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.
Oh, so now you want to call it a meeting… that’s different then what you said (“for not releasing annual earnings in a timely manner”.)
I don’t have to do homework, I already know the facts and the requirements. The SEC compliance notice was for not having held an Annual Shareholders meeting. There’s no requirement to talk earnings in those meetings. As a matter of fact, NXPL got the SEC non-compliance notice on January 5th. They wouldn’t have had their audited annual earnings ready before then.
The requirement is to have an Annual Shareholders Meeting within 12 months of FY end. Those meetings are to vote on directors, proposals, etc.
This is simply not true. They were never out of compliance for this. Their 10K has always been submitted on time… along with associated PR and 8K.
“Regaining SEC compliance for not releasing annual earnings in a timely manner did not fool the market. “
I would like for him to point out that two board rule in the actual TOS. He evidently hasn’t read the latest TOS.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/terms.aspx
OMG… you can’t seriously be comparing Theranos to RXMD. LOL LOL LOL
Also from that NXPL PR:
“Operational and organizational highlights of the year ended December 31, 2022, and recent developments included:
NextPlat strategically expanded its focus into to the high-growth healthcare market through a $7 million investment and recapitalization of Progressive Care Inc. NextPlat intends to accelerate Progressive's digital healthcare transformation with the launch of a new e-commerce platform for healthcare products in domestic and international markets in 2023.”
If you click on Nexplat on that list, it shows you why…
“Annual Shareholder Meeting”.
What FALSE assumption has Gedi made? The only one making false assumptions is you. NXPL share price hasn’t fallen out of compliance. Once they hold their shareholders meeting in May they will have fulfilled the requirements. Before you make any more inaccurate posts… you should educate yourself on the listing differences between the NASDQ Global Markets and the NASDQ Capital Markets (CM). NXPL is a CM company. The continued listing standards for CM companies requires they maintain a bid price of $1.00. While you’re at it, you should educate yourself on the initial listing requirements for the NASDQ-CM.
Class dismissed! Hahaha
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/continuedguide.pdf
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
The $70k was net income (profit) not revenue. Which doesn’t tell us much, since we don’t know the time frame or what it was for. Crap, 70k profit is more then most pinks make in a year! LOL
Looks like we should know more after they file.
“A discussion of the Company’s business operations and services and updated financial information will be included in the March 31, 2023, quarterly filing.”
Mullen Automotive EV Update Session
Add to My WTW23 Planner
Thursday, March 9 • 2:00 PM - 2:45 PM
Location: Room 133
EVENT INFORMATION
Title: Mullen Automotive EV Update Session
Description:
Mullen Commercial will cover specifications and technical information related to the Mullen One, Mullen 3, and other products. Representatives will also discuss Mullen's planned product rollout into the commercial space.
Presented by: Mullen Automotive Representatives
Respectfully, competing chassis manufacturers are asked to refrain from attending other OEM Update Sessions due to the proprietary nature of information being presented. Thank you.
The symbol carries the “D” for 20 business days. That’s pretty standard.
“It shouldn't take three weeks for the ticker to resolve back to its original symbols after an RS. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.”
That “scumbag” has been dead for 7 years.
Stop with the RS scare! IF it were to trade under a dollar for 30 CONSECUTIVE days, they would be given 180 days to get back in compliance. Here’s the rule from the Nasdaq site.
“If a company trades for 30 consecutive business days below the $1.00 minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq will send a deficiency notice to the company, advising that it has been afforded a "compliance period" of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the applicable requirements”
Why didn’t you show the CareMed side of that agreement? Anyway, that Membership Interest Exchange Agreement (filed with the SEC in Jan 2015) was never consummated. They explain that and why in their Quarterly for 3–31-2015 (also addressed it in 6-30Q and 9-30Q). I suspect you already knew that though.
The next attorney letter isn’t due until June 2022 (6 months after the year end report). The only caveat to this, is if they make an amendment to a already submitted filing (which they haven’t). In other words, AIMH is current on all their required filings.
