The LOI now is the same as it was when they found a creative way to transfer it from LAHO to MSSV, now they can do the same backwards. Moreover, according to the PR below, the transaction wasn't done yet on November 29 ("Lans will transfer over its LOI" and "MSSV will take on Lans debt") and most probably not complete yet as it's been only 6 business days. They can simply cancel the whole thing especially that the new situation could explode and turn a win-win situation in LAHO/GSCG case into lose-lose-lose for LAHO/GSCG/MSSV by the new agreement.

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/meso-numismatics-inc-MSSV/stock-news/81254403/lans-holdings-enters-into-strategic-transaction-wi

That won't solve the problem. The last agreement was just a smoke and mirrors show to make transferring the LOI rights to MSSV look legitimate. Obviously Dave and Benito had a huge business opportunity and everything was going good while their interests were aligned to the shareholders interests. Once things went bad by the halting, they decided to leave LAHO's boat to drown along with the shareholders and jump to MSSV boat, taking their most valuable possession - the LOI - with them via a cheap farce.

There's no room for both LAHO and MSSV in the equation, numbers simply will not work to produce something of value for both. Besides why would they care about LAHO anymore if it represents no benefit for them? The vague solutions they presented are only a way to keep shareholders calm until LAHO dies slowly on its own over months or years. I see no way to save LAHO's shareholders than avoiding or canceling the deal with MSSV and reverting to the old path of LAHO/GSCG no matter how much time it takes. Dave is currently the president of MSSV so he can do it besides he's responsible for solving the mess he has caused at the first place. Let them work hard on it if they are really in a hurry to get things done. They must be put with the the shareholders in the same boat back again if the shareholders want to be saved. Other than that, kiss your money goodbye.

Common shareholders can be saved only if MSSV path becomes invalid for GSCG by warning potential MSSV shareholders that the same LAHO scenario will repeat for them and billions of MSSV shares will be dumped taking the price to the ground so whatever they buy will eventually to become worthless. The management needs to know that the AS they raised will not be sold, at least for big money and that they best option is to go back on track with LAHO and work hard on relisting it and finishing the original LAHO/GSCG RM.

This is becoming more confusing. My original post was about the posters who differentiated between LAHO preferred and common shareholders in receiving MSSV shares like this example https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152543293

No, this incorrect interpretation was repeated many times directly and indirectly on LAHO and MSSV boards by some posters including yourself. Here is your post on LAHO board: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152553560

And your post on MSSV board: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152576694

What is the relation between your reply and my post? I commented on the linguistic aspect of the news and what it literally means. All what is mentioned about favoring the preferred shares while leaving the common shareholders behind is either a misunderstanding or an outright lie. That's it.

Some notes on MSSV/LAHO news:

- The LOI against preferred shares is only a "part" of the transaction ("As part of the transaction, Lans will transfer over..."). We haven't see the whole agreement yet. There's more to be known.

- The statement "MSSV will take on Lans debt and will give Lans redeemable preferred shares" (I simplify and rephrase it as "MSSV will give redeemable preferred shares to Lans") clearly states that what is given is MSSV's own redeemable preferred shares, and they are given to LAHO in exchange of LAHO's debt and LOI right. Unless there's something else I'm missing, I don't understand how someone can read this as "MSSV will give to LAHO redeemable preferred shares of LAHO"!

Nothing about LAHO preferred shares is mentioned in this context or that some shareholders will be included and others not.

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/meso-numismatics-inc-MSSV/stock-news/81254403/lans-holdings-enters-into-strategic-transaction-wi?fbclid=IwAR1aJ79qVnvv8mMLAYUDYRZMdyzhtdNqBoZgfFRl_OOueNiEcKm2-raV0rM

Counting the extension from the original RM closure date not the PR date makes sense.

180 days is 6 months. More than 2 months passed from September 11, less than 4 months remaining.

LAHO's management is already aware of that. That's why they mentioned that "The Company continues to work with its auditors, accounting staff and outside consultants to bring the company’s filings current as soon as possible." in this PR https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-plans-file-form-130000798.html because "the Company intends to proceed directly to a relisting on the OTC Pink sheets. To that end, the company intends to complete its filings in conjunction with a Form 10 to re-register its common shares".

