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.
Thank you. I didn't know about that filing.
Can you share with me how you arrived at December 3rd? I'm not familiar with the expected time frames for the court system.
Thank you,
Carl
It's not really. "The company" almost always refers to the the company that is writing the tweet or PR. CUBV produced the tweet. CUBV said litigation against "the Company". CUBV means litigation against themselves. It's pretty much universal usage.
I got a few of those, not a lot because my account isn't huge, but I was happy to have them :D
Probably not a rule so much as a strong preference. They just don't want to inherit somebody else's BS. But I'm not a lawyer and could be very wrong.
It's not re: the merger target. It's re: the company, aka CUBV, which has had a few legal wrangles in the last year or so.
I think they'll resolve it pretty quickly, personally. I'm guessing, without solid knowledge that this has to do with the messy departure of the former consultant. He seems to use lawsuits to make sure he gets paid (very well), so I would expect them to be able to come to an agreement.
Oh, thank you. I didn't notice that. (I had that section hidden) I guess someone must have talked to him for clarification?
It's good to have.
I didn't realize he was still in final negotiations. Thank you. Was that from a phone call / email, or was there a tweet I misunderstood?
You're very welcome. Of course, my response didn't satisfy me, so now I've gone and hit the Googles. These may be instructive if you remain curious:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers/premerger-notification-merger-review
https://www.mayerbrown.com/public_docs/MergerReviewProcess.pdf
Based on the thresholds, and an educated guess about the likely targets, I doubt either party is large enough in terms of revenue or market share to trigger a review requirement based on the size of the party, but I don't know how they might value the deal itself. Regardless, it looks like in most cases where neither party is huge, it's a formality, and is quickly disposed of.
My impression has been that state or federal review are only required for mergers between very large companies, either past a certain dollar limit or where one or both parties are near to or clearly a monopoly.
I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert though, so take that with a heaping teaspoon of salt.
I'm thinking the other one, but I wouldn't mind either, so I'm not playing :D
Well, that's sort of a matter of interpretation. He never said he had a signed deal, either. And it was probably only off the table until he got rid of the liabilities, which he did. So there were a bunch of bumps and milestones taking place as part of negotiating the deal that weren't detailed.
But I want to be a millionaire by this time tomorrow...
You may be right, but I'm pretty sure Energy Source Minerals is already a separate company from Energy Source, the geothermal company. So I don't know if they would need to split Illiad out as a separate company... I see it more as a piece of technology owned by ESM, licensed to other companies, and used to extract lithium, rather than as a company in its own right. Thus my guess that any merger would be with all of Energy Source Minerals. But in truth I do not know. It will be an interesting ride, whatever happens.
That's the way I see it. If, as you say, it's them.
I like the way you think. I don't know if ESM would need to spin off Illiad though... I would think it would just be the whole shebang, if it ends up being ESM.
And ESM in 5 :D
Thank you for finding that. It was new to me. Episodes 4 & 5 are particularly fascinating and relevant!
One thing to consider re: the differing presentation of ESM & CTR is that ESM is tied to a working power plant, which can be found online with its company name and website. This means 2 things:
1) Half the work is already done. They have deep brine wells and brine flowing through their power plant. They have electric power in spades. This is NOT a small point. Those power plants take a couple of years to tip up.
2) They have an income stream. They are already selling electricity and have been for a decade or so. So they may not be as hungry for investment funds as some of their competitors so may not be MARKETING as aggressively.
Sure, we still don't know how their technology compares to Lilac's... but not knowing shouldn't be taken to mean it doesn't compare well... it just means they aren't using their website to sell it. To me, that smells like confidence.
Wow.
ESM too!
This aged very very quickly.
Maybe negotiations and lawyering take more than 48 hours?
Ihub shows bid and ask, but it's currently very light.
It's all possible.
I'd be very happy with either Lilac or ESM.
My sense is that any of them would be great for us.
The other one I've seen mentioned several times is Energy Source Minerals. https://www.esminerals.com/
I think they have a physical location and plant there.
That's how I took it. Removing the liabilities probably changes how much the shell is worth.
Yep, this week. No luck.
That's a very non-committal way of saying it, though. Look for it... doesn't guarantee it will be there.
So I have to wonder, why that week?
1) Just released financials, so probably releasing financials was a prerequisite to whatever it is.
2) Financials were earlier than is usually required for OTC pink, so there was probably some rush. Why?
3) They were probably in fact finalizing some kind of deal with a target date somewhere around this week, if all goes perfectly.
4) GM really doesn't seem to adhere to deadlines, so his deadlines and target dates should always be expected to stretch. And a deal isn't fully under his control anyway, with another company and lawyers involved. Add 7 - 14 days, and you *might* get a realistic timeframe.
Agreed.
He didn't refer to financials as news previously.
My guess is his time frames are rather rough.
Not in China. Other Asian countries, etc.
They've made it clear that they aren't doing one.
150+.... its not hard to check. My understanding is that a small fraction of purchasers leave reviews.
People seem to like them on Amazon
I think we're on the same page, then. Sorry for the misunderstanding lol
Oh, I wasn't referring to shares purchased on the open market. I don't know about ICOA specifically, but yes, pink sheet companies do sometimes issue shares in what are essentially fraudulent circumstances. Incoming management can and should cancel them when that circumstance is clear.
Actually, they can cancel them in a number of circumstances.
If there was no service provided for the shares, the issuance was probably illegal, and can and should be canceled. This happens sometimes in penny stocks.
Also, during the shell period, the shares become essentially worthless, so it puts the company in a strong position to negotiate their cancellation or some other kind of deal. Sometimes the majority of the shares are cancelled in exchange for a small percentage coming off restriction. And there are other variations on this theme. If the company needs to reduce the shares to close the deal, this is a good way to do it, and a good justification for strong arm tactics.
That's not a personal transportation company. It's a videography company. Still pretty cool, but doesn't seem to be a match.