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.
I've been saying NSI has the obligation to cancel the Preferred Series A shares. Could NSI do that if someone else owned or had a right to them? If you're saying that someone, other than NSI, owns the Preferred Series A shares, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.
LDD, what "private and/or accredited investor" with half a brain would buy the Preferred Series A? YOTA didn't... Why contemplate an absurdity?
Let's also ask this question: Would it be fraudulent for NSI to sell the Preferred Series A?
IMO, if you can find a buyer and, if your answer to the second question is "no," then yes, NSI could legally, currently, sell the Preferred Series A to a private and/or accredited investor without creating a corresponding liability for NSI. The rub is that some will wrongly answer "yes" to the second question.
However, the ultimate question still remains: What would the buyer get? Voting rights? Conversion rights? Both? Neither; a NSI souvenir?
Correction: Total Niterra investment in SHMP = $300,000.00
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I've already posted extensively about the date, about the O/S before and after the date, and linked to the 8K. Your failure to respond to those posts does not require me to duplicate my efforts. Stop being lazy. Your inability to do any meaningful written analysis without others doing your work for you is obnoxious. Just make your point. You're terrible at the socratic method.
By holders I assume you mean owners. In this case, ownership and possession are two different things. The filings have always been clear... the Series A were HELD (not owned) FOR the benefit of NSH Shareholders by NSI's CEO who had the right to vote those shares. These are in the original terms you didn't want to post.
I admit the original terms are the original terms. However, my opinion will not change vis-a-vis CLARIFICATION of those terms by the Parties and the Court's Order in the Shover Suit.
I guess it depends on the timing. IMO, if before December 2020, probably not much NSI Common shareholders at the time can do about it. However, if after December 2020, then perhaps someone should do something about it...
See here's the problem. It's like the Court's Order doesn't exist with this group. You can't say things like "not even sure that's true" and be taken seriously. The Court case happened. The Court's Order is a real thing.
In this regard, two things can be true. The Court's Order is real and applies and NSI is misusing and misapplying it.
Freduian slip?
"Then why have you and Franny refused to post on a public forum the original conversion terms of the preferred."
Implication and inference to be drawn = more than one.conversion term of the preferred.
Is it just me, or is there only one (1) "Most Liked Posts (last 30 days)"? If not just me, is the one (1) post Unsophisticated U Darthium's from 11/21/23?
Post# 110729 of 110786 has more "thumbs up"...
Is there a paritcular bias being promoted here? Or does it only update once every 30 days?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
How would you know? You've not held a discussion with me. There you go again drawing conclusions without any facts. You're even dumb in your own made up hypotheticals.
"Can't move forward.'
Your choice.
"I simply want to discuss facts."
Than do it. No one is stopping you.
"You're interested in telling tales to the uninformed."
I'm interested in discussing the substance and merit of readily available public information. I can't control if another is "uninformed" and I think it's wrong you assume anyone other than you is "uninformed."
"However, you are party to the sham."
Sir, I am not a party to anything. That statement is defamatory. You should tread carefully, my friend.
"You want to make me look stupid in front of the whole board, answer the question."
I already have and you keep making it worse.
Than discuss. No one is stopping you.
If they are facts, then you don't need to ask questions. You can just state them. It's very simple. You're just being dilatory.
Please state the consideration for the Series A Preferred shares.
Go ahead. You want to make me look a fool, what's stopping you?
What am I wrong about?
It does. I've explained my reasoning ad nauseam; and, frankly, it plays into your narrative re: NSI Management. There's actually common ground to be found here. The fact you do everything in your power not to share land with me speaks volumes.
The real disagreement from what I can see has to do with personal opinions regarding whether NSI's wielding of the Series A (regardless of legitimacy) has been beneficial or detrimental to NSI's common shareholders. Will you argue with this?
You stepped in it with your brilliant take on inclusion of the Series A language in the YOTA Agreement. Care to address how you clearly missed the obvious?
Bruh, I don't know who you think you're still fooling. LDD already called you out on your games. Your "analysis" of the Series A has been completely destroyed. Keep repeating yourself. Over this week, I've shone a giant spotlight on you and really exposed you for what and who you are. And, you've just melted.Completely crumbled and folded. Stuck on repeat.
No, I answered it. I'm just ten moves ahead of you.
EQ won't respond to you now and he just creates new post after new post to drive down any reasonable explanation so that he can continue to gaslight lazy non-readers into believing what he says has any merit. I've taken him to town on the Series A. EQ won't acknowledge it because then it'll call into question all his other BS.
You've yet to impune my track record. The last attempt was laughable. Two years and out of context. Try harder.
"And if the Series A shares do not exist, then why did SHMP find it necessary to LEAVE the language in the YOTA agreement about them not counting toward the YOTA conversion?"
