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 strongly agree.
The opportunity that Wei has here is unique. And I think that there is a good chance that DL has noticed.
I've been keeping track of the count of followers on ST. It increased by 500 since the market closed on Friday and it will keep growing.
I have no idea how much Wei consults with DL. But if I were DL, I would love to have one huge hit like TSNP on muy record. It would be a great boost for his business. XMET could do that for him.
I perfectly understand that a lot more than just a big following is needed. I am just saying that the momentum here is big and it would be very stupid to let it go to waste.
I am new in OTC and I am still going to be very careful. I got my investments back and I am going to secure profit but I am not ruling out a huge success here.
I agree
Thank you MIC, GBRO, and everybody else in this board.
I am relatively new to OTC, been trading OTC for about 6 months. But I learned so much from you guys, from all of you. There were very interesting discussions, even in the weekends. I feel very lucky that I got in this board and XMET.
What you insist in not mentioning is what happens when the original fraudulent debt of over 8 million dollars is canceled.
That fraudulent debt was the reason for the 8.2 billion shares.
If the debt is cancelled, then there is no need for the shares.
In other words, the debt created a negative shareholders equity when it was put in the books. If the debt is canceled and the shares are not canceled, there is an artificial positive shareholders equity.
The artificial equity can only be solved by canceling the shares.
The price action, volume, L2 show clearly that those shares are not in the market.
Investing early in OTC stocks is always a bet. What is important then is what you are betting on. My bet re share cancellation is based on what I wrote back on 1/18 (post # 27739, link below), which is based on accounting principles.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=160495840
Since then, I have been observing the L2, price action and volume. I am absolutely sure XMET is not trading on 8.2 billion shares but a much smaller quantity.
The content of my post is aligned with what NOOB90 wrote in terms of voting rights, you can find that here
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=160495840
They really look similar. Thx for sharing
I agree 100%. It's just a matter of getting the ball rolling on Reddit as well. And I'll do my part, already sharing info with some people.
I agree
I've done extensive DD on XMET. I am very bullish and I want (hope) XMET to be a really good investment. I respectfully disagree with you. The situation is very fluid, particularly after what happened last week, Reddit has become a new go-to place for retail investors. IHub is fantastic, I will stay in it and I actually tell people in ST to check IHub for DD on XMET. But as of last week there is a whole new universe of investors that have no idea about IHub or even ST but are on Reddit. I talked to people who live in three other countries this weekend (Europe and South America) and they are all in Reddit and are making decisions on their investments based on what they see there. Granted, it is hype but I will believe that it will turn into more than just hype. I think it would be good for XMET to be promoted there as well.
Me too
This explains a lot, thank you so much for sharing and thank you baseballdoctor!
Absolutely nothing proves that those shares are being traded and the volume does not seem to indicate that
If the losses are proven fraudulent or the liabilities that created (typically a debt to someone or some entity) are determined to be unasserted claims, then the negative shareholders equity becomes zero and the shares will be eliminated as there is no reason for them.
Sounds reasonable
VERY NICE!!! 27% increase, volume under 200 million.
Ok, which previous Lazar custodianships do you recommend to look at? Can you pass a few tickers?
Well said!
Yes!
My bet is that what will make the cancellation possible is that the 8+ million liability that made the shareholders equity negative will be (or has been) proven fraudulent or an unasserted claim.
The negative shareholders equity was the reason for the over-issued shares (issued beyond the maximum number of authorized shares then), if there is no liability there is no reason for the shares.
In August 2020 DL could not simply eliminate the liability from many years back, so to put things in order in the balance sheet he increased the AS and kept the over-issued shares but they are not being traded.
With the motion to bar unasserted claims on 2/1, the over-issued shares can then be canceled.
My opinion only.
I don't know the specific process in a case like this one but if the old liability is determined fraudulent or is barred as an unasserted claim, there will be some kind of court order to bring down the authorized shares to not have a fabricated positive shareholders equity. Call it whatever you want, it is a simple equation, you take a piece from one side you have to take a piece equal in value from the other side. Anyway, as I said before, I had enough of this senseless arguing. I know why you do it and it got boring.
My bet is really very simple: the liability was fraudulent and after whatever court process the float will end up where noob says. Simple.
You should be more precise with concepts.
The 8 million liability is the counterbalance of the 8.2 billion shares. If the liability is eliminated for being fraudulent, and you keep the shares, then the SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY becomes positive (not the assets as to having money in the bank). To bring then the equity to a clean zero in the equity instead of keeping a fabricated positive, you have to eliminate the shares. Simple, very simple.
I had enough
My message was about common shares with par value 0.001. The common shares par value 0.0001 have nothing to do with anything I wrote and are not important really.
No, that is not true. Held doesn't mean sold
This is just my opinion but, after reading a lot, I've concluded that this is as a very simple situation and almost certain that the float will end up being quite low.
Here is the explanation... (thank you to everyone who shared information, particularly noob)
1- The common shares issued in excess and later incorporated to the authorized shares by David Lazar were due to negative shareholders equity.
