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.
Yeah that makes more sense, but that means SLNN never owned the S7 IP which is very misleading because management never miss an opportunity to boast about that car, but it really doesn't have anything to do with SLNN. Saleen Automotive didn't built the S7, nor do own the IP, so they really don't have anything to do with it...
Also contrary to what some have claim, the share conversion from convertible notes is far from over:
SLNN is out of money again. They only have $21,000 on hand as of July 8th. Meaning that nothing got better between March 31st, reporting date, and now.
The company is down to only 22 employees, but my best guess is that they will be looking for a new job after reading this 10K or maybe they will be offered a transfer to SMI in Mississippi or Virginia.
So the $500k from Greentech is gone and they made something clear, which wasn’t in the disclosure, that the $500k was “advance royalities[sic] from an Intellectual Property License Agreement”. Meaning that SLNN will not see anymore money from this agreement for a long time if ever.
Normally after a filling they announce that they will run out of cash in 3 months, but this time they that they don’t have enough NOW!
Did you invest in this stock? because if you did and think that super voting preferred shares are only for voting, you shouldn't be investing at all.
super voting preferred shares converts to common share at a rate of 1 for 1,000.
Forget about voting.
In what world 1 yr revenue should equal market cap?
Why you keep talking about "PowerShares"? What's that? You are talking about the Super Voting Preferred shares?
We are not talking about a 100 mililon more shares. We are talking about 2 billion more shares. They are filling for 2.5 billion total authorized shares. That's 2 billion more than there are now.
There's only one reason why they switched to preferred shares:SLNN needed more common shares to issue to note holders, this reason is plainly stated in the disclosure:
here: http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/saleen-automotive-posts-second-quarter-results-otcbb-slnn-1968512.htm
November 14 they said they received their first batch of 2015.
I see you are not addressing the real issues, but whatever. 2.5 billion shares is nothing a suppose.
March 2015 - 170 million shares
July 2015 - 460 million shares and filling for 2.5 billion authorized
But everything is cool.... lol
lol there was 30 last year, so going down and if you are only clinging to this stock because of the number of employees, this is a really bad reason.
Saleen claims the White label has been available since December 2014. So there goes that.
And anyway, no one is even talking about the income statement nor the balance sheet, it's a bunch of other things that are of interest in the 10K, for example the updated O/S and the fact that Saleen finally disclosed they are trying to increase authorized common shares to 2.5 billion.
I've called the poor income for months now, not going to beat this dead horse with even though some people were speculating as much as $5 million in revenue during the quarter, can you believe that! anyway it's all about the share structure now and now we have the proof that they are going the good old pump and dump way.
Another fun fact from the 10K. SLNN changed their approach to the bank lawsuit since I have published the full lawsuit and been criticizing their disclosure of the claim.
In the original disclosure they said that the claim was "without merit" now they changed their approach completely:
This is correct. From the 10K:
Real ugly problems in this 10K. A big obvious one is that Saleen is not paying back convertible note and admits they are running out of authorized shares:
This is not true. You are not referring to S7 IP, but Steve Saleen's brand the "Saleen brand". This is not necessarily the S7:
From the S-1:
It's straightforward. CA Global Partners are coordinating the sale of all assets and intellectual property of all of Saleen's Supercars: Saleen S7, S7R and S5S Raptor.
We have yet to know who is the seller. Some are speculating that SLNN is the seller, but this is unlikely since the sale includes chassis and an old concept car that weren't in SLNN's possesion or at least haven't been properly disclosed in their inventory.
This would mean that SLNN never own the IP of the S7 which is extremely misleading.
And if SLNN is indeed the seller, then they have some explaining to do regarding their disclosure of assets and it leaves us with the question: why are they selling IP?
Generally a business in financial difficulties selling IP is not a good sign...
As for the actual logistic of the auction here: http://cal.cagp.com/event/saleen-s7/
Yeah I looked at that too, but it doesn't say that SLNN is the seller.
The more I look at it the more I think they are not. Raptor concept and all those chassis are not disclosed in inventory. If they are the seller, they didn't disclose thier assets properly and they are going liquid on it.
If they are not, it means that SLNN never owned S7 IP and was misleading in that regard.
Actually I'm not even sure Saleen is the seller in this auction. Those chassis and the Raptor concept car never appeared in Saleen's inventory. They would have to disclose that. They say it was in storage for 5 years.
Yeah I think this isn't even SLNN's.
Does that mean that SLNN doesn't even own S7 IP?
There's something rotten here...
