be watching, and who in their right mind ( MM )would take the chance. way too many other opportunities for the MM's out there.
Form 211 (SEC Rule 15c2-11)
https://www.finra.org/industry/faq-otcbb-frequently-asked-questions#600
some other good info at the above link as well.
What is a Form 211?
Form 211 is the form which must be completed pursuant to FINRA Rule 6432 and submitted to the FINRA OTC Compliance Unit to initiate or resume quotations in the OTCBB, OTC Markets or any other quotation medium pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-11. To view or print the Form 211, please visit our Forms Page. A 211 Addendum Form must be submitted in addition to the Form 211 for the OTCBB.
After a Form 211 is filed, how long until the security can begin quotation on the OTCBB?
There is no standard time to process a 211 and clear the market maker to begin quoting a security on the OTCBB. The time it takes to review a 211 may vary significantly depending on many factors including whether or not FINRA has to request additional information from the market maker that submitted the form and upon how long it takes the market maker to respond to requests for additional information.;
How do I check the status of a Form 211 filing?
Contact the FINRA OTC Compliance Unit. Please note that the Form 211 review process is proprietary and, thus, FINRA will only discuss details of the filing or review directly with the firm that submitted the Form 211.
Do financials submitted with the Form 211 have to be audited?
The periodic reporting requirements relied upon by FINRA Rule 6530 require annual audits of an issuer's financial statements for quoting on OTCBB. However, current FINRA rules do not require audited financial statements for quoting on other quotation mediums, but they should be prepared in accordance with GAAP or, for foreign issuers, in accordance with their home country's accounting standards.
Do I have to file a Form 211 for a security delisted from an exchange?
An exchange delisted issuer that wishes to be quoted on the OTCBB should contact their market makers to request that they complete a Form 211 for review and processing.
Bruce Berkowitz Comments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bruce-berkowitz-comments-fannie-mae-224453353.html
By Holly LaFon
Daniel Schmerin: The remaining Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) questions pertain to the ongoing litigation so I'd like us to turn to David Thompson from Cooper & Kirk, whose team has been representing the Fairholme Fund ( Trades , Portfolio ) on behalf of all our shareholders. David, I get to speak to you every day but our shareholders do not, so given the large number of questions that we've received on this topic I wonder if you could begin by providing some historical context.
How do these cases compare to Glendale Savings or the Winstar litigations? And have you ever seen such blatant overreach by the administrative state before?David Thompson: Dan, I think there are a lot of parallels to the Winstar situation. Back in the late 1980s, the government upended settled expectations of investors in financial institutions and specifically the S&L industry. And we brought suit challenging that governmental action. Very few people thought we would succeed and indeed, when we went to the Court of Appeals for the first time, we lost two to one, just as we have in the Perry Capital case.
We ultimately prevailed seven to two before the Supreme Court in that case, and I think the lesson we learned is that the path to victory isn't without some bumps along the road. I think this path to victory will be more expeditious because the issues are not as factually complicated and we're proceeding in multiple forums, but I do think that's a powerful historical analogy.Daniel Schmerin: Can you discuss the current state of play in the Court of Federal Claims? Where do we stand on discovery? How do you feel about the results to date, and what are the anticipated next steps?
David Thompson: Just to refresh recollections, when we had our last call together, at that point we had been very upset that the government had given us a privilege log with over 12,000 items. It was really the mother of all privilege logs. So we selected 56 documents for the court to look at to see if the government had been turning square corners.
The court agreed with us that the government had improperly withheld all 56 of those documents. The government appealed since our last call to the Federal Circuit and prevailed on four presidential privilege documents, but on 48 of the 52 deliberative process documents, the government lost. So it was remanded back and we went to the court and said, Your Honor, if they're wrong on 48 of the 52 documents that we've randomly selected, they should have to go back and reassess all the others. And they were ordered to do so through the full privilege log and we've now received over 3,500 additional documents. We're continuing to skirmish a little bit in the weeks ahead, but discovery should end shortly. We're very gratified that we have insisted on our rights and on receiving documents that should not be improperly withheld, and we'll be amending our complaint in the coming months, and then our case will move forward to adjudication on the merits.Daniel Schmerin: The cases brought around the country under the Administrative Procedure Act have had only limited success to date. Can you discuss the D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in our case and next steps for us and other similarly situated plaintiffs?
