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.
Where did you see that? It would be great to see some sort of update on their loan situation. The last filed financials were for Sep 30 and a lot has happened behind the scenes since then. A lot of shares could have been issued to retire some of the old loans already. We know we jumped from about 60 million at the beginning of January to 82 million shares on Feb 11 (with a float of 48 million - per OTC Markets) I'm guessing we have passed 100 million already. At the current price a million shares is getting $5,000. If the shares are issued to pay off a loan a million shares might only pay off say $3,000 of the loan because of the required cushion under the loan arrangement. Hopefully loans have been dealt with for now and we are seeing some final reasonable expense covering.
Anyway we look at it, we need some deal to close to unlock the promise of Medican.
It looks like 0.005 is holding. The company has to get something for all the shares it is selling to cover salaries, legal expenses, etc. and is issuing to pay off previous loans. I would not be surprised to see the share amount balloon to 200 million shares before the r/s. Even saying that the market value at current prices would barely pass $1,000,000.
Compare that to say MJNA which has a market value over $100,000,000 or HEMP (a share mill) which fully diluted is well over $100,000,000. Are they worth 100 times MDCN? What have they accomplished?
One result from a business perspective would at least put MDCN even with the two above mentioned companies. That's why I'm here even though it is hard to hold on. My IRA plan won't let me buy under 0.01 and at this point and the current price I might as well ride it out. I see a plan here at least. I do think though that compensation needs to be minimal here until we see those results. Management needs to earn its pay.
The bigger question might be has Medican sold or issued enough stock yet to pay the bills and settle old loans. Once this dropped below a penny I'm sure there are restrictions on many IRAs and other accounts that prohibit any purchases at such a low price.
Today was a tough day. However I do believe that Medican has some financing it can tap. I have to believe that there are individuals and groups looking to invest in this business directly. I don't believe we would see the zoning efforts and attempts to close a deal if there wasn't. It might be costly to get the top part of any financing. There could well be a first mortgage of say 60% of the value of the property. The second mortgage for the rest of the money could be a combination of a second lien and a sweetheart stock deal. It could be contingent on a closing and the funds would be directly paid to the seller. Any closing should be a shot in the arm to the price of the stock and would hopefully provide a further degree of comfort to the lender(s)
Just a thought how a deal might happen.
Here is a comparison of the market value as of Friday of three MJ companies (including MDCN) in the MJ warehouse space
CANN - Advanced Cannabis Solutions $75,000,000 (trading in gray Market and )
TRTC - Terra Tech $44,000,000 (there is a bunch of convertible preferred stock outstanding so this is probably $10-15 million too low)
MDCN - $1,200,000 (60,000,000 shares at about 2 cents each - no preferred outstanding) If MDCN dilutes to raise all funds for the Arizona warehouse and the price remains the same what would we move to - $5,000,000 ?
In my mind the first two have a lot of work to justify their price - how many MJ warehouses have they closed on?
I saw that additional rent of 30% of the tenant's gross revenue also. Considering the size of the building complex that could prove to be substantial. Also don't forget this is a triple net lease - i.e. tenant pays taxes, insurance & maintenance.
I would think the first one is the hardest. I can see them adding more setups like this in the near future.
Sure bounced back nice after that short dip. Word must be starting to get out.
I think MDCN has leap frogged many of the other MJ companies. There are many companies with market values 50 to 100 times higher that are still trying to break out a major deal.
This will be a triple net lease so the tenant will pay the taxes, insurance, & maintenance on the property. Medican will basically net over $200,000 annually on the property. Sounds like a great deal to me.
To me this is a bet on management pulling something off. I do think that considering the recent share price they do need room to maneuver. I just don't think that Gary Johnson would be involved with something and/or people that are up to underhanded deeds.
http://thestockradio.com/mdcn-medican-enterprises-inc-ir-consultant-john-loren/
Just listened to the above interview which had been posted here recently. It reinforced my view that this stock is worth investing in. It's hard to believe it is valued this low. For comparison purposes both HEMP and MJNA are valued in excess of $100 Million and MDCN is less than $2 Million. Listen to the interview and tell me which is the better investment.
I have to agree about Gary Johnson (I even voted for him for President because of his MJ stance). I came to look at this stock originally because of him. I bought a few shares a bit high (which I still have). I have added a more over the last few days. To me this company sounds more promising than some MJ companies valued a hundred times higher right now.