“If anyone can locate the Articles of Incorporation, which are supposed to be public”
I can’t find any requirement for the Articles to be posted on OTC for Pink companies. It is however a requirement for OTCQB companies. Here are the links to the reporting requirements for both QB and Pink.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/files/OTCPinkGuidelines.docx
https://www.otcmarkets.com/files/OTCQXOTCQBGuidelines.pdf
With that said, I think the attorney confused matters when he mixed the documents he reviewed in one statement. One could surmise that the Articles and Bylaws were submitted Oct 5, when I think he only meant the Officer/Director disclosure was filed on that date.
Also note, in the reporting requirements for Pink, they don’t have to put out a notification for Material Corporate Events if it’s already been included in the issuer’s previous public disclosure documents. The notifications of the increase of Authorized shares were in their last filings, so I think once they submit the change to Nevada, it’s a done deal.
I think that statement was probably a copy and paste error (made by the lawyers). AIMH and ECGI have the same lawyers and that statement was in the COVID section in a ECGI Supplemental filing in January.
No benefit to other shareholders?? LOL The ECGI shares I bought in December are looking pretty good right now!
Sexton owns and controls the Silicon LLC. He essentially sold control of the shell. ECGI acquired a marijuana company on the 1/20. Really makes me no difference what you want to call it, that shell is no longer a shell and the share price has risen as a result.
The company was a shell until the January 20th acquisition. The shell status should change in the next 10Q.
Sexton has sold his other shell... hopefully we’re next!
Oh for Pete’s sake. Corene hasn’t had anything to do with AIMH for years. And she is NOT the same Corene associated with Chrysan. There’s no doubt there were some shady people involved with AIMH years ago, including Berney, who died 5 yrs ago. Crazy speculation just hurts what the new management is trying to do here. If someone finds negative DD on the new ownership, I want to hear it, but people need to stop with the skeletons in the closet.
We’re PINK!! Yield sign is gone!!
I see you’re looking for Ms Mars. You can find her speaking at a summit on the 21st. She posted this on linkedin last week. If you go to the link in her post and look at the agenda, she’s listed as “Progressive Care”. Both Armen and Momina (Pharmco Pharmacist) liked her post. Doesn’t sound like any of them are on bad terms!
“I’m excited to speak at the Temperature Control & Logistics U.S. Online Summit, taking place September 21-25, 2020. During the online event, I will explore The Pandemic’s Ramifications: Should the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain
Be Considered Part of the Healthcare Industry? I hope you can join me! End users can register at no cost – Register here >> https://bit.ly/2XPGlrs”
Joby, you were actually the one that called my attention to AIMH back in 2013. You had posted a AIMH message on the “Dormant Shells” board. I liked the share structure and started accumulating. I bought and sold enough on the yearly spikes to get my original investment back and maintain a nice holding of free shares. I’ve been holding ever since. It’s been a pretty wild ride through the years, but I’ve always felt this would be my fairy tale stock! So for this, I say thank you!!
Regarding promos... you have to remember, RXMD still has a convertible note with CV. CV has been submitting redemption requests almost every month on the note. The higher the stock price, the less common shares they have to issue to CV (on every redemption request). Here’s the conversion rate:
“The note is convertible into shares of common stock ($0.0001 par value per share) in 1 year at the average of the five lowest closing trading prices during the twenty trading days immediately preceding the applicable conversion. “
Oh I agree, the NETE 14A will include both sides of the deal. I just don’t think RXMD will release anything until NETE does. Since NETE already announced the asset move in their filings, I think the next logical notification is the 14A. JMHO
I doubt RXMD can announce that information ahead of NETE. I’m watching for NETE to release their form 14A (proxy statement), which should have the details. Of course, this is assuming the NETE assets are what we’re going for, could always be something different.
Interesting turn of events. I’ve been patiently waiting and quietly accumulating the last 3 years. But dang, I’m starting to get excited!! It’s going to be a long weekend...
I’m right there with you, although I haven’t been here as long as you! I’ve been hanging on to my shares since 2014 and accumulating on the dips along the way!
They’ve had $99 per test on the PharmcoRX website ever since the first time they announced the testing. Scroll down to the bottom.
https://www.pharmcorx.com/get-tested-now
Looks like Chembio is getting some help/$ from Trump administration.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/trump-administration-puts-funds-into-faster-cheaper-virus-test
I’ve been holding for years! Haha
It was pretty amazing to watch!