David Thompson: Sure. So the D.C. Circuit ruled at the end of February of this year and we were gratified that Judge Janice Rogers Brown saw the case exactly the way we see the case. I'd like to just read to you a few of the quotes from her excellent dissent. Thanks to our Court of Claims discovery, she said that "information recently obtained in this litigation creates, to put it mildly, a dispute of fact regarding the motivations behind FHFA and Treasury's decision to execute the Third Amendment."
She continued, FHFA "pole vaulted over" the boundaries of its statutory authority when it agreed to the Net Worth Sweep, "disregarding the plain text of its authorizing statute and engaging in ultra vires conduct."
She added, "Having been appointed as conservator for the companies, FHFA was obligated to behave in a manner consistent with the conservator role as it is defined in HERA or risk intervention by courts." She went on to say that by imposing the Net Worth Sweep, Treasury received a contractual right from FHFA "to loot the companies to the guaranteed exclusion of all other investors," and "FHFA's decision to strip these cash reserves from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, consistently divesting the companies of their near entire net worth, is plainly antithetical to a conservator's charge to 'preserve and conserve' the companies' assets. She added, "The capital depletion accomplished in the Third Amendment, regardless of motive, is patently incompatible with any definition of the conservator role ... rendering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mere pass-through entities for huge amounts of money destined for Treasury does exactly that which FHFA has deemed impermissible." She went on to say, "The practical effect of the Court's ruling is pernicious. By holding, contrary to the Act's text, FHFA need not declare itself as either a conservator or receiver and then act in a manner consistent with the well-defined powers associated with its chosen role, the Court has disrupted settled expectations about financial markets in a manner likely to negatively affect the nation's overall financial health." She concluded, "What might serve in a banana republic will not do in a constitutional one." It is a powerful opinion, yet unfortunately, it was a dissent. There were two judges on the panel who disagreed. Now, one might say how could you look at the Net Worth Sweep and conclude that it is consistent with the statute's language that FHFA is supposed to preserve and conserve assets and operate institutions in a sound and solvent manner? I would submit that it is impossible to square that language with the Net Worth Sweep. And the majority essentially conceded as much, because the maneuver the majority employed was to say that those are mere suggestions, that they're not binding on the FHFA, and so FHFA wasn't required to operate the companies in a sound and solvent manner. And the problem with that argument and holding is that for years in official filings and sworn written statements, the FHFA has consistently acknowledged that those are statutory mandates. In sworn testimony to Congress just last month, Mel Watt said, "FHFA's statutory mandate obligates it to conserve and preserve the assets of the enterprises while they are in conservatorship." So we feel very confident that the line of analysis adopted by the Perry Capital majority - and that was really the linchpin of the decision - is not going to withstand judicial scrutiny.
It's likely that you'll see a cert petition filed in the coming months in Perry Capital and if the Supreme Court takes that case, we'll get a decision about a year from now.
In addition, Cooper & Kirk has now been retained in four cases that we had been closely following but we are now counsel of record for those cases in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. The Sixth Circuit oral argument will be on July 27, and I think it is reasonable to expect that we might well get a decision by the end of the year out of the Sixth Circuit. There is a lot going on around the country.Daniel Schmerin: Good. Are there any other legal avenues that plaintiffs are exploring?
David Thompson: Yes, there are. Just in the last couple of weeks, there are two very interesting new suits that have been launched in Michigan and Minnesota, and we're following them closely because they are premised on the idea that even if the government is absolutely right about the factual background of the Net Worth Sweep and the reasons why they did it - and discovery has shown they're not - but even if they were right, these suits say the Net Worth Sweep must be invalidated on the basis of three separate theories.
The first is the separation of powers theory. Namely, that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It is an agency that we are told is immune from judicial oversight. It is immune from congressional oversight because it doesn't rely on Congress for appropriations. It's immune from presidential oversight because the president can only remove the director for cause. And it has a single director, not a multimember panel which is more frequent among independent agencies. To my knowledge, there is only one other prominent agency that is so constituted and it's the CFPB. And both are obviously of recent vintage, and the CFPB was recently ruled unconstitutional on exactly this theory by a majority of the D.C. Circuit. The second theory is the Appointments Clause, which requires principal officers to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. In this instance, Ed DeMarco, when he was the acting director of FHFA and signed the Net Worth Sweep, had been acting for three years and these lawsuits maintain that it's inconsistent with the Appointments Clause to put someone in as a principal officer in an acting capacity for three years. That would just be way too easy an end run around the Appointments Clause. The final theory is nondelegation, which is a constitutional doctrine that says that agencies need to have an intelligible principle that binds their conduct. Well, of course, the Perry Capital majority said that the intelligible principle of preserving and conserving assets and operating the institutions in a sound and solvent manner was not binding at all. And so these new lawsuits are saying that if that's correct, then we have a nondelegation problem because there is no intelligible principle binding the FHFA because it can do whatever it wants. So those are two suits to be watching. The first theory is present in the Fifth Circuit appeal that we'll be handling in a case called Collins , but all very important litigation that is proceeding.