Maybe Mentor's goal all along was to get Bhang to arbitration. Mentor initiated the legal action. Bhang has only responded not initiated. IMO Bhang has no leg to stand on to keep the $1.5 million Mentor gave them without giving something in return. Can you give reasons why Bhang is entitled to the money??
Here is a link with an aerial picture of the warehouse Medican is trying to purchase in Phoenix, AZ. From what I have found so far Arizona seems to prefer MJ grow operations to be situated in industrial areas. The site was last updated 32 days ago which is before the signed contract with Medican.
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/15609436/3839-N-35th-Avenue-Phoenix-AZ/
Thanks for the reply. I have to believe this is oversold. Maybe this is the great shakeout needed to turn the corner. I have to believe Drew can turn this around. If his resume is any indication, we should see great things in the future.
Is there any special news today or is this a lack of faith? The US CEO has a lot of experience in the MJ sector and has only held the position for a few months.
Thanks. I got it. Now we know that Bhang prefers arbitration after all. What baffles me is why Bhang didn't go to arbitration before these legal filings. Anyway it looks like we might see which direction this is going by mid October as a result of Bhang's filing.
Would you have the full text of Mentor's filing?
I can't get anywhere with your link. Can you post the motion and also the full filing by Mentor?
I don't see the motion to dismiss filed by Bhang listed anywhere? The date you give is the same date Mentor filed so it seems strange that Bhang would file something on the same date.
Please provide a link on this.
Looks like the court date is 11/13/2014.
Mentor's attorney has 31 years experience in Business Law. Personally, I don't believe Mentor has a problem with arbitration and filing the lawsuit was the only method available to force it. If Bhang felt so confident about arbitration and their case why didn't they agree to or initiate it in the first place? I don't understand why, if you are so concerned about the wellbeing of Mentor's stockholders, you are not outraged about Bhang keeping Mentor's cash and not giving anything in return. The fact of the matter is that there is still a signed contract and no legal ruling that has declared it invalid.
8/12/2014 5 Summons Issued as to Bhang Chocolate Company, Inc., Bhang Corporation, Richard Sellers, Scott Van Rixel, William J Waggoner. (farS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
8/12/2014 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/6/2014. Case Management Conference set for 11/13/2014 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (farS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
8/12/2014 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
8/11/2014 2 Proposed Summons. (Marotta, Paul) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
8/11/2014 1 COMPLAINT against Bhang Chocolate Company, Inc., Bhang Corporation, Richard Sellers, Scott Van Rixel, William J Waggoner ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8836951.). Filed byMentor Capital, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Certification of Interested Entities or Persons)(Marotta, Paul) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
Maybe you can do some of your due diligence and let us know how the Bhang legal action is proceeding - you must know court dates, documents filed etc.
Maybe the court needs to remind Bhang of the arbitration requirement. Same thing happened with Dixie and MJNA.
2012, 2013 and 2nd Quarter audit completion is targeted for September 29, 2014.
As usual you are misinterpreting the contract with Bhang. There were specific terms dealing with stock payments in lieu of cash shortfalls. Bhang did sign the contract. I urge all to go to the Mentor website and read the actual contract signed by Bhang. Judge for yourself so you are not mislead by those that might not have the interest of Mentor stockholders at heart.
Also, if Mentor is so in the wrong why are they the one that is public about what is happening.
In my book if you take $1,500,000 from somebody you owe them a response. I, at this point, have much more of an issue with Bhang management than with the Bhang product.
You seem to be an expert on due diligence. Why don't you do some now and ask Bhang what they are up to. If they intend to pay the Mentor stockholders the Bhang stock they deserve, it might change my opinion.
I think Bhang should publically declare what it's position is in this whole deal. Are they going to try and walk away and steal $1,500,000? I personally think that Bhang has more to fear than Mentor if this goes to court. They might find out they signed a contract they will have to honor.
I think Bhang's refusal to return the money only strengthens Mentor's case if this goes to court or arbitration. It does sounds like Bhang doesn't have the money now or they would have returned it. Some Bhang stock would be a nice start to rectifying the situation.
I am glad that this has gone public and contrary to some other opinions expressed here Chet and Mentor have been very forthcoming about what is happening. Bhang however needs to do the same.
I am long and looking to the future.
I think there is no surprise here that the warrant price would be reduced.
