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.
No problem, and yeah, I'd like to know, too.
So, now we're beginning to see the SAGA side. Can you also post the exhibits & #32? She says in her testimony that one of the exhibits is the SAGA 3Q fins which show revenues, presumably from BGEN and/or VIRO. I guess this also means that SAGA will be filing them with the SEC very soon to deal with the delinquency notice.
Been there. you're right. Besides, the lawyers are the winners in a class action lawsuit. Little left over for plaintiffs.
JMHO, the procedure to extend is to deposit the money into the trust account. Reporting it is an SEC issue.
Do you also have access to Documents 31 and 32? I don't. TIA.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51289122/GLD_Partners,_LP_et_al_v_Sagaliam_Acquisition_Corp
We knew that, but it's not proof that they didn't go through the procedure to actually make the extension, instead it shows that they didn't file the 8K with the SEC, at least not yet. However, that is troublesome and it might indicate they failed to extend, but not conclusive proof that disputes SAGA's claim that they did extend beyond 8/23/23.
As is disclosed in each of the previous 8K's giving notice to the procedure to extend, the following from the last extension reported on an 8K is SAGA's description of the extension procedure. We have not heard from the institutions identified in the previous 8K's, such as the one for 8/23/23. IMO, SAGA needs to present proof that they went through these steps to extend beyond 8/23/23. As I said earlier, twice now, the lawsuit gives SAGA that opportunity, ie, forces them to back up their claim that they did make the extension:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16843766&guid=kTJ-knrz1Zf8dth
Really? So, now you say:
I've been following SAGAR on TOS for a couple of weeks. Not much happening there. The rights are complicated by the fact that the underlying stock is a SPAC and may have some out of the ordinary risks, such as they and the underlying stock will expire if SAGA doesn't complete a deal and has to dissolve. What if GLD's lawsuit succeeds? The original IPO is likely where the best information is. JMHO.
The PIPE shares for the Saudi deal were issued with a 1/8 share right attached, which brings up the question of whether or not our SAGA shares come with rights as well.
CC recently made a point in a PR of repeating that ENZC's (BGEN) mAbs are made from human B-cells and are fully human. My guess is that he had a reason to do that. JMHO. REGN says their mAbs are typically humanized (mice), so unless REGN 17092 is an exception and is human it's not likely that it's ENZC's. However, if REGN17092 is not human, the binding site REGN wants to use may be covered under ENZC's international patent applications. My guess, either way, is that both sides may be waiting on the patent to be granted. JMHO.
Those patent applications made after the 2020 merger are filed as owned by Dr. Chandra and Dr. Joe Cotropia, and they have been assigned to BGEN. Those assignments are attached as exhibits to the 9/15/23 Agreement with SAGA. JMHO.
Where are you seeing that claim other than the Supplement filed in July showing the example of how the transaction will work?
Yep. The truth is what I'm looking for.
Are you thinking about the lawsuit between GLD and SAGA or some other reason? It does appear GLD is going forward, but we haven't seen SAGA's side of argument yet. Still don't know GLD's objective.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51289122/GLD_Partners,_LP_et_al_v_Sagaliam_Acquisition_Corp
That should cut both ways...JMHO.
I suspect there was a litigant against ENZC and an associated accountant on this board for quite a while, who may have also tried to influence beyond social media and the court
The May 2023 issues of Series C Preferred, mentioned in my earlier post, were in fact subscribed by the recipients in years past and were not associated with the SAGA deal.
Page F-24
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/374720/content
The Note 8 Subsequent Events contains some interesting information, for example:
https://capedge.com/filing/1855351/0001493152-23-042805/SAGAU-10Q-2023Q1
(1) Contrary to GLD's lawsuit claim, SAGA claims it paid the August 23 one-month extension
Those are common stock amounts issued as a result of conversion of 398,171 Series C Preferred by Sky Direct (Steve Apolant), and yes, they are listed as unrestricted. They were issued on 12/22/2020 for debt conversion, so presumably the restriction had expired at the time of the conversions.
Class C is 100 to 1, not 1000. I'm curious about the Class C Preferred issued in May 2023...about the time of the SAGA deal announcement. They are restricted.
If I'm not mistaken, the receivers are old names associated with Harry before the merger in 2020. Why are they being used or receiving such a high-rate convertible stock? This needs to be disclosed...IMO.
Add to those questions...how and who introduced her to ENZC...Cotropia's or Harry?
FWIW, they are apparently keeping that lawsuit alive. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51289122/GLD_Partners,_LP_et_al_v_Sagaliam_Acquisition_Corp
You can search it. It is not the same 2011 patent # 8,066982 that the Trust licensed to VIRO at the 2020 merger, but it is a 2009 H. Zhabilov patent. I don't know the difference between the two or if it's relevant to us, but it is a good find. Actually, it might even be something to watch as an indicator of future ENZC/SAGA sales of IPF Immune. JMHO.