Daniel Schmerin: Another shareholder focused on the violations by big banks of federal securities laws and common law in the sale of residential private-label mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he asked why plaintiffs have not brought direct or derivative suits against those big banks for the harm they caused to the GSEs?
David Thompson: The short answer is that the companies themselves have brought that litigation and have garnered settlements well in excess of $20 billion. So it wouldn't make sense to try to bring a derivative case when the companies have already directly vindicated their rights. That is pretty much water under the bridge at this point.
Daniel Schmerin: What is your assessment of the timeline for this multifaceted legal fight, and what events should we mark down on our calendars as we look ahead to the remainder of 2017?
David Thompson: As I noted, on July 27 the Sixth Circuit will be having oral arguments in a case that is very similar to Perry Capital and we expect that an opinion may be rendered before the end of the year. So that'll be a very important moment. Certainly if the cert petition for Perry Capital is filed as we expect later this year, it will be important to see whether the Supreme Court grants cert and that should probably happen toward the end of the calendar year.
We'll be amending our complaint in the Court of Federal Claims and bringing together the fruits of all of the documents that we found that are helpful, including from those 3,500 additional documents that we recently received. I think six to 12 months from now, we're going to know a lot more than we do right now. So there are number of important events over the next year.Daniel Schmerin: If you have to summarize the most important points for someone who is new to the situation, what would you say to them?
David Thompson: I would say we are in multiple forums and there are multiple theories that are moving forward. If a plaintiff wins in just one of these places, the Net Worth Sweep will be enjoined on a nationwide basis. As in Winstar, the path to victory may not be without setbacks along the way, but we remain very confident that the federal judiciary will not uphold the Net Worth Sweep.
Daniel Schmerin: Thank you, David.
David Thompson: My pleasure.
Pinedo is the CEO of the Parent company of pgpm.... a question...why would he want to have the parent company located in the UK? why not in the USA.
London & General Management Limited
http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/london-general-management-limited-10843955/
now you know why their "new" ventures are located in Oklahoma and Wyoming.
what a blantant lie...thats all they have been saying in their PR's...
They keep it in the family
http://marriage-divorce-records.mooseroots.com/l/45901995/Kimberly-A-Tiemersma
Kimberly A. Tiemersma
Spouse: Rafael A. Pinedo
Marriage Date: April 28, 2007
Location: Dallas County, Texas
Born (approx.): 1968
agreed...he doesn't own the house today. from Dallas county tax office.
Account Number
321075400A0020000
Owner's Name & Address
PENNYMAC HOLDINGS LLC
6101 CONDOR DR STE 310
MOORPARK, CA 93021-2602
Property Site Address
4733 WINDSOR RIDGE DR, CI
THE ENCLAVE AT TPC LAS COLINAS
Legal Discription
BLK A LT 2 & PT LT 1
JURIS SPLIT SEE 321075400A0010100
INT201500017316 DD01092015 CO-DC
1075400A00200 2CI1075400A
thank you sir...you wouldn't by chance have a copy of the complaint. I'm curious to know what/why he filed to begin with.
TIA
Here is the info involving Pinhead's foreclosure.
I don't have access to PACER...but maybe someone that does would care to check it out and post the findings
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2016cv00532/270437
thank you sir...I missed that.