LAHO's actions related to GSCG's RM start from May 28, 2019. This less than 6 months. This is the new LAHO, anything before that is irrelevant now.

In such case yes.

If the shares are cancelled, shorters don't have to cover and hence they keep the original shorting/selling money as profit.

I did a quick search but found no immediate results. I believe no borrowing fees need to be paid during revocation, but if the shares are reinstated, those fees will then count. Just my guess.

Don't twist my words. The point here is how long it would take the company to audit two years of financials from the process start to finish, once they start it. Not how long they have been delinquent.

From what I've seen in the market, it does not take a year or more of auditing for every year of financials. So chances they finish soon are good.

However, this is not a general discussion, it's about LAHO in specific. They have mentioned a time reference already which is "180-day extension to complete the acquisition of 100% of Global Stem Cells Group Inc (GSCG)" (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-secures-extension-complete-130000269.html) which implicitly includes the time to complete financials.

It's up to everyone to believe that or not. But for those who chose not to, staying on this board wouldn't not make any sense therefore anything they say would be highly questionable.

I believe that LAHO before GSCG's RM opportunity is different from the one with it. The first was a shell with no motivation and not much to lose, maybe lazy or careless. The second is one that has found a way to repurpose itself for a huge opportunity with big upside potential for everyone - including management and shareholders - and now they have a reason to be working hard on it. So I don't care about how long LAHO has been delinquent with their financials being it two years or ten. For me, LAHO's story with their financials starts from May 28, 2019 with the news "Lans Holdings Enters into Binding LOI to Acquire Global Stem Cells Group" (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-enters-binding-loi-120000402.html). Anything before that is irrelevant. This is how money is made here.

Years to audit two years of LAHO financials?!

On September 11, 2019, LAHO announced "that it has successfully secured a 180-day extension to complete the acquisition of 100% of Global Stem Cells Group Inc (GSCG)" (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-secures-extension-complete-130000269.html). The acquisition requires finishing the audits and reinstatement first. The 180 days must be there for a reason.

In fact it's a war against LAHO "shareholders". Shorters lost once when waited hoping for the share price to drop to cover but instead it kept running higher. Then lost again when waited for it to trade on the grey market to cover cheap but LAHO didn't give them the chance. They know that if/when it trades again they will get slaughtered so their only chance is the shares in the hands of shareholders.

There was an argument about the existence of short positions but I don't need it. Looking at the continuous and persistent attack on LAHO since its halting has one logical explanation for me: it is shorted, and shorted big.

In fact it's revoked with "Plans to File Form 10 with the SEC and Target Reinstatement of its Symbol on OTC Pinks".
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-plans-file-form-130000798.html

As far as I know, only the symbol was changed to CUSIP on most brokerage accounts (supposedly all by now) - including TDA's - while the number of shares remained intact. What did you have before now?

I see it more as LAHO is taking a break and will be coming back later.

And what proof is that?

Really? and how are you so certain? Do you know the shorters personally? That would explain a lot.

Still I won't believe they covered without proof. More than 3 weeks after halting and no trading there was still short interest. Check the date of this post and in attached report taken same time here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151418106

It seems FINRA's report just doesn't show older data. If it's possible for them to cover in a private transaction as you mentioned before, how would you know it really happened? Again unless you know the shorters personally. Any answers?

No it's not about "spotting scams", it's about LAHO in specific. There are dozens of stocks out there that strongly qualify as scams yet you have ignored them and since June - almost 5 months now - about 99% of all your IHUB posts are negative comments about LAHO, a stock that you claim to be dead.

This approach won't work. imo you need to remove two zeros from your target range if you really want to get in.

What is your proof? Nothing, right?

It's not a sign to start with. It's what normally happens for a revoked stock, just delayed in some brokers/accounts than others.

He does not need to be an expert but rather a business man and a good manager with a vision. There are a lot of stories about entrepreneurs who finally succeeded after failing so many times. The story is not yet complete so till then any negativity is just a waste of time.

That part of the company has many facets, business, technology, patents, infrastructure, ...etc. They might have a good technology or infrastructure but poor business on top of it. You don't know the full picture so you can not judge. Even if true, GSCG might be interested in a totally different aspect than the one you see as failure.

