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.
Agree. The facts are conveniently (and repeatedly) ignored.
Read the S1. ESCU is registering 2M shares at $2.50 to be offered to hedge funds in a private placement.
Kimmons holds 1% of the I/O. The shares are restricted.
Please educate us. What transgression is Pacific Stock Transfer guilty of?
OMG, this is a hopeless company to invest in!! Wish I had known this about ESCU earlier. My bad!!
Wow, life is scary I guess. But there's hope. Welcome to the new world of ESCU.
It is irrelevant. According to ESCU management the SEC had NO questions related to Kimmons.
Perhaps that's because there's no good reason to ask about him?
It's standard operating procedure for the SEC to ask questions and for the company to answer them via new filings of the S1.
It's an iterative process that proceeds until the SEC is satisfied.
The process is comprehensive and highly detailed. That's why S1's cost so much and are very valuable when approved. They are considered the "gold standard".
ESCU will benefit greatly from the time and effort it's expending to get the S1 completed.
Irrelevant and untrue. ESCU's management is as stated in its S1.
Total misrepresentation of the ESCU facts. The valuation of the patent is incorporated into the audited financials shown in the S1.
The independent auditor would never have allowed the asset to be footnoted on the audited financials without certification by an accredited third party valuation expert.
The fact that it's on the audited financials means it passed muster with the independent auditor.
That's not the company "saying it's so".
So an S1 does not prove anything!! Wow, someone should tell ESCU that. It would have saved them about $100k they've spent out of their own pockets.
Someone should also tell the DTCC, since they review the S1 filing to determine whether or not to remove a chill.
And the SEC, who uses it to establish companies as fully reporting.
Wow, who knew??
Untrue and misleading. The asset was valued by a third party on the east coast. A certified asset valuation expert. That expert has nothing to do with ESCU.
The S1 has been presented to the SEC for approval. It has not been released to the public as "approved" by the SEC. As such, it has not been presented for public consideration.
A "bunch of shares" have not been purchased. The stock has not traded.
Also, the asset is not questionable. It's shown in an approved set of audited financials.
Ridiculous. What's to be dissatisfied with? Answer: nothing.
No promises, announcements, or representations have been made by ESCU. They are simply getting things in order before proceeding.
ZERO selling pressure now.
Hello??? Gary Kimmons does not work for ESCU. He did not make the S1 filing.
Absolutely untrue. I suggest a reread of the S1. The SEC knows EXACTLY what happened and has not shown concern to date.
Which audit and S1 are being referred to here? If it's ESCU's, NOTHING described in this post is true.
This is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with ESCU today.
What does this have to do with ESCU?
Where do these myths come from? There's absolutely NO information that supports any of this about ESCU.
As I said, NO announcements have been made by ESCU or its management.
No press releases or announcements thus far. ESCU is not pushing its stock.
No speculation going on on this end.
Dunno, but it's irrelevant now as far as ESCU goes.
Just a bunch of disinformation here. The facts related to ESCU say otherwise.
No facts have been presented to support the allegation against ESCU.
No one.
This is simply dusting the cobwebs off of accusations that are unsupported and irrelevant when it comes to ESCU.
Unsupported by the facts. A total misrepresentation of the ESCU opportunity.
Totally false. Like I said, it's a new company.
No problem here. New people. New plan. Great opportunity. What's to complain about?
ESCU is a new business plan with brand new people. A total fresh start.
More irrelevant hoo hah that has nothing to do with what's going on today with ESCU.
This information is incorrect and irrelevant as it relates to ESCU's current activities.
Totally misleading. ESCU is a brand new business with a brand new group of people.
Great team. Tremendous potential. Wide-open market. Go ESCU!
False and misleading. It's also irrelevant in terms of what's going on today with ESCU.
So which is it? This is a pump and dump, or there is no trading / interest in ESCU?