http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/london-general-management-limited-10843955/
Company Information / Profile
Registration Number 10843955
Date of Incorporation Fri, 30th Jun 2017
Industry Activities of investment trusts
End of financial Year 30th June
Company age less than 1 month
Account next due date Sun, 31st Mar 2019 (639 days left)
Return next due date Fri, 13th Jul 2018 (378 days left)
Account category no accounts filed
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0zBjMe1L23KtzOaZalrKz0WOJTjf562YEWEJzBoaxN0/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIU4FQI4DTMKH2IXA&Expires=1499714212&Signature=TVEAbqDfC2q0%2FYnjK2Ieq9E39xI%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEJT%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDMM1hpuaZmLLc8Z2USK3A0xeABv0dhGz6Mo%2BnQvRP9B%2B3kWJLkykt2iISleL6KjAj%2Bmi52S6NeBevcUOW5hDz8sp%2BPbbU6fvPDc5Vo6hy0cHjJRpmp4UBAsLN7P08UQD3vVbaXdo%2B763j0yuN89bdUpWGw0HH%2BspLGDbZi%2FiLlG7mKL9p6GnSQwK6LmjuuOm%2B2KyATfoI41g7%2BeUp%2BbrsXH5EnStMVO%2Fn8BJ6%2BZGvY47SbiMHnxL7oj4saw05ru46fhg%2Bb%2BQT7%2FKT1rKSSgC8FWgXglJYWD8Cry0AG28O%2FnGBDSU1kne31DRYZF9rzhMd54Wx2n%2FMereBFG7zLOWThzHIdelbBTMAsXvkey3O%2BAbY9ntC21z7dkZAMq07vONnWz4f9iLAd%2BdmQF4GGJRoGIgXS1Z2EUQXvqF7gTPrD78raOfvPRjYaE7WM32p9B3bDqHuH93uYGkIfoJ7t0x6qTG9SwzJIHVU5c15hSxAC2lyA%2BWsdXRZp3jdP7B0E0N9%2BYaqiurkFobDz3kRN%2BkmRe9u%2B5rYQ8qPJPu0GAdtPvt0J1UUihY8WHgqQAVC434GfGYWzOGoK2oMH%2F5u0Hcqv5k3iJ8D%2B8owYuPywU%3D
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/rpCjY9RciwQPCt2UE1InPgFbvdfCrS1wFs6W199X9ts/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJCPKUTMBPPZPF66A&Expires=1499714306&Signature=dwDtdptx35hEBZKAmDQzDgU5paQ%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDMw8Mpparnwp6P%2FfXiK3A0LF3VZaT%2BJbXNNoNAOJaD3LQDJQIdXdSW3LI4gvFKZ58pd1b9h2OXAqOXrQAnIEZFzk2%2BLWaL%2BAEYe8WLD%2BvgY0S4CS7KSUAJXoXZRRcVAdWSR5KKBy07YpR7DW4yZNrj5JtTZivp86WO8SH7aQT8WZ46DYpBoYjrtJsVZ3hN3x3jXvk%2FPOA8E%2FMQbjopW%2FLUePvuWKC2n4Sm4QVQzZY4fZoXs0YI3PXsCZIA4tpMfK9xfkLOnETZPSgumV4b6%2FdTlZIDTEgT8dSP56%2FR9dz0kWv16wsyaomHl65g%2BuPBUVFlza6NYKujlveAF5wE4OgVjOxxhdV66V7ddK7m7ptscA8ct7N0VOquaCxK3%2BRHxSi5ap1fGjxtFxMEJT6r9Rsg%2F4D7s1YJwn6VWOwtP1hpgOsZKuLpCxAyfa6s%2Fnmq3tjoGaRRt4MgjCrpzvo2jPnRCoYkxI0jpW3IOlQBlneeHhDhrjVaKowugPo58H0wWILOQeCI27zryBXWmKupF0otI%2FnFBztX9p0gvVMhrpYdNkJi1fRPJ1GfrOjl6eYHXZe9Gj7VRoSCanD6f3AbjHALRypz97kSoo%2BpuOywU%3D
one of the old CEO's...Matt O'Bryant...had posted on ihub years ago...he stated at one point Pinehead had been a military pilot...I am thinking he said an Airforce pilot. Unfortunately there is no military record for him. I suppose he could have his pilot's license...a plausible reason to have something at the airport. More than likely you are correct about the aviation parts.
on another note...I have been doing some research and have pretty much come to a dead end.
The Parent company..PILGRIM PETROLEUM PLC. Doesn't appear to exist. I have not been able to find anything on it. I know it WAS at one time listed on the website, but is now no longer there.
Pilgrim Petroleum PLC (Private
Company) UK
Pilgrim Petroleum PLC: Canary
Wharf Center, 25 Canada Square
821, Canary Wharf London E14
5LB, UK
no registration in the UK...none in the USA...the above listed address is bogus. They do NOT have an office at that location.
also
this post by QTraderQ back a few months ago.
on the pgpm board...post # 27794
QTRADERQ Wednesday, 05/17/17 09:13:46 AM
Re: Wishful Thinking post# 27440
Post # of 59642
The private PILGRIM PETROLEUM PLC entity DOES NOT exist. There is NO registration for the name. So any hope of a RM with a fictitious entity is a dream. Check any of the below sources. It DOESN'T exist!