My Triglycerides are fine, it's my LDL (“bad”) cholesterol that caused me to have to take statins.
You keep saying the filings are flawed. Can you be specific? I've already addressed some of the things you brought up, but you are still bringing it up. Just for the record, I'm not here because of the VVG speculation... Im not saying it couldn't happen, but I haven't put all my eggs in one basket.
Actually, I've hung on to this stock for years and there are a couple of things I've watched closely during that time. One of which has had some interesting developments the last few months. There's no doubt, this is a high risk/high reward play and people shouldn't bet more than they can stand to lose.
I'm looking forward to them getting their Anti-Cholesterol product on the market (end of the year goal). I'm one that has problems taking Statins, so I understand the need for a natural solution. Personally, I think it has huge market potential.
Carnell doesn't need a license in Nevada. Nevada passed legislation in 2009 that does not require a CPA to get a NV license as long as they are currently licensed in another state (which he is). It's called CPA mobility and all but 3 States now allow it (those 3 are in process). Here's the Nevada website stating such.
http://www.nvaccountancy.com/permit.fx
The latest DD on Peter Berney:
Berney died in Dec 2015. Here’s a couple of links which shows his inurnment and grave information (supplied by a “Find a Grave” volunteer).
Investopedia is not a good site for actual DD. The rule regarding shells is covered by rule 144(i). This securities lawyer does a pretty good job of explaining it. Notice what he says about the Evergreen rule (must show a company ceased to be a shell greater then one year, audited financials, etc). Also notice, the AIMH Q1 references the Evergreen Rule, so the company is aware. The SEC also validated this in a Q/A Nov 2017 (see link at answer below).
http://144letters.net/shareholders-in-current-or-former-shell-companies/
Shareholders in Current or Former Shell Companies
Posted on May 17, 2016 by Matheau Stout, Securities Lawyer
Rule 144 Opinion Letters Cannot Be Drafted for a Current Shell
Few things are more frustrating than “shell status” to OTC shareholders with restricted stock in microcap companies. Why? Because Rule 144 cannot be used to clear restricted stock in public companies that are shells when the legal opinion is written. Another way to say this is that a Rule 144 legal opinion cannot be drafted for a “current shell.”
Exceptions to the Rule 144 Shell Status Requirement
The only exception to the “shell status” requirement under Rule 144 is known as the “Evergreen Rule” which means that a former shell company must meet these requirements in order for a securities lawyer to issue a Rule 144 opinion letter:
The public company must be up-to-date or “current” in its SEC filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). This means that the company cannot be “delinquent” and must have filed its 10K, 10Q, 8K, filings up to the date of the Rule 144 legal opinion. This is the origin of the term “evergreen” which implies that the requirement to remain current is forever.
The public company must have filed “Form 10 Information” (which includes audited financials. This doesn’t have to be in a Form 10, and could instead be shown in several filings, including a Super 8-K, and subsequent quarterly and annual filings.
The public company must show that it ceased to be a shell greater than One (1) Year before the date of the Rule 144 opinion letter.
Here’s a question to the SEC about this rule and their answer.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/securitiesactrules-interps.htm
Section 137. Rule 144(i) — Unavailability to Securities of Issuers with No or Nominal Operations and No or Nominal Non-Cash Assets
Question 137.01
Question: If an issuer had previously been a shell company but is an operating company at the time that it issues securities, is the Rule 144 safe harbor available for the resale of such securities if all of the conditions in Rule 144(i)(2) are not satisfied at the time of the proposed sale?
Answer: No. Rule 144(i)(1) states that the Rule 144 safe harbor is not available for the resale of securities “initially issued” by a shell company (other than a business combination related shell company) or an issuer that has “at any time previously” been a shell company (other than a business combination related shell company). Consequently, the Rule 144 safe harbor is not available for the resale of such securities unless and until all of the conditions in Rule 144(i)(2) are satisfied at the time of the proposed sale. [Jan. 26, 2009]
Link to the actual gov regs:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i