The way I see there are only two ways out....

Sell, or reverse.

No one would want to buy this stinker, so when's the reverse happening?

EVRM doesn't maintain the IHUB IBOX, talk with the mods about it.

No wonder his project manager and his operations manager quit-it looks, basically, like a pyramid scheme. The old cutco knives bit from ages ago.

Jesus. Is this REALLY what our CEO is investing in?

How has the BOD allowed this to happen?

Not to worry fellow shareholders, Sym is going to be a big time newspaper man.

I want pictures. Pictures of SPIDERMAN

insert-text-here

Read that, understand it, and read through some of the related articles, then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Sym probably used some overly generous market cap multiplier valuation model to determine that figure, and then presented it as a qualified stated to give him some wiggle room legally.

It might not be right, it might not be honest, but it most likely would hold up in a court of law, and that's all that really matters to him.

based on STS' current and pro forma revenues,earnings growth rates, relative P/E and its ability to generate government contracts in the next three years This is an incredible opportunity for us to acquire an asset for a great price.

If he said "it is worth 80-100 million dollars at this moment" you would be absolutely correct. But........he didn't say that, he made something called a "qualified statement". Just because you couldn't figure out the "small print" doesn't, in any way, mean the CEO lied.

He never said they were worth 80-100 million dollars.

Jonathan Sym, CEO of The Evermedia Group and STS Evermedia Corporation. "Since last year, STS's revenues have experienced significant growth. They have won key contracts and task orders as well as joining several teams with Fortune 1000 companies. I think by the end of 2010, STS can possibly exceed $10,000,000 in revenues."

And then made a qualified statement that he thought they could be worth that much. I would guess they dug through all these Valuation Models and picked a favorable one that let him "honestly" say that. But, again, you not knowing these things lead you to fall for it, and latch onto qualified and highly speculative statements. Did you ever think to ask what model they used? What market comparisons, if any? How they projected revenue?

What we are buying is an asset that is worth about $80-$100 million

based on STS' current and pro forma revenues,earnings growth rates, relative P/E and its ability to generate government contracts in the next three years This is an incredible opportunity for us to acquire an asset for a great price.

Do you not understand what any of that means, because that's literally the only way you could honestly interpret that quote as stating a fact of value and not see it for the pure 100% speculation it was.

It's exactly what I said, they were basing their valuation on market cap (and projections) using a favorable model. Hence, my question to you of "did you ask what model they used"?

Again, how much revenue, exactly, was STS doing on the date of acquisition? It was, has been, and also will be, a speculative merger based on attempting to get a cheap up and comer under a public shell early, with the intent to bolster value and ramp up share price as the newly acquired sub grew.

He never said it was worth that publicly as we've been over numerous times before.

You've been exposed, no one is listening.

The fact of the matter is: EVRM is a poorly run company and that's squarely on Sym. This was masked in 2012 by the success of the bio-metrics contract, as well as the ATG work they were doing, netting that 3 million in revenue. Record year, everything looks good, high profitability but as soon as things got tough, leadership collapsed. Weitzel stole all that money and Sym has no idea how to play from behind and apparently thinks rinky dink newspapers with less than 100 readers are a worthy investment. His team QUIT because of the choices he made and he still couldn't see that maybe it just wasn't worth the time. It's clear Sym is losing it and the Board of Directors doesn't care. Everyone at EVRM who HAS cared over the years has quit the company and that should tell you everything you need to know about Sym as a leader.

co president 1ook a cool one million in cash from the company.

Lawsuit only recovers ~400k. Sym pays himself over 100k, 70k goes to loan repayment, company piddles away what money is left on things that don't help share value.

Their current claim to fame is they own a tiny newspaper in the town in which the CEO resides where he writes articles that maybe get 100 readers on a good day.

Oh and we think most of the staff just left in disgust.

I would stay away.

I want the company to do well so I can recover, but I doubt they ever will.

Happy Birthday to the CEO.

Hopefully he can blow out his candles as well as he blew out shareholder value these last 5 years.

We have no idea what his disability is, or how he got it.