This is the United Kingdom's registrar of PLC companies. Try to find it. You can't! It's fictitious ...
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company-name-availability?q=pilgrim+petroleum
http://www.start.biz/business_names/search
https://www.ukplc.com/documents-and-filing/company-documentation/certificate-of-incorporation.html
oh yeah...I live in the area and have been to all the "offices" of pgpm...no one has EVER been available. years ago I posted pics of the addison airport "office HQ"...nothing to indicate pgpm was there...broken windows, and pretty much deserted. I did go by there a couple months ago and it appears someone is in the building now...but still nothing to indicate pgpm is HQ'd there.
4400 Westgrove Drive
Suite 106
Addison, Texas 75001
that is not entirely correct...it is an actual office.
Problem is..it is NOT the office of pgpm.
they do bookkeeping and other accounting procedures. They have quite a few clients, and it appears some of those clients use their address as their corporate office address. so I guess in a sense, it is a virtual office of sorts. Rather misleading of course as pgpm has/had a corporate office at addison airport in an old hanger.
http://www.bswcpas.com/contact.html
agreed...the share issue is a major red flag...I feel just as important, is where the MONEY is coming from..does it even exist...easy to say so on paper. They said pretty much all the same stuff 7 - 10 years ago and look what happened...they went dark for 7 years....left a lot of us as senior bag holders.
I am aware of that PR...and what is this..the 3rd or 4th time Pinedo has left pgpm? It's all an orchestrated game...build up piles and piles of paperwork so it is harder and harder to find the truth buried down in the myriad of disclosures and PR's.
Pinedo no longer being the CEO doesn't absolve him of responsibility.
yeah...making a "mistake" on half the company's shares....lol.
and they did it more than once.
I recall hearing about the 5 billion, but do not remember the particulars of it. What I was pointing out is that the AS and OS are now equal...in order for that to happen, the COMPANY would have had to sell treasury shares...they explicitly stated no shares have been sold.
look at item # 3 page 1 of the disclosure
per pgpm
Total
shares authorized : 2.000.000.000
as of: April 27 2017
Total shares outstanding : 1,152,459,514
as of: April 27 2017
and yes...all those are Pinedo companies on page 5.
agreed...the $330 million is attached to Pilgrim Petroleum PLC. Question is...where is the money coming from? Every company involved is owned/controlled by Pinedo. There has been ZERO transactions by any of these companies with any other entities outside (Pinedo owned/controlled) of themselves.
"suspicious" is looking like a pretty mild view point.
you might find this link insightful as well...especially at the bottom...shares owned....page 5 section C
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=PGPM&id=172900
thought this might be helpful as well to anyone interested.
Here is my point.
read the below PR that was released OCT of 2016.
each and every company is controlled by Pinedo. Pilgrim has no money...they are controlled by Pinedo...they have no money, yet they are able to "complete it's acquisition" of listed properties for approximately $330 MILLION DOLLARS....they "acquire" those properties from a company controlled by Pinedo....which is inactive and has no money.
They buy from a company controlled by Pinedo, which incidentally has ZERO transactions with ANY company outside of the Pinedo transaction.
The company Crescent Hill Capital Corp that is providing the $615 MILLION DOLLAR credit facility?...you guessed it...owned and controlled by Pinedo. Surprisingly Crescent has ZERO business transactyions with any other company outside of Pinedo controlled companies. They have ONE employee...Pinedo...where is the money coming from? One would think that the CEO of a company able to provide $615 MILLION DOLLARS as a credit facility would make or have enough money to keep from having his house foreclosed on....would be ble to pay his companies bills and not be indebted to the TRCC for hundreds of thousands of dollars...would have at least ONE viable and profitable company. Check all companies Pinedo is/was associated with...NONE have made a penny. Most are dormant/dark/inactive.
I know you WANT pgpm to work out and be a successful company...I've been in it for 10 years...sold most of my holdings on this last spike up, but it took 10 years to get out. Years of research and in depth DD has proven to me that pgpm...Pinedo...Smith...all this...nothing more than a SCAM.
