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.
Why no further posting by him on the present course and direction of FASC is certainly an extremely negative indicator.
I agree, Dave. I'd hold off on calling if I were you. People can talk a good game but actions speak louder than words.
Cool, I sent off an e-mail to IR, this time with the information that it looks right in Firefox but not in all web browsers.
Cool, I sent off an e-mail to IR, this time with the information that it looks right in Firefox but not in all web browsers.
It just doesn't fit well with Opera, Edge, or IE, at least on my computer. Are you using Firefox?
Okay, thanks for that. EOM
I am viewing it in Opera and Microsoft Edge. The first column has two column titles and the last column has no title.
If you do decide to e-mail them I was wondering if you wouldn't mind including a note about how the chart on the pipeline page has the column titles Development and Phase 3 in the same column. I sent them an e-mail about this a couple of weeks back but received no response.
Revocation by the SEC is independent from revocation by the state of Nevada. FASC recently paid its long overdue bill (their previously default status was them did not go unnoticed by the FASC) so revocation there will not a concern there for some time.
There has been no update from Brian Nichols on the website, I see.
That's good news! Thanks for the info. EOM
I am seeing 160,000 shares held by institutions and 13,939,392 shares held by an insider.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aphb/ownership-summary
That's if Brian Nichols and son are good people. I stopped calling HQ because BN was a jerk when I was just trying to be helpful. Adam was a major jerk to Charlie.
I suggest you consider a shareholder revolt as way of salvaging this investment. I'm sure the shareholders could put together a much better management staff than who is presently in charge. If I was a CEO I would have sold ice cream on the boardwalk to scrape together the money for financials if need be. FASC had sales and pocketed that money.
They (we) certainly should. I was calling for that a little before this brutal event, and would have been more vociferous if I thought there would be an audience for it.
After he got caught lying to Charlie we should be calling for Brian Nichols' head. It's very sad he's allowed to continue as head of the company. Pennystockholm Syndrone is right. Woeful ineptness is the best thing you could say about him. Look at the company he hired to be the marketing company, PacWest Global, a company so stupid they had the wrong phone number on their website.
FASC has been an abomination since Cal died, and it wasn't a panacea before then either.
They still haven't even paid their Nevada SOS bill!!!
Okay, thanks. EOM
How many shareholders would that wipe up to save $5000? It's not a lot of money. I question whether FASC has 5000 shareholders, it sounds like a lot for a penny stock. But assuming it's true, how many shareholders will they wipe out who invested $5000 just to save that amount of money?
And if it's the time it takes to mail out 5000 letters, I think that's small penance for their mismanagement.
The CFO was the CEO at one point in time. Many people considered him the leader of the company despite the CFO title.
The was some story about fronting a machine and never getting paid and having to pay the manufacturer out of future machine sales, which was at least part of the reason why they claimed to have been delinquent in the filings.
Waite, Adam's e-mail: adam at fasc net EOM
And what is that point, exactly? FASC may have had the option to benefit from this double standard by revising their shareholder count and filing a form 15. If they had too many shareholders to benefit from this double standard, well those are the rules.
It would seem to me this double standard exists for a reason, in that it helps smaller companies who would benefit by spending money in areas other than on accounting. Retail investors may not be aware of this distinction between reporting and non-reporting companies and be duped into purchasing scam stocks, but on the other side of the coin I am sure some companies and investors benefit from this provision. I do not think it helps our cause by making the point a double standard existed. FASC was a publicly traded company that failed to meet its obligations and it doesn't matter what other companies operating under a different set of rules were doing.
Excellent points, Janice. Everything points to FASC is and has been just trying to run the clock out on shareholders so they can pilfer the technology and leave shareholders holding the bag.
TR, I don't know. EOM
TR, that company, Virtra Systems, filed a form 15, de-registering itself with the SEC. Someone posted here that even if FASC wanted to do that they couldn't with 5000 shareholders. I question whether FASC has 5000 shareholders as it seems like a lot but it's pretty much a moot point now.
I e-mailed Adam about it a year ago and he said they were having someone look after it. I e-mailed him recently and he asked me for a link, when it was the same link I sent him a year ago. Last I had heard was they had spoke to NV and they were told to wait until just before payment came due to avoid going into revoked status. That didn't make a lot of sense to me but it was second hand information so I never asked why that was.
At best it's an embarrassment a public company would allow itself to become so delinquent in corporate entity fees. They were allowed to conduct business without penalty while in default status but it's not a good message to send out to shareholders and potential customers.
The value is in the technology, not the company. The company could easily enough sell the technology for a song to an accomplice to pay off its debt and leave shareholders with nothing.
I hope FASC proves me wrong.
I think you're right. That was a pretty telling response and the SEC letter read like carefully chosen language. Looks like I got grifted good, by a carnie no less.
FASC has their old address at the EDGAR portion of the SEC.gov website. So it's possible they never received the letter. They moved sometime around this time last year, or perhaps before. Their old address was a P.O. Box.
Of course this is no excuse and I expect we will be revoked, but I hope FASC does everything in their power to make the best case they can to the judge.