I don't see why not! It seems to me that it's not only the RM they are after and there's a lot behind the curtains. Take a look at this if you have time https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151115761

No it does not take a couple of attorneys. It takes a lot of money, effort, and time. Does making a lot of money mean for you spending it unnecessarily while they can achieve the same goal cheaper and sooner? A reverse merger is a less expensive and faster path to list GSCG on the stock market especially if their actual goal is getting on the NASDAQ. This way they can get in the stock market much sooner and much cheaper via the OTC door then work their way up from there towards uplisting to NASDAQ while the company is already trading in the market. This would be a much smoother and more efficient way.

Look at this https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151622638 and this https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151418106 and check the dates of both posts and settlement date in the report screenshot.

Normally correct but in such a situation with strings still attached to the stock market in the form of shareholders' shares in broker accounts, working on relisting, problems already happened with the SEC and can't risk any more, anticipating shareholders who may sell privately based on information, I'd say it's safer to act as if still a public company. This way they can not go wrong.

Don't panic, this is normal. Those shares are revoked so they have no value since revocation, not just today. This did not reflect in your account immediately for operational reasons and takes time to execute depending on your broker. My guess it will happen with other brokers like TDA sooner or later. If/when it reinstates and starts trading again, you should receive your replacement shares showing the new value with the current market value then.

There was no money in your account to start with. This is a revoked stock with no value. What happened is just a late update. Better keep an eye on LAHO in the coming weeks/months, hopefully you'll receive good news.

In fact Paysperity could be a very big deal for GSCG and one of the reasons they want to RM with LAHO. Take a look at this https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151115761

This is strange. There was a past due short interest with settlement date September 13 not covered till September 29 and maybe later (check the screenshot below and refer to my post https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151418106)

Trading was halted on September 6 so no way to cover. What happened between September 29 and October 9 to change that? Does this report cover recent period only but doesn't show earlier information?

Yes seems LAHO's Paysperity website was recently updated. The old website used to have a big background video similar to what's shown here https://web.archive.org/web/20181110205021/https://paysperity.com/

This is a very good sign. This is a good for a reread of my post here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151115761

Probably you need to avoid reading long posts.

It depends on your approach. For me it's better to keep the full picture in mind and look from all possible angles, statistical, technical, fundamental, sentimental, ...etc. Some aspects have more weight that others but I'm someone who doesn't like to look behind and say I wish I paid attention to this or that.

I didn't call you shallow, it's that view. No offense intended. You might be thinking deeply in other things at the same time, a single thought does not define you.

I understand what you meant by anomaly but I beg to differ. We need to think qualitatively first before getting into calculations. In my opinion, considering the right sub-population size, LAHO would maybe become low probability only, something like 10%. But that's good enough.

This is a very shallow view. Putting all the population in a single pool without considering the major differences between them is a naive approach to statistical proofs. You need to classify first, specify a category for LAHO to fall in and find the size of that category, then calculate the percentage. Here are some of the differentiators I would use:

- How many companies were already dead or hardly active vs. highly active at the time of suspension/revocation?

- How many suspended/revoked because of delinquency vs. other more serious reasons like fraud?

- Out of the delinquent group, how many had been actively working on getting current when suspended/revoked vs. others that hadn't?

- How many of those got suspended/revoked because of incomplete address and could've handled the situation in time if received the notice before suspension?

- How many companies acted promptly when suspended/revoked vs. didn't care at all?

- How many companies of those that acted reached a good deal with the SEC (and what's the significance of that)?

- How many have a strong interest from itself and another big company in fixing the situation ASAP and is backed by the latter?

I can add more questions but I think that's enough to prove my point, none of us knows anything about LAHO's correct sub-population and therefore the correct probability can not be calculated accurately. But it's far from the 0.2% you mentioned. If you can provide the correct classification then we can take your statistics more seriously.

However, from the above questions, I would say that LAHO falls in a very small pool of companies that might not exceed 100 (just a guesstimate). That pool contains the top companies that are in the best situation for reinstatement and most of the 8 reinstated cases you mentioned. That would make the probability around 8%... maybe.