In reading the financials, Mentor is being very straight forward with what is going on. Mentor has enough cash to go forward and reiterated it's position that it believes it is honoring the signed contract with Bhang. With the lowered warrant price, it appears that the door is still open for Bhang to receive more cash in the near future. Also, what is telling is the comment that Bhang wants to alter some of the agreement (versus total refusal).
Is Bhang's posturing nothing more than an attempt to improve their position in the contract?
This story is far from over.
You said it right. You are only guessing.
There is still a contract until proven otherwise.
Until proven otherwise Bhang & Mentor have a contract.
I guess you are trying to tell me that a short interest double the stock's daily trading activity is meaningless?
I agree that the contract issue is hampering the stock. However, I also agree that the contract does mean something. If a person took out a car loan, he or she couldn't just decide to not pay the loan because they have decided they don't like the color of the car ( a little like a cash versus a stock payment). The betting now seems to be that the gamble that the contract is valid is worth a dollar bet.
I just saw that the short interest was over 67,000 shares on July 15th, an increase of 50% from June 30th. At recent volumes, 2 days or so of volume would be needed to cover that. The contract doubt has been a shorters dream and has been effectively used in getting others to dump their stock. Easy pickings to buy back slowly at a lower price and no margin pressures to rush anything.
The point being that any affirmation of the Bhang contract could make this fly.
I do see Ronk was censured for 30 days for something his supervisors sanctioned over 15 years ago. He was suspended for not paying a fine included with that action but a few years later did pay it (in 2004 I believe) and any suspension was revoked.
The real truth is this is a red herring and has nothing to do with the main issue here - the Bhang - Mentor contract which was announced after anything Mentor did with Ronk.
At this point, until that contract is resolved and any disagreements arbitrated by a qualified judge or panel if necessary, this stock is in a holding pattern.
I now see where you got your info - notorious short seller Timothy Sykes' website - not exactly a reliable info site
I looked him up and found his review of Mentor Graphics.
https://www.wealthmakers.com/ireport/22666
Still haven't found anything else you have posted about Tom Ronk
It doesn't bother me because I am only giving my opinion. If this stock shot up to $10 a share, can people blame you if they miss out?
The point here is that this saga is not over. There is still a valid contract between Mentor and Bhang that no court or arbitration panel has ruled against to date.
Until we hear more from Mentor & Bhang and/or possibly some legal jurisdiction as to what is going on, it looks like we are in a holding pattern with a relatively tight range.
Mentor on their website declared they gave Bhang $1,500,000 cash in total. You yourself argued that Mentor gave less than $1,000,000 by March 31st. That means the balance had to come after that date.
Oh and there seem to be plenty of investors still around as every share of stock is owned by someone. In fact the price is slowly creeping back up. Must be quite a few investors believing that Mentor will prevail here.
By the way is there a requirement to have a lawyer to post here? I didn't see that in the message board rules.
CBDS now has about 15,000,000 shares per their 8-K just filed. It looks like the float is about 2,400,000 shares of that. The stock was increased by the Kush acquisition.
Share Ownership After the Acquisition
Percentage of Class
Principal Stockholders
Sadia P. Barrameda
5,583,209 37.2 % of which a large portion is held through New Compendium Corp. (4,842,243 32.2 %)
Officers and Directors
Catherine Carroll
65,000 0.4 %
Gary Johnson
509,558 3.4 %
Steven Kubby
1,555,795 10.4 %
David Tobias
4,910,199 (3) 32.7 %
Barry Tobias
25,000 (4) 0.2 %
All Officers and Directors
As Group (5 Persons)
7,065,552 (3)(4) 47.1 %
Hempcon and Mentor never consummated a deal so your point there is irrelevant.
The termination clause was in case the deal was not closed or signed of by March 31st. It was. In fact Bhang accepted cash after that date indicating the contract was in force. As I have said there is no record of any court or arbitration panel declaring the contract invalid. Conjecture is not fact.
Perhaps you should be the one to consult a lawyer.
Bhang and Mentor have a legal contract and no court or arbitration panel has decided otherwise.
Mentor and Hempcom never consummated a deal or contract so there was nothing to run away from.
A good run yesterday.
With the Gary Johnson news spreading everywhere, I have to believe we are headed back to the teens again.
It's nice to have a stock that has a management team that believes in marijuana and personal liberty and will make money at the same time.
I have read that Mike Gravel former Alaska senator and I believe Ed Rosenthal (High Times fame?) are involved also. They were board members for Kush. Anybody know anymore on this?
I also read that Gravel had switched to the Libertarians a number of years back.