All of this is rather infuriating. Brian may not be a liar but the shareholders did not have their investment looked after with proper care. I guess the proof will be in the pudding what kind of people they are up there in Abbotsford, B.C. because I believe all of the money owed (if there is any still) is owed to either Brian or Mainland Machinery.
Thank you, Fasctrack. The stock TR mentioned earlier, Virtra Systems, voluntary suspended its reporting obligations to the SEC. A Google search to me suggests their trading was never suspended.
It would appear there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic at this point given the information provided to this board today by you and others.
TR, are you legally able to audit the filings for FASC? You may be our only hope.
(Sorry about posting this to lucky,my dog...was not my intention.)
Thanks for your posts, Janice. How long do you figure FASC has to get its filings submitted to the SEC?
For future reference it's on their website. I just called but no answer. I recommend you call, no one here has even confirmed they are aware of the suspension.
(604) 850-8959
Management didn't help by not paying the approximately $1000 to become current with the NV SOS.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74779.pdf
A. RESPONDENTS
1. First American Scientific Corp. (CIK No. 1002822) is a defaulted Nevada corporation located in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g). First American Scientific Corp. is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, which reported a net loss of $249,744 for the prior nine months. As of April 14, 2015, the company’s stock (symbol “FASC”) was quoted on OTC Link (previously, “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. (“OTC Link”), had eight market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
Indeed. I am wondering if anyone has contacted HQ to inform them of the suspension?
Fasctrack, I am going to go out on a limb here and say the difference between FASC and most stocks that got suspended is FASC has a product which the company has been able to find buyers for, so in theory they will be able to come up with the money to pay for auditors and do what is required to trade again on a proper market.
The problem is sales are slow, even if they appear to be increasing in pace. I don't approve of management's performance in the past and I do not have an adequate amount of faith in them to ramp up sales in the way we want, or to even have the want to do right for shareholders and get us back on a proper exchange. We've been a de facto private company for some time now and they may like it that way.
My hope is Charlie will organize a shareholder revolt and we install new management.
Thank you sir. EOM
Good post, thanks for sharing. EOM
TR, I am giving a quick glance at Virtra's financial statements hosted at OTCMarkets.com. The most recent one is audited but not up to the rigors of an SEC audit, or so I would assume, as it's not hosted at SEC.gov.
Maybe this is why they have been allowed to resume trading on OTC Markets. I don't know.
Anyhow, I stand corrected on my assumption it will take an audited financial statement to resume trading. I think if someone were to follow the regulation in earnest that's what it would take but I don't know what the actual case is.
"If a broker-dealer does not have confidence that a company’s financial statements are reasonably current and accurate in all material respects,..."
A statement is something that has been made public. Internal financials would not meet that standard. Neither will unaudited financials, as a broker-dealer will not have confidence in their accuracy.
Edit: I see what you said about Virtra systems. I find it surprising anyone could be confident in unaudited financial statements.
Thanks for the link, TR. I think it's safe to say that the last filing being for the period ending Mar. 31, 2012 will not be considered recent enough for readmittance, especially since that's why we were suspended.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/Grey-Sheet-Grey-Market-Stock-Info-Board-3459/
Stocks generally end up as what is commonly called Grey Sheet stocks after an SEC suspension. Technically, it is the Grey Market.
Market Makers are warned, pursuant to 15c 211 not to publish a quote for the security without reviewing its information statement/clarified information statement
Other OTC or otherwise known as the "GREY Market" is the trading of a security that is not listed on any stock exchange or quoted on the Pink Sheets or the OTCBB.
Other OTC trades are however reported to the NASD so investors can still track price and volume, however bids and offers are not collected in a central spot so Best Execution of orders is difficult.
As of September 21, 2012: From January 2010 until today there have been a total of 1116 SEC Suspensions where ALL 1116 stocks were reinstated on the Grey Sheets after the ten day SEC Suspension ended.
Of the 1116 SEC Suspended stocks since January 2010 645 Registrations have been revoked.
The remaining 471 stocks are on the Grey Sheets (or still in the ten day SEC Suspension within the last ten days) and not one has made it off the Grey Sheets back to quotation by any Market Maker.
Of the 471 stocks that are on the Grey Sheets most are awaiting revocation on DEFAULT for failure to file Financials, wherein there were no other allegations that would require subsequent SEC Litigation(s).
Stocks that were Suspended for any allegations are awaiting SEC Litigation or are being litigated and those stocks will remain on the Grey Sheets and will NOT be revoked until all SEC Litigation has been adjudicated by an SEC Administrative Law Judge.
For additional research the links below comprise all SEC Actions back to 1995.
SEC Suspensions:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml
SEC Administrative Proceedings:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtml
SEC Litigations:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml
Administrative Law Judge Orders:
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders.shtml
Sunspotter as well, as TR alluded to in his response.
FASC screwed up big time. Hopefully shareholders will rally to the cause of getting some new management now. My family's measly 250,000 shares are pledged.
Thanks to Renee for posting about the suspension as well.
Charlie, I called PacWest in regards to your post. Dusty (I believe that's who it was) said he received your e-mail. I informed him of the response you received and how it said to you that the delivery had failed. He said when he got into the office tomorrow he would look into it.