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.
Take a second and reread the merger agreement. The Acquisitions, inc was part of the process.
Thanks,
Scotchman
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any other of my posts.
I do recall in the merger agreement that ORRV Acquisitions, Inc. was to be formed as part of the merger process. I see that on this form MHC is the surviving corporation. Guess it works no matter what they call it. Not totally familiar with the process.
But good to see something being done to finalize the merger.
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any of my posts.
Scotchman
Thanks for that Pennypauly,
I appreciate your contributions to this board. This merger looks solid and I too am looking forward to the next 2-3 weeks. Will catch up with you all tomorrow.
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any of my posts.
Scotchman
Malc,
Here's where you agreed that you had no evidence of any investigation into this merger. Do you now?
malc stone Member Level Sunday, 03/12/17 08:55:46 PM
Re: Scotchman post# 28427
Post #
28429
of 28976 Go
I doubt the previous holders of ORRV were aware of anything happening regarding the custodianship hijacking by Tracy before it occurred.
I am not aware of any current SEC investigation into this specific shell, but it is obvious that Tracy is under investigation for what the commission feels are fraudulent S-1 registrations in the past and it is also obvious that OTC Markets has found sufficient cause to ban Tracy in the course of their own investigations.
https://www.scribd.com/document/336320078/Tracy-Dct-1-and-All-Exhibits
I am Pennypauly,
I'm usually surfing thru about 5 of these boards all day. Don't post that often as I still have to try to get some work done. But I feel good about this one and one other one I'm in.
It really is surprising how folks can lose sight of the big picture and forget that qualified professionals have been hired to walk this through.
For example, all the talk about the patent lawyer doing the Opinion Letter really doesn't matter. EVEN IF Tracy sent him the work. That lawyer is primarily a patent lawyer which indicates to me he is a very smart and detail oriented guy. Has his own malpractice carrier and insurance to worry about and I don't think he would have done the Opinion letter and jeopardize his license to practice on bit. He could have just passed it on if he wasn't comfortable. But now a securities firm in Texas is running this process. So even if it was the lawyers first opinion letter, he's license and qualified to do it.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing this through and maybe even hanging on really long with it.
Good luck to you all longs.
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any other of my posts.
Thanks,
Scotchman
Hi Malc,
At least the important stuff we can agree on.
1. There's a legally binding merger agreement.
2. There is no investigation by the SEC of this merger or even Tracey's conduct in the handling of this ORRV shell.
3. There is no shareholder suit by any prior or current ORRV shareholders unhappy with the merger.
4. That according the MHC company website profile page, MHC acknowledges the merger and lists a Securities Law Firm and Auditor as retained.
So to me that sounds pretty definite. I believe those high priced securities lawyers there in Texas would have done something to stop this merger if there was the least little thing wrong with it.
I guess what I'm saying is I really don't think all the worry about whether merger docs have been posted by NVSOS or whether the PIPE financing has already taken place is necessary. MHC would have a heck of a legal malpractice case against their securities law firm if this deal collapsed under their watch. And I'm betting the lawyers are better at what they do than to let that happen.
SO, I'm comfortable betting on their expertise to make this work rather than getting worried about things happening or not happening when experienced professionals are on board doing what they do best.
I think a couple of weeks from now a lot of what seems to be the concern here will be history. Done.
No one should buy, sell or hold a stock based on this or any of my posts.
thanks,
Scotchman
Just could not resist buying more shares today. Was going to buy at 5 but when it started moving down was fortunate to get 5 mil more at 4. Already had more than I could possibly need when this takes off. But the manipulation of share price just makes it too easy to average down and pad the total number. These guys seem legit to me and are making every attempt to put this together correctly and make it work. Announcements on the hiring of a securities attorney and accountant to audit the books should be coming soon. Or maybe the acquisition of the manufacturing facility they mentioned. I'm believing they are busy getting all of these things done and will update us when they have the news. In the meantime, I'll sit back and read this message board for the updates and the entertainment of watching those who come up with endless ways to cast doubt on management in order to run the share price down. If you aren't a day trader or a flipper the only thing that matters is management getting their work done. I think they will.
Never buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any of my post.
Scotchman
Malc,
I appreciate your response and agree with you wholeheartedly. I really do admire your use of PACER or other services to get into the Federal Court website to provide the documents you have. But what I take from your last response, just to be clear, is that you are not aware of any documentation of protest or objection by any pre-Aug,2016 shareholders of ORRV or of any SEC investigation into this ORRV transaction by Tracy. Additionally, you don't have any information about Hollow Barton, LLC not complying with the requirements of the Custodian Order. That information is important to my evaluation of this deal is why I ask.
I do appreciate your past research into this matter.
Thanks,
Scotchman
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any other posts of mine.
Malc,
No, I acknowledge that if Tracy was not forthcoming with truthful answers to the Court he may have to answer for that. But it appears that they plead that the Petitioners have no convictions etc. I see the statute that cites investigations of the Petitioner or affiliates. SO, I do see what part you are alleging as fraud on Tracy's part. THE APPLICATION FOR CUSTODIANSHIP>
But on the process, if the old shareholders of ORRV are good with what happened and have not raised an objection seems they must be looking at cashing in what was a worthless stock for something bigger. Don't see any documentation that Hollow Barton, LLC did not comply with the Custodian order either. I see where a report was due back to the Court (that handwritten portion added by the judge). Any proof that was not complied with? I would think since the judge added it himself he would have yanked Hollow Barton back into Court to get that filed. But maybe they did and we just don't have the report. SO again, any documentation that Hollow Barton didn't comply with the Custodian Order?