2- The shareholders equity was negative because there was a liability (a debt) of over 8 million dollars in the books. In other words, according to the books, the company owed that money to one or more people or entities (i.e. a bank).
3- To me, it is highly possible, if not certain, that the debt (the liability) was fraudulent. It was an unfounded debt that nobody can claim.
4- As part of making XMET a clean shell, at the time David Lazar had no option but to incorporate those shares issued in excess to the authorized shares until the debt was proven fraudulent or barred as an unasserted claim.
5- That will happen on Feb 1st and then the debt will be taken off the books bringing the shareholders equity to a positive of over 8 million dollars.
6- With that positive shareholders equity, the common shares issued in excess can be canceled bringing the float to about 800 million common shares.
Buyer= Wei Tian
Seller= David Lazar
Look at this interesting point from 8-K 12/09/20
Section 5.16 Replacement Provision. In the event that the Buyer is unable complete a merger with an operating entity based on the position or situation of Company prior to the Closing, Seller shall present Buyer with an alternative company.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14559310&guid=QQ9KUKlIbRS_cyh
Precisely, look at the securities covered by the form
COMMON STOCK PAR VALUE $ 0.0001
There is NO common stock with that par value in the authorized shares.
It's super clear
The company has NOT gone dark
I agree 100% with you.
I just want to expose the BS.
That was sneaky, you edited your previous answer
I don't need links to explain the law, send the link to the 15d that you say was filed and it means that the company went dark
Where do you see that other 15 G here?
https://sec.report/CIK/0001819006
Or please send the link
Man, you are difficult!
The 15 G is also for COMMON SHARES PAR VALUE $ 0.0001.
Then...same logic as my previos message, the company is not going dark as there are no CS par value $ 0.0001 in the AS.
Stop the BS.
https://sec.report/Document/0001213900-21-002151/
THall I agree with this statement of yours
Again even is there are some phantom .0001 par shares it wont impact the current SS because it has a par value of.001
Which also means that your other statement that the company is going dark is totally false as well.
I read all the documents and imo two things excel as important:
1) The termination (or suspension) document (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819006/000121390021002151/ea133368-1512g_xxstreamenter.htm) refers to COMMON SHARES PAR VALUE $ 0.0001
2) There are NO COMMON SHARES PAR VALUE $ 0.0001 in the authorized shares. This is from the 8-K 12/9/20: Section 2.6 Authorized Shares. The authorized capital of the Company consists, immediately prior to the Closing, of: (i) 8,900,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, 8,272,627,462 shares of which are issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Closing; and (ii) 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001, 100,000,000 of which are designated Series A Convertible Preferred Stock and 100,000,000 of which are issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Closing. All of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and Preferred Stock have been duly authorized, are fully paid and nonassessable and were issued in compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws.
To me:
a) the termination filing has nothing to do with authorized shares
b) because of point a, the company is not going dark
c) because of point a, we cannot infer that the float will be reduced. It may happen because of the voting rights but that is a separate issue.
I agree 100% but this is not a case of a company going dark. It's simply a suspension to not have to report the past, activity or the old business. The new business has not been launched yet. Wein and DL are just getting things ready for it.
I don't think it's to save money but to use a simpler valid process. Why doing the reporting when you can simply file these forms? That's all.
The forms seem to be used for two possible alternatives: termination and suspension.
In this case it makes sense that it is a simple suspension to avoid unnecessary work rather than a termination after having bought the company for 220k and being DL still involved.
The company is NOT going dark as you guys enjoy to say.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that these forms
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819006/000121390021002151/ea133368-1512g_xxstreamenter.htm
and
https://sec.report/Document/0001213900-21-002151/
are simply a suspension of duty that smaller OTC companies can file every year to avoid having to do the reporting to the SEC, a simple formality that has nothing to do with deregistration but rather the objective is to avoid the burden of the reporting for the previous year.
In this link sent by Greek
https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2013/01/going-dark--the-simple-path-to-exiting-the-us-pu__
there is this text
Statutory suspension at beginning of fiscal year. A company that has filed a registration statement under the Securities Act also has reporting obligations under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act in addition to any obligations it may have under Section 12. A calendar year company’s Section 15(d) obligations are automatically suspended by statute as of January 1, 2013, provided that the company had less than 300 holders of record on such date. Companies taking advantage of this automatic statutory suspension under Section 15(d) are required by Rule 15d-6 to file a notice on Form 15 informing the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) of such suspension within 30 days.10 However, even if the company does not make that filing by within the 30 day period (i.e., by January 31, 2013 for calendar year filers, that Form 15 filing is not a condition of the automatic reporting suspension set forth in
Section 15(d).11 Therefore, we believe that a company can suspend its obligations under Section 15(d) by filing a Form 15 at the same time and on the same Form 15 that it files under Rule 12g-4 described above.12
I interpret the text as something that can be done every year in the beginning of the year
Also look at these
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/34-65148.pdf
http://dodd-frank.com/2011/01/06/sec-proposes-rules-on-suspension-of-the-duty-to-file-reports-for-classes-of-asset-backed-securities/
I agree
well... it looks like the future is bright then