Yeah sure you can choose to look at it like that. It certainly doesn't look like they are going liquid on assets ahead of a bankruptcy. Nothing like that...
historically, healthy companies always sell their IP, common pratice lol...
Yeah sure if it's coming out, it will not be from SLNN since they don't even own the IP on the car anymore: http://news.sys-con.com/node/3366351
You are following a shady CEO. The guy has been highly involved in 2 companies that went bankrupt and he is doing business with even shadier people, David Weiner, Michael Waldman, Richard Zaremba, Seth and Curt Kramer and the list goes on. Guys that between them have been accused or being investigated for anything from rape to security fraud.
And now this Greentech business with guys selling fast track to American citizenships to Chinese businessman to finance their company. Their also under SEC investigation BTW.
This thing is getting uglier every day.
Just people holding bags when the company's bank is suing them to seize collaterals and they can't even file their 10k. If they don't file this week, it would be hilarious, but anyway we already know what's in there.
Yeah $700 of short position is nothing. there are over 260 million shares at a very minimum out there. 693k shares is absolutely nothing.
The short squeeze theory that was thrown around is certainly out of the question
Yes, This is correct. You are quoting the exact same source I have been saying since the beginning: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SLNN/short-sales
As of Jun 30, 2015, there are 693,487 shares of short positions.
This is literally worth $693. So again, virtually no short interest on SLNN.
or are you claiming that $700 worth of short is a significant short position?
It actually does have a price.
if you have 10 times average volume and you can't run yeah it isn't good. The high volume on itself is not what is bad, it's the fact that the stock can't run with it that is bad.
your words, not mine :
Well that's new.
That's not what is at stake here.
First of all the main complaint is indeed valid since the loan was made when the company was private and as a public company, Steve Saleen lost control of the company. The proof of that is that he had to increase his stake 200% to get back to a 53% majority. Meaning he has lost control at some point.
But regardless of that, the bank first made this claim after SLNN went public and it got settle because SALEEN AGREED TO PAY IN FULL. So again, Saleen already agreed to pay back the loan in full to settle the claim that they had to pay back in full because of the change in control.
Now a settlement is not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing, but it looks bad that SLNN already agreed to pay back the loan in full last year for the same claim.
The only thing that changed is that Saleen never paid back the loan. Even with multiple extension.
It looks like SLNN is going back on its word because they simply can't pay.
I really can't see a way to spin in a way that can make SLNN look good. It's just bad business.
The bulls rely on information disclosed by Saleen PR while the bears rely on information disclosed through SEC filings.
In other words, the bulls use information Saleen WANTS to disclose, while the bears use information Saleen HAS to disclose. There's a big difference here.
You just copied and pasted SLNN's disclosure of the lawsuit. At least you should have put this in quote since it is not your words.
Looking at just one side of the argument is useless. Especially that Saleen disclosed only one of the 9 complaints the bank is citing in the lawsuit. I suggest anyone with interest in SLNN to read the lawsuit in full: http://pdfsr.com/pdf/slnncitizen and also to remember that Saleen does indeed owe this money, that's not what they are disputing, then don't they pay it? WHy?
Every time mentioning the licensing deal you always conveniently leave out the amendment to Saleen's IP rights in order to cede all IP in case of a bankruptcy. That was part of the deal. An important part one might say. Especially when the company's bank is pushing for bankruptcy.
Share structure for the reported period. It's not unlikely that they will stop in March.
10K has nothing to do with officers selling stock. 10K is up to March 2015, the super voting share business went on last month.
If Saleen is selling shares, he would have to file at some point, but nothing to do with the 10K.
I've never said they couldn't stay open if they kept issuing toxic debt and we all know how that turned out.
I've called the drop from $0.30 to now $0.001. I think my reputation on SLNN is doing a lot better than someone who invested $50k in it at $0.40.
OMG this is beyond exageration:
Steve Saleen left Saleen Inc, the maker of the S7 a few months before it went bankrupt and then he started "SMS Supercars" which was almost bankrupt in 2013 so it went into a reverse merger with a public shell to then create Saleen Automotive - SLNN.
As per your own link, this is not true. Saleen Automotive (SLNN) never produced a supercar. Never.
Saleen Inc, which went bankrupt, produced the S7.
Also Frank, Tally, Mallock were all essential to making the S7 happen and they are not at Saleen anymore.
it is wishful thinking to think these guys have anything in common with Saleen.
Next we'll hear about how Buffett's Berkshire being on the OTC at some point means that SLNN can still surge.