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.
Please look up the definitions of both, and then tell me if you get the exact same meaning for each one... It's not the same thing... the same as any distinguished crime.
Sorry, but it's not... it's two different and clearly distinguished crimes... lol
It's called insider trading, not securities fraud.
Securities fraud is making trades based on false information often resulting in losses.
Here is what you're talking about....
Insider trading:
The illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information.
As you can see it's the practice of trading based on access to confidential information. It's not the sharing of the information itself that's illegal. But the buying and selling is illegal...
Sorry, it's called insider trading, not securities fraud...
Please look at my message above for clarification.
Copy pasted directly from amazon lol!!!
Any other questions? lol or are you going to call it fake against just as Agri did originally too?
lol
Hi ******,
Thank you for your inquiry, Yes, BNG has exclusive distribution rights for NOHO. NOHO has extended the distribution rights to Bargain Squad to sell exclusively on Amazon.
Sincerely,
The BargainSquad Team
LOL THEY TOLD ME DIRECTLY that they were an extended distributor... Not the main distributor... so wrong again.
Contacted over 40 state bar associations? Just like you contacted 'Bargain Squad' about being an extended distributor, or wait, you said it was a lie, and that they weren't distributing the product, however, I was in direct contact, and given written assurance that they were LOL....
Sometimes lies come back to bite you in the ass.
Hmmm, interesting, well fortunately, any company willing to sign over 49% of their company to a cloud of smoke... oh wait, they wouldn't without the proper due diligence. Would you give your car keys to someone you didn't know because they promised to bring it back? LOLOL
What's interesting... is he has been a member since 1998 LOL....
Sure looks like Mersky is up to no good. No disciplinary action at all, ever...
Sounds like there's been a lot of smoke generated to defame his character... but the NY BAR knows much better.. haha.
Also, if it was misrepresented, and not a real company, then why is the Plaintiff's Mersky and Zouvas instead of GRAS, their lawyers would be all over Mersky creating a fake company to fraudulently acquire 49% of the shares... LOL
More things to contemplate people...
Effectively, MILLIONS of dollars of shares were signed over to Mersky and his 'Fake' Cherry Hill Financial company... Please tell me no one else is believing this BS.
Sorry but this is a losing battle, no matter which way it's 'twisted' it doesn't make any logical sense. LOL
Interesting! There is no way a company signs over 49% of their company without doing the proper DD, and checks, with lawyers, etc. FACT.
Hilarious, if that was the case, then why would GRAS sign an agreement with Mersky... and then later try to back out of the deal... Something's not right there...
I'm sure the CEO of GRAS just walked into a room, after having a short conversation with Mersky, grabbed a pen, and then effectively signed over 49% of his shares... Seem's REALLY factual Hahaha.
Have you ever wondered if the stock was dead, and there's no reason to be here, why are the stock forums for NoHo still so active?
LOL of course the GRAS CEO is going to say he's not worried, if he said " We are worried about the lawsuit shutting us down and emptying out the storehouses how would shareholders reply other than with a mass dump?
LOL!!!!
Zero revenues... Interesting... is that the truth? No, it's really not. Some revenue = more than Zero revenue...
Stock is dead? if that's the case why is the forum so active? hmm?
There is no product? That's interesting... just because it's not in the bottles doesn't mean the product isn't there... The product is in the formula and the physical mixture. The bottles are just a housing for the product.
That is obvious to everyone now? LOL just because it's not on Amazon right now doesn't mean there isn't any product hahaha.
Interesting, a product that clearly sells, and if properly advertised and marketed would be a gold mine. No re-branding required, a proven product, with proven results, scientifically backed formula... No reason to take over a hangover drink company... With the increased stress in society, and more people drinking than ever, and needing a hangover cure to perform at work throughout the week... No reason for anyone to want to take over a hangover product. Lets be honest people, compare NOHO to any other hangover drink on the market, none of them have the appeal or brand presence that NoHo could.
I rest my case.
Interesting, now it's being said the lawsuit is from NOHO, but in the previous post it was said the lawsuit is not in their favor... How much BS can you cram into a dumpster, apparently an infinite amount.
The lawsuit is in their favor clearly LOL, are they they the ones being sued? No, and the proof for a TRO is not minimal, you are effectively halting operations of a business, preventing it from generating revenue lol... What a load of BS.