I don't think she's the one in Dallas. JMHO.
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry to hear about Integral. In that case I'm even more mystified about how I came to respond to his post while I was on the Enzolytics, Inc. board. We discovered last week that she is involved in a SPAC business combo with ENZC as a co-trustee of the SPAC's new Sponsor after reportedly buying out the old Sponsor which is now suing that new Sponsor. We don't know anything about her or how she came to be involved. Yes, you're correct about Texas. I'm a "retired" Texas CPA myself. Please excuse the intrusion of my earlier post.
Sorry. Wrong board. I was responding to a question not realizing it was not the board I intended.
FYI...There is a CPA Lookup tab on the TSBPA website. There is no Kelli D Austin licensed as a CPA in the state of Texas. If she is a CPA, it may be from another state or under another name, but in either case, she would have to notify the TSBPA of any changes if she is a CPA and wants to practice in the state of Texas. There is a person of a similar name (different spelling and middle initial) listed in Dallas and retired.
FYI, non-CPA's cannot use the term accountant or accounting in the state of Texas. The TSBPA is very strict on that and has pursued offenders.
There is a CPA Lookup tab on the TSBPA website. There is no Kelli D Austin licensed as a CPA in the state of Texas. If she is a CPA, it may be from another state or under another name, but in either case, she would have to notify the TSBPA of any changes if she is a CPA and wants to practice in the state of Texas. There is a person of a similar name (different spelling and middle initial) listed in Dallas and retired.
FYI, non-CPA's cannot use the term accountant or accounting in the state of Texas. The TSBPA is very strict on that and has pursued offenders.
How do you explain this?
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16761954&guid=izJ-kHBXYiBmorh
Here's the SAGA 12/31/2022 10K filed 5/22/23.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16671515&guid=izJ-kHBXYiBmorh
FYI....SAGA posted an 8K and the PR acknowledging the lawsuit and the $1 million fee for the previously terminated Saudi deal. The PR has some interesting comments.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=17070814&guid=6RJ-kKMDpI5Edth#ex99-1_htm
Here's the PacerMonitor report on the case:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51289122/GLD_Partners,_LP_et_al_v_Sagaliam_Acquisition_Corp
GLD wants the telephone conference. Note that the Court requires and $100,000 bond vs the $10,000 included in the GLD written proposal. We'll see if they post it.
I've pointed that out about BioClonetics Immunotherapy several times as well. It's not clear what it contains.
Re the dividend, the Business Combination Agreement says the dividend will be distributed on a "fully diluted basis". Apparently, somebody on some other board made the assumption that the ENZC Officers had given up all their preferred stock in exchange for their 2.25 million shares each of SAGA, while the Agreement only mentioned their Series A's. I've been concerned that assumption wasn't correct.
This PR showing about 400 shares/100,000 shares of ENZC is a major diversion from the Supplement they released earlier which showed about 900/100,000. So, the estimate in today's PR may be an indication that it was only the Series A that they gave up and they will still participate in the dividend by converting their Series B's into Common Shares. This is grossly different from the Supplement they put out. Hopefully it's a mistake, but if not, maybe this can be argued in our favor. JMHO.
I think this is referring to the proposed order, which GLD said they will present tomorrow. Several other posters have provided links to that proposal.
So, "it ain't over 'til it's over", as it turns out, assuming the draft order online is correct. SAGA will have the opportunity to prove it made the extension payments... or not. They have at least until the next hearing (date to be determined by the Judge tomorrow) to catch up on their quarterlies and cure their previous disclosures. This is JMHO, but I'm not a lawyer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.84075/gov.uscourts.ded.84075.21.0.pdf
I still don't see the sense of the lawsuit unless it's about money, a bigger piece of the pie or control. If either of the last 2 options, then we can forget about all the BS recently posted about ENZC not having anything or being a scam. JMHO.
I doubt GLD is putting up $10,000 so they can lose the 1,013,000 shares of SAGA they now have from the sale of their membership interests to BN Holdings by shutting SAGA down.
Where do see that?
If I'm reading this right it sounds like its more than 30 days from Monday. There's another hearing date yet to be determined by the Judge.
Thanks for the post. This part of the Judge's order may be revealing about the Judge's intentions about his ruling, because he doesn't mention GLD's claim about the lack of an extension beyond August 23, 2023 or its consequences. He only refers to the November 21, 2023 meeting. Just sayin'.
The Offeror had to be identified. Did you see who made the offer? Thanks.
Here's the Pacer report on Friday's hearing:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51289122/GLD_Partners,_LP_et_al_v_Sagaliam_Acquisition_Corp
True, but it may be quite informative to know WHO made the offer.
Who made this offer? I don't see anything about it. Thanks