Retiring
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.
ERFB pump and dump... confirmed...
For those that subscribe to our email or ihub alerts you'll know $ERFB is on alert. With their recent debt restructure and only 47mm O/S trading in the .003's we believe this can return to .006 to .008 easily.
https://www.facebook.com/matrixinvestmentgroup
A basic understanding of capital structure would help. They cannot issue more shares than are authorized. PERIOD.
Rich, you are incorrect. Please do basic research before you post here. You run the risk of misleading.
Oh really?!? Do some basic research?
Does a Stock Split Impact Authorized Shares?
Capital Structure
When a company incorporates it authorizes a certain number of common stock shares and has the option to authorize a certain number of preferred stock shares. The company issues stock out of the authorized shares by vote of the board of directors. Some of this stock goes to founders, employees and board members. The rest of the issued stock remains in the company treasury until sold to investors, thereby providing capital to fund company needs. Whether a company is private or public, the number of authorized shares cannot change without amendments to the company's articles of incorporation or charter.
http://wiki.fool.com/Does_a_Stock_Split_Impact_Authorized_Shares%3F
If Tom Gaffney can sell a hijacked shell to a Pro Skateboarder, anything is possible, I guess.
I glanced at the link you posted. I saw Peacock's name and the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I remember that tool.
If this 3(a)(10) is a sham, it's because of Stephen Hicks and the naivety of some cheap ass attornies. The SEC is already onto Hicks.
FWIW, I contacted the CEO and inquired about Tarpon's involvement. He stated his attornies looked into Hicks and they didn't see any issues. I don't believe that, and I've hounded the CEO about it ever since. I even insinuated that his attornies are in bed with Hicks. I'm a nobody and I can see this deal is wrong, in so many ways.
IMO, I don't think it was a sham on the part of the company. It was Hicks' idea. I think he talked some amateur securities attorney into it.
Which setup his next move.
Thanks for the email.
How can one determine if the company and the creditor conspired together?
What makes it a sham? Hicks is the sham, imo.
You completely twisted the words of a conversation I was having with someone else to suit your needs.
The chatter of an AS ratio reduction proportionate to the RS wasn't what was being discussed.
I did not misinform the other user by saying the company can't RS the AS, as you stated. You took a conversation and twisted it into your own.
I never said that. I won't repeat it again.
I understand. Another user assumed the RS would affect the AS and was complaining it wasn't. I just tried to let the user know RSs won't change the AS, only an amendment.
Then it was turned into some big hoo ha about me misinforming someone.
In no way did I say that.
AGAIN.... The company cannot reduce the authorized with a reverse split. They need an amendment.
This is the post where the convo started...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109129205
My reply...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109151803
Here's where you stated I misinformed the other user...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109168303
Now... tell me... where did I misinform anybody?
The poster is twisting words to suit their needs.
I told someone on the board the company can't reverse split the authorized shares. They can change it with an amendment to the corporate charter via the sos.
They said I was wrong.
This is where the convo started...
Looks like the company could dilute even more with the reverse split applicable to issued shares but not authorized shares.
I stated the company can't reverse split the AS. It can only be changed with an amendment to the sos.
You chimed in with false information about being misinformed. You were wrong.
End of discussion.
I understand things just fine. You can't seem to comprehend that they can't do a reverse split of the authorized shares. Insinuating they can is false.
Buh bye.
I don't have time for games.
Neither do I so, understand this.... they can change the AS with an amendment, not with a reverse split.
They can't change the Authorized, up or down, without filing an amendment with the SOS. Not via a split. PERIOD
They can't issue more shares than are authorized. Again, you're incorrect.
Sorry but, you're wrong. The only way to change the Authorized is an amendment to the SOS.
Name one company in the history of the SEC that has done a reverse split of it's authorized shares. Just one.
Looks like the company could dilute even more with the reverse split applicable to issued shares but not authorized shares.
FYI. Reverse splits never affect Authorized shares. Authorized shares cannot change without amendments to the company's articles of incorporation or charter.
‘Letter-Of-Intent' are used when negotiations are getting serious….
In a perfect world, maybe. In the OTC, not so much.
Especially with SIPC and it's characters.
Do some DD on this entourage. Let's compare notes.
Negative.
.00003
That's because you have no proof.
Please enlighten me here - because with all due respect I just don't see any silver lining what so ever. Just see a dark hole that has the potential of getting much darker.
What difference does it make? Why should I bother?
Sarcasm is indication of a scam?
Another weak attempt.
Since when is a family run business a scam?
Weak attempt, very weak.
Don't care.
It's not an opinion, it's fact. Just look at the long list of 8-Ks...
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=erf+wireless&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany
No need to read the fins. The CEO is kind enough to put out 8-Ks every week with millions of shares in convertible debt being converted to shares. Shareholders are funding his little operation.
Lol!! So you're saying you polled every trader out there and the all say it's a scam? LMFAO!!!!!!
Volume proves a scam? LMAO!!! Last Q proves it too? LMFAO!!!
What a bunch of bullshit.
Funny, you quote that out of the post and ignored the selling of unregistered securities and the CEO being involved in an IPO pump that went awry.
STLK is not a shell. They do have a business.
You're wrong, again.
They have no business,only plans
You're wrong.
What do you care?
Sorry but, STLK does in fact have a business. PPA still in the works.
You have ZERO proof of a scam.
That's zero evidence of a scam. End of story.
ERFB has been a complete POS for a long time. Since you're talking about 'DD responsibility', if anybody did any REAL DD for 15 minutes they would know, that there's a long list of dirty laundry. From selling unregistered securities and being fined by the SEC(which STILL hasn't been paid off), to the CEO being involved in an IPO pump that went awry. All the while, claiming he was innocent.
The last crew that tried to pump this turd... failed and left, with their tails hanging between their legs.
There's nothing left here. The folks that have been here longer, know this and have tried to warn folks time and time again but, nobody listens.
Oh well. C'est la Vie
Thanks for that worthless info.
LMFAO!!! Typical OTC banter. Not a shred of evidence to back the claim that STLK is a scam. At least have something, a link, email, pic of an Oompa Loompa riding a unicorn in Costa Rica, something.
LMAO!
He's busy workin'.