We DO know, for a fact, he has it though. The company won the contracts under the SDVOSB moniker and that is verifiable. To win the contract under that moniker, they needed veterans owning at least 51% of the stock to be in charge of the daily ops. He and Richard were in charge, Richard never held more that 29%.

Everything in that paragraph is verifiable, what is the only logical conclusion we can draw??

Sym, who owned the other 26-29% was a disabled vet.

If he was forward deployed anywhere, that entails a good deal of risk even if he was just a "cook". Which of course, he wasn't because that's an enlisted job. He might have been in charge of some small logistics chain or something.

Which Sym is/has......

Purpose of the SDVOSBC Program

The purpose of the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern Procurement Program is to provide procuring agencies with the authority to set acquisitions aside for exclusive competition among service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, as well as the authority to make sole source awards to service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns if certain conditions are met. (See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 13 C.F.R. § 125.8-125.10).
Eligibility

In order to be eligible for the SDVOSBC, you and your business must meet the following criteria:

The Service Disabled Veteran (SDV) must have a service-connected disability that has been determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs or Department of Defense

The SDVOSBC must be small under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to the procurement

The SDV must unconditionally own 51% of the SDVOSBC

The SDVO must control the management and daily operations of the SDVOSBC

The SDV must hold the highest officer position in the SDVOSBC

SDVO Business Control

To be an eligible SDVOSBC the following must be met:

The management and daily business operations of the concern must be controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans.

Control by one or more service-disabled veterans means that both the long-term decision making and the day-to-day management and administration of the business operations must be conducted by one or more service-disabled veterans

The management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a service-disabled veteran with permanent and severe disability, the spouse of permanent caregiver of such veteran

Service-disabled veteran means a veteran with a disability that is service-connected.

Ownership must be direct. Ownership by one or more service disabled veterans must be direct ownership.

A concern owned principally by another business entity that is in turn owned and controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans does not meet this requirement.



I've included the two most relevant blurbs from the SBA. As you will note in the italicized sections, I am correct.

Doubt it, that would require too much time and money, and who is going to testify against him? They've moved corporate offices so many times (and their moving(ed?) again from Boston), who knows what records are still intact. Plus you'd probably have to do it in Nevada and I don't know about you, but that's a bit of a hike for me.

However, Sym seems like the type that cares very much what people think about him and how they perceive him (outside of EVRM), public pressure and exposure is the way to go.

I know that may sound odd, given how Sym handles PR here, but think about his role with TAPINTO and the kinds of stories and pictures he posts, he like to be involved in the "goingsons" and if you're right about him being a scammer, they are often very image conscious.

the timeline you are offering makes no sense.

if he "made millions selling in 2009" why would he stay on and try to build the company through the point of the lawsuit? All he'd have to do is quit, they still had a team at that point, it wasn't like it was just him like it is now.

You don't need two employees to be SDVs, you need a majority of the shares to be held by SDV involved in the daily operations of the company, which is why I was okay with them dumping shares from Richard over to Sym after the lawsuit, at least that made sense........until I realized they still didn't have enough shares to cover the SDVOSB requirements

that's fair, they definitely start to pick up the later the year goes though.

I think this is big......it's possible he lost two team members, months of corporate focus, and shareholder money on this venture all to benefit himself personally within the community.

Now, more than ever, we need answers.

Well, I guess the AR will tell us if they bought in, and if so how much.

I did some more reading, including the things you mentioned, and it looks like you were right Doo.

So here's my theory as it stands, based on the timeline, and what's we've posted and talked about thus far-

Sym is in NJ looking for opportunities in the community (after all he did join that commerce board). This makes sense, after all he did move there. Fine. No problem.


Comes across tapinto around September/October, writes for a hobby or some extra side cash, soon decides to buy in and be the main editor around November.

Tells his team, they oppose the idea.

He does it anyway, so December rolls around as the deal is between EVRM and TAPINTO is closed and finalized, Robert quits, Lawrence leaves the country either leaving the company all together, or diminishing his role to the point he is effectively no longer involved. (not sure who else worked there and what their status is or is not at the current time)

tapinto has the new ownership (SYM) take over in January without the previous EVRM team giving him effective control over both operations. It's been about a month in a half, sym can "honestly" say he's in a new business to "diversify revenue", even if that revenue is practically 0.