Ohhh...and the share structure...a bit misleading over the past few months...seems a few hundred million shares were sold into the market, though the new CEO claims none were. the Authorized and Outstanding shares are now equal at 2 billion...4 months ago the OS was 1.1 billion.
amd his bankruptcy...see post # 121944 on the board DD Support Board and Fraud Research Team
Pilgrim Petroleum Completes Acquisition Of Controlling Interest Oil And Gas Assets
Dallas, Texas , Oct. 20, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pilgrim Petroleum PLC a private company and subsidiaries, an independent oil and gas company, has completed its acquisition of an 79% controlling interest in the announced acquisition of Bakken, Eagle Ford and Woodford Shale assets for approximately $330 million net of customary closing adjustments. The assets include approximately 210,000 acres with most of the position held by production. American Capital Investment LLC has agreed to sell 100% of its equity interest in its oil and gas subsidiary Alpha Petroleum Resources LP (Texas Corporation) to Crescent Hill Capital Corp a Dallas Texas private equity firm providing a credit facility at closing of $615 million US Dollars, including an amendment to its credit agreement to, among other things (i) extend the working capital, (ii) reflect the repayment in full of all term loans thereunder including existing debt, (iii) increase the borrowing base up to 20%. In connection with the closing of the transaction, Crescent Hill Capital's investment in Pilgrim Petroleum PLC represents a new tack by private equity firms backing modern and experience wildcatters to gradually build portfolios of mineral rights.
Rafael A Pinedo, Chairman of Pilgrim, said the company would never have seen as many opportunities to put together so much acreage as demand has started to soared exponentially as new drilling techniques to extract crude at a profit are available despite low oil prices; Stephen Richardson, Pilgrim Petroleum President and CEO said, "The success would depend on whether the oil price recovery holds as will continue to acquire properties to increase our company valuation." also, Richardson Announces the reorganization of subsidiaries and consolidation will be announce by December 5, 2016, this will include plans for fiscal year 2017.
**********************************************
American Capital Investment, LLC Overview
American Capital Investment, LLC filed as a Domestic Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the State of Texas on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 and is approximately fourteen years old, according to public records filed with Texas Secretary of State.
Ratael Pinedo
Director
Known Addresses for American Capital Investment, LLC
4020 N Macarthur Blvd Irving, TX 75038
3050 Regent Blvd Irving, TX 75063
Corporate Notes
[Texas Secretary of State] 7/24/2009 Tax Forfeiture
[Texas Secretary of State] 6/27/2012 Reinstatement
American Capital Investments LLC
Investor Relations
300 South Duncan Ave.
Suite 295
Clearwater, FL 33755
619-864-0166
*********************************************
Alpha Petroleum Resources, Lp Overview
Alpha Petroleum Resources, Lp filed as a Domestic Limited Partnership (LP) in the State of Texas on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 and is approximately thirteen years old, according to public records filed with Texas Secretary of State.
Known Addresses for Alpha Petroleum Resources, Lp
4020 N Macarthur Blvd Irving, TX 75038
3050 Regent Blvd Irving, TX 75063
Rafael Pinedo
President at Alpha Petroleum Resources Ltd.
Overview
Age
49 (Born 1968)
Notable Companies
Alpha Petroleum Resources Ltd.
Zerez Holdings
Gold & GemStone Mining, Inc.
Board Seats
6
Alpha Petroleum Resources, Lp lists two other companies as an officer in their company.
American Bnp Resources LLC Active General Partner
Crescent Hill Capital Corporation Active General Partner
[Texas Secretary of State] 8/28/2009 Tax Forfeiture
[Texas Secretary of State] 6/30/2011 Reinstatement
[Texas Secretary of State] 8/30/2011 Certificate of Amendment
[Texas Secretary of State] 12/6/2011 Report Notice
[Texas Secretary of State] 1/12/2012 Notice of Forfeited Rights for Non-Filing of Periodic Report
[Texas Secretary of State] 5/18/2012 Certificate of Involuntary Termination
[Texas Secretary of State] 5/3/2016 Certificate of Amendment
**********************************************
Crescent Hill Capital Corporation
Crescent Hill Capital Corporation filed as a Domestic For-Profit Corporation in the State of Texas on Thursday, July 1, 2004 and is approximately thirteen years old, according to public records filed with Texas Secretary of State.
Rafael A. Pinedo
Chairman
President
Director
Known Addresses for Crescent Hill Capital Corporation
7229 N Miami Ave Miami, FL 33150
4020 N Macarthur Blvd Irving, TX 75038
4400 Westgrove Dr Addison, TX 75001
4553 Jimmy Doolitle Dr Addison, TX 75001
1549 NE 123rd St North Miami, FL 33161
crescent hill capital corp
100 CRESCENT CT,
DALLAS TX 75201
Business Phone: 214-208-0590
http://crescenthillcapital.com/
*************************************