Bruh, seriously? Maybe YOTA found it necessary to INSIST the language be in the YOTA agreement. Maybe because they viewed the Series A the same way I do. THINK!
You didn't read my many thorough posts where I gave my opinion vis-a-vis there is nothing remaining to "convert." All common shares distributable to NSH shareholders were created, as a matter of law, upon the Court's Order. All that NSI must do is DISTRIBUTE NSI common shares to those, from the amended Schedule A, who make a claim for them. Therefore, it is my opinion that, at the moment the Court approved the Stipulated Settlement, the Series A became void. It is my opinion that they have no monetary value or legal effect.
For example, I draft a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and purport to have the right to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. Everyone knows the Brooklyn Bridge is not owned by any one person. Clearly, my deed does not have the legal effect I contend.
Just because someone believes they can do something (legally speaking), doesn't always mean they can. Sometimes, some people have to be told they can't, told to stop, told that's wrong. Some people will take what they can until that time. Don't be naive.
The Absurdists.
2018-08-20 Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)]
"As of August 20, 2018, there were 154,262,533 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1465470/000165495418009409/shmp_10q.htm
2018-10-09 Other definitive information statement
"A total of 92,056,880 common shares were issued and outstanding as of October 8, 2018"
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1465470/000165495418010872/shmp_def14c.htm
1. Clearly the O/S was reduced upon creation of the Series A Preferred.
2. The last filing prior to the Exchange Agreement (August 17, 2018) indicates NSH Shareholders held 55.6% of NSI's common shares (unsellable).
2018-07-13 Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405]
"The number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date was 135,776,879 shares of common stock as of July 13, 2018."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1465470/000165495418007613/shmp_10k.htm
3. It may be presumed that the Series A Preferred and voting rights were created (August 2018) with the support of more than 50% of NSI's common shareholders.
4. Anyone who bought after August 2018 had notice of what NSI and NSH intended to accomplish. Doubling the O/S in August 2018 (at 92,056,880) would be a reasonable proposition for NSH Holders wanting their NSI shares (Upon conversion, they'd get approx. 20 million more shares for their ongoing unsaleable shares).
5. "As of August 13, 2020," the O/S was "510,868,658." Doubling the O/S at this point would have been an entirely different outcome than what was originally intended. Understanding the original intent of NSI and NSH, such an outcome would be absurd.
6. The Shover Suit effectuated the original intent of NSI and NSH without an absurd result.
Absurd for NSI. Absurd for NSI shareholders. Absurd for NSH shareholders. The Absurdists, advocating the absurd as the correct outcome.
You know we can see you "Thumbs up" your own posts, right?
"Which only makes my earlier point that you neglect: every board decision made by SHMP mgmt viz. the wielding of the voting rights of the Series A shares is invalid."
Since when?
Everyone can read what you said, you don't need to spin it. You concluded wrongly.
And, I think I'm doing just fine as one person against six sources of stupidity.
And I'm the King of England. The guy posted:
poster44ny
Member Level
Re: eqinvestor post# 110591
Tuesday, December 12, 2023 12:56:54 PM
Post#
110594
of 110706
I thought possibly I overheard my 3rd cousin mention that possible major investment banks around the world are possibly in a possible bidding war to possibly buyout SHMP possibly."
The pump occurred between noon and 1 pm. So you're saying that this guy who came onto the Forum at THE END of the pump, ORCHESTRATED the pump? That's a "scizophrenic level" of erratic time perception.
What false narrative?
No, SHMP's filings prove NSI Management thinks it can wield the Series A. What NSI thinks it may be able to do and what it may LEGALLY do are two different things. If one knows how the law works, one may independently verify such representations.
Example, I say I own and will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Understanding how the law works, you can independently verify my representation and determine that what I say I can do is not necessarily the same as what I can legally do.
This isn't even law 101, this is just common sense 101.
Conversion terms are what were agreed and approved by the Court's December 2020 Order. End. of. Story. Now, prove me wrong. You can't, because that's reality.
You want to talk about what YOU THINK SHOULD have happened, without deference to facts or law. Are you a lawyer? Do you have the professional experience and expertise to make such allegations?
Then I guess it's NOT ALWAYS DOUBLE the then O/S, huh? Isn't that interesting how it can not be double when it suits you, but all the other times it's double? Way to help prove my point.
You saying it doesn't make it true. PROVE IT's wrong.
No, I have. You just didn't read.
You don't read. I already explained why I think that is. Long Duk Dong wholeheartedly agreed. Please READ!!!!!!!
I've been called names, yes, but no one, including yourself, has taken me to town on my explanations re: Series A. You seem to have a strategy for doing so, but won't for whatever reason.
Oh and btw, I already stated them in a prior post. That's what happens when you don't read, you keep unnecessarily repeating yourself. Doublespeak won't save you from the negative judgments of those who do read.