I have no experience with newspapers, so I can't really speak to it but I can't imagine with the pittance of views they have that they make any real money (you've seen the numbers doo, I suspect you will agree). So WHY take that job? Why buy into that company?

Influence? Access?

https://www.facebook.com/MillburnShortHillsTAP/reviews/?ref=page_internal

New ownership as of Jan 2016, Sym is writing for them at that time, their address is listed as the same as EBC's is on that commerce directory I posted before.

Is it unreasonable to assume Sym/EVRM is the new owner?

I always thought he was just writing as a hobby, but the time lines match up roughly speaking and it would explain why he's spent so much time on it.

Maybe this is the "business venture" he mentioned in his Facebook post.

He wants to diversify the revenue, attempts to buy a newspaper, his team bails on him because they can see he is going off the rails and if this is the best he can come up with things are really in trouble....

Kind of a conspiracy theory, but it makes a lot of sense and the time lines match up. The newspaper was under new ownership in JANUARY 2016, Ops guy leaves in DECEMBER 2015...... Sym been writing from them since OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2015.....

We know where the money went, it went right into Sym's pocket.

If I was working there and I saw the CEO take about 1/2 of the lawsuit money and write a check to himself for it, I'd probably pack up and leave too.

See, I can see them justifying giving him the shares to protect the SDVOSB status, and give Sym a better incentive to get the company back on track. I still for the life of me, can't figure out how the BOD let him take over half the money and allocate it to himself.

Do we even know how much Sym makes? Seems most of EVRM's expenses are salaries, and he's the CEO so he must be taking the lion's share of that.

Also, can any one explain why they can name drop military bases all of a sudden?

There were no developments in that FB post, it was all hot air.

Takeaways:

1) Left not fired indicates the he thought it was going nowhere.
2) The lawsuit ended HOW long ago now? Check the date you wrote yourself that 100k check Sym.
3) Oh look, an unverifiable ownership stake in an unnamed company, how exciting.
4) Months of talk with nothing....why is he wasting his time?
5) It's not as large because you didn't roll your money into the company, but your own pockets.
6) They've said for ages they can't name bases, and then he just name drops three bases in the first post in over 6 months?
7) They've been talking about diversifying their revenue for over two years, still nothing. Just like those talks in DC.

I am less confident after reading this post than I was before reading it, and that is saying something.

The first formal statement of the yea and it was sloppy, contradictory to what they've said in the past, and contained no real information or update.

That's not really true.

There is a difference between a contract and a task order.

They have lots of very good contracts, they have very few task orders.

This is why Louie is whining about the "billions in contracts". They have access to some very good contracts, they just don't have the capability, money or wherewithal to take advantage of those contracts to secure task orders. Which is why you have seen no money from SEAPORT-E.


Another company would be looking to buy out the company because it DID have the capabilities to fill those task orders, but lacked the contract access to get the actual work.

The way I see it, he either just walks away and lets the company rot (which is what it appears he is doing), asks every one to take a hit, drops the SDVOSB status, reverses the stock, and starts doing private placements so they can raise some actual capital to expand operations, or they drop the federal contracting, drop the SDVOSB and do something else entirely.

I doubt it, I actually asked Robert this when I talked to him but he didn't say anything to it.

Think about it this way, if the company gets sold at this point, someone is buying it largely for it's contracts. They don't really have any assets. However, most of their contracts (I am assuming here) they secured through their SDVOSB status. An ownership swap would eliminate this status (if they even still have it), and potentially jeopardize the contracts they do have (which is why we need to figure out if they still have it or not).

Sym's locked himself into a poor position here, he can't deal the company or raise capital easily through the sale of stock because of the SDVOSB designation (maybe why it appears they've dropped it?). He has to give up that status, AND preserve the contracts to sell the company.

Unless they get bought out by another SDVOSB, in which case, they could just spin off STS and EBC and stick them under some other corporate umbrella.

When did they formally drop their SDVOSB status?

It isn't on their Twitter, Facebook, Website, financials, or blurbs any more. Sym obviously doesn't have enough shares, and w/ Weitzel gone there is no one else involved in the daily operations of the company, so his shares are the only ones that count.

It's not that he writes for some paper, it's that there is nothing to write about his company.

Why do you claim to be an EBC employee on your Linkedin profile? Are you affiliated with the company?

About as on fire as his most recent theatrical review

I heard back from Robert today, he said that as far as he knows Lawrence is still with the company, but he hasn't had any substantive conversations with management since he left. He didn't comment about anything else I asked substance wise in regards to the company, although I asked if he had an NDA and he said no. If he doesn't/didn't have one, I don't buy that other employees did either.

I'm not going to sit here and give you the courses you need on language and economics, but the problem here is you're ignoring the structure of the statement and the "based on" qualifier. You conveniently quote the first line, while ignoring the rest of sentence that changes the meaning of the whole thing. You're either ignorant, or you think others on this board are, and thus get away with this crap.

He's effectively saying "based on our modeling, which includes these factors, this asset is worth 80-100 million dollars".

The factors they used in their model were pretty much all speculative and forward looking which, as a corollary, makes the conclusion derived from said model speculative.

It really isn't complicated. Contracts are inherently speculative. For example: football team X signs player Y to a contract. What are they saying? "Over the life of the contract, this player is worth Z dollars per year for A years, OR MORE". That signing is inherently speculative, the player could get hurt, he could blow his hand off with some fireworks, or he could get arrested for murder. Your model says he is worth Z (or more), but does it always work out that way? Nope.

I could buy my house for whatever, and say "based on these factors it is worth z". Do you understand the concepts of market pressures and willingness to pay? Just because you buy something for X doesn't mean someone else won't pay Z for it. Just because someone sells for X doesn't mean it isn't worth Z in different market conditions....

What we are buying is an asset that is worth about $80-$100 million

based on STS' current and pro forma revenues,earnings growth rates, relative P/E and its ability to generate government contracts in the next three years This is an incredible opportunity for us to acquire an asset for a great price.

Do you not understand what any of that means, because that's literally the only way you could honestly interpret that quote as stating a fact of value and not see it for the pure 100% speculation it was.

It's exactly what I said, they were basing their valuation on market cap (and projections) using a favorable model. Hence, my question to you of "did you ask what model they used"?

Again, how much revenue, exactly, was STS doing on the date of acquisition? It was, has been, and also will be, a speculative merger based on attempting to get a cheap up and comer under a public shell early, with the intent to bolster value and ramp up share price as the newly acquired sub grew.

You have no idea if Sym went into business with him knowing there was that past or not, their both military guys, maybe he just implicitly trusted him (which is of course, yet another obvious management mistake, but hindsight is 20/20).

There's strong evidence that even if Weitzel had built a successful company in the past, he was slipping mentally around the time this whole debacle went down any way.

And how much revenue was STS doing, exactly, when the merger happened? Not much.

Weitzel is incompetent and/or a crook, Evidence.

He admitted wrongdoing to settle the lawsuit that the company had against him, and it wasn't his first rodeo in getting sued for theft as you can see with the Department of Labor issue.

Any one else notice that Weitzel issued a confession and apology in the lawsuit, but shareholders never got to read it? Why is that? That confession was to/for us as we own the company..... (side issue)

So really, I have no idea why Sym worked with him. It wasn't for his revenue though, because he had none when they merged.

I suspect it was because Weitzel had built a company before that was successful in Ad-Tech, and Sym though he could do it again under the public guise and get rich off of the free trading stock.


More Weitzel stuff:

insert-text-here

insert-text-here

He never said they were worth 80-100 million dollars.

Jonathan Sym, CEO of The Evermedia Group and STS Evermedia Corporation. "Since last year, STS's revenues have experienced significant growth. They have won key contracts and task orders as well as joining several teams with Fortune 1000 companies. I think by the end of 2010, STS can possibly exceed $10,000,000 