This has been going on for sometime. I'd be surprised that if all was not in order some old SH or the SEC would have not already stopped this. It's pretty late in the game to stop it now. Another few weeks and it'll all be completed.
DO NOT buy, sell or hold stock based on this or any of my posts
Malc,
I read thru the documents that I thought were pertinent to ORRV and scanned most of the rest. Do you have any documentation of any old ORRV shareholders not being in agreement with the shell passing into Custodianship by Hollow Barton, LLC? I didn't see any. Not saying they don't exist but if no prior shareholders, those prior to Hollow Barton, LLC's involvement in Aug, 2016 have raised objection to this ORRV corp being "bought up", "hijacked" or whatever by Hollow Barton, LLC and then being sold to MHC, where's the problem with the transaction itself? I recognize that a particular judge may take issue, or not, with the application back Aug 2016, but if no one with standing to do so has raised an objection to the process why would that judge or SEC bring it up on their own? Is there a SH suit somewhere?
DO NOT buy, sell or hold any stock based on this or any of my posts.
Malc,
Do you not have a copy of the order where you say Tracy fraudulently misrepresented the court? If you can find that I am certain I can find the judge's phone number where you can contact the Court directly and let them know. I am sure if you are correct the Court will take swift action against Tracy. Got the Order?
How long ago did Tracy make that misrepresentation to the Court you are referring to? Has no one brought it to the Court's attention? Seems that would be an easy thing to do. Just call the judge's clerk and tell them. They would certainly be interested in such a miscarriage of justice don't you think? Have you called them? Do you have a copy of the Custodianship Order so we can see the name of the judge that you say Tracey fraudulently misled by omission? Thanks for your help.
What do you mean by "hijacked"? I'm not really understanding what that means in regards to a stock.
Thanks, I see that. So would you expect a symbol change request to be a separate filing from those latest filings as to the merger?
Scotchman
Thanks Janice. The link to the rule is spot on.
Scotchman
Bottom Watcher,
I'm figuring this out as we go here. The FINRA site only list changes posted elsewhere it appears. They don't do the changes themselves. The disclaimer in the top right of the page you linked explains that. I can't find an OTCE website. Could you please clarify for me? Thanks, Scotchman
Good evening Janice.
I'm fairly new at this so thought I'd look up FINRA instead of appearing ignorant by asking you what the FINRA meant. Here's what I found.
http://www.finra.org/about/what-we-do
Their site talks about regulating brokers for the safety of investors. I haven't found anything about them authorizing or implementing stock name changes. Am I missing something?
Scotchman
Tradeok,
I think you may have something there. Would the trading board even let the old noncurrent corp, ORRV, file updates and attorney letter if there had already been merger documents filed with NVSOS? And what would be required, MCC statements or old ORRV statements? Sounds pretty confusing if the ORRV status is not straightened out first. I guess that's why they hire lawyers and CPAs to walk it through in an orderly fashion. Obviously too slow for day traders.
Scotchman
Nothing stated herein is to be taken as investment advice. Do not buy, hold or sell stock based on my posts.
So it's kind of like buying a deed to property but taking your time to file it in the deed office. You still have full ownership rights but need to technically preserve that with filing. In reference to the potential of a backlog I tend to think filings in most government SOS offices are probably processed and available for viewing by the public within a week of receipt. But you don't know from office to office. What is clear is that the MHC has the full authority to file the documents to amend its charter along with the additional step called for with the formation of ORRV Aquisition, Inc. So the delay in seeing those filings really don't reflect on the validity of the agreed upon merger. That's good to know. Thank you.
Janice,
Please clear up this point for me. When is a merger a merger? Is it when the parties sign a merger agreement or is it when the surviving corp registers the change at the SOS office?
Scotchman
Okay,
Just wanted to be sure I understood that at least on its face the merger agreement is a binding contract on all its parties and if any of them broke the agreement they could be sued for damages. I understand that you are saying the paperwork has yet to be filed in the SOS office but I would think that even though that registers the merger the binding agreement to merge is still valid.
Thanks for your imput. Just wanted to be sure.
Scotchman
Janice,
Isn't the merger agreement a binding agreement? Are you saying either party could just walk away from it without consequence?
Solid game plan here! I like Ms. Li. First thing she does is signs an advertising deal. The second thing she does is signs the purchase of a bottling facility. No other puffery from her. Just what appears to be a solid plan.
I was glad to get 3M more today mostly 9's. Get's me to a nice total and where I think I'm more than set for the eventual rise once this company gets going. Will now just check in every week or so and ignore the day trading posturing and MM manipulations. I see this as an 8-12 month process. Good luck to all of you holding long.
I don't ever post as I am trying to learn this game from you guys/gals that have been doing this for some time. I have to say I appreciate the DD done by many here. I for one do check your links and read what you are finding. Thanks
Holding Long here. How'd you shoot on the back nine? LOL