Of course no longer available, we've sold all the stock we had lol!!
LOL if you call the refusal to shut down operations while the law suit continues having his ass handed to him you're sadly mistaken. The lawsuit is still active, and will happen. There is nothing that says the lawsuit has been thrown out, love the misleading statements.
It appears? lol... unfortunately that's not the truth at all, they are still listed on the OTC, website's are still registered, twitter still active. Lawsuits oh wait, in favor for NoHo that's right.
"NoHo to be shut down" months ago due to a report that was being 'compiled and sent to the SEC... LOL lets be serious here people... there was never a report sent to the SEC, and if there was they threw it in the trash, because that's all it was haha.
Total BS.
Sorry again, it's a forward looking statement meaning, things in process may change, even if it's saying we've retired so many shares, that can always change... nothing is a for sure thing. The CEO of a company may say, we've retired so many shares, meaning it's begun the process, only to have something change in the middle of the process. Causing which to be completed, not be completed.
Sorry, again, if you don't know the power of a forward looking statement, then you should probably quit talking about the PR's, a share retirement happened as PR'ed, however it was different than originally expected. It's easy enough to look at SOS Wyoming to confirm whether a PR has come true or not... hmmmm
Yes he can, you can apply a forward looking statement to anything, if it's posted at the bottom lol... otherwise why post it at the end of EVERY PR, the reason is because THINGS CAN ALWAYS CHANGE. Just like the share retirement... hmmm otherwise no use posting a forward looking statement at the end of a PR if it's already gone through lol!
Incorrect, until the filing is done with SOS Wyoming, it is still subject to change. Don’t be fooled.
Interesting that a forward looking statement is put into place to ensure a company provides the disclaimer of, this is what we are doing, but it might not actually happen... It may turn out differently, and it did... no excuses, we all read the same forward looking statement. Not Mersky's fault that some didn't pay attention... haha.
LOL All of a sudden? that's a major exaggeration of the facts, this changed over a long period of time because of an obvious change in needs. I would like to also ask a question, at the bottom of every PR is the statement that forward looking statements are subject to change... interesting... would that be a change of 16.5 billion shares? Oh wait it is! LOL
"and the lies continue", referring to retirement of 40 billion shares, well the 40 billion shares were retired down to 25 million shares. It happened.
More lies? that doesn't make sense, he reduced it by 40 billion shares, that was no lie, it happened...
Was there a share reduction of 40 billion? from 65 000 000 000 to 25 000 000 000 ? I'm just curious, I thought there was a PR saying this happened? What does it say on SOS Wyoming? Is it the same?
Interesting... Looks like it came true.
Nothing but lies... The product will never be sold on Amazon, there is no product, the product is probably a few boxes in a garage... absolutely correct, nothing but lies... that turn into... the truth? hmmm interesting.
All 168 ounces of product left on amazon will expire? that sounds like a crushing blow...
The Actual number sold by both parties is unknown to you because the last 8k hasn't come out... sooo....
Sorry, but you can't come back on a contract almost a year later and say you don't like it. That's not how it works, applying the principle to a house doesn't work, it's a material vs a agreement with much more visible details... LOL
If GRAS missed paperwork, or a clause, it's their own fault, they agreed publicly to give those shares to Mersky, they can't take them back because they changed their mind hahaha
Only thing it proves is that the judge doesn't see the actions being an immediate threat to DRNK's operations lol... nothing about it's basis for the lawsuit, only the TRO. The lawsuit was as you can see, not thrown out by the judge... lol
And the PR by GRAS is simply them trying to cover their tail with shareholders lol... what company would say, yes they completely have a basis for the lawsuit, hold tight and be prepared to lose your investments.
When it comes down to it, an agreement was made by two companies, signed and released publicly. I have a strong feeling that part will hold up in court.
I can't go to a car company and lease a car, sign the contract, and then the next year say, I'm going to lease a different vehicle and I'm going to stop paying the first car company what was agreed upon.
From what I remember, there was denial that bargainsquad was selling NoHo on amazon, anyone else remember this? LOL
Where do you read the Judge has thrown out the charges? that's not what a denial of TRO means, all it means is that the judge is not halting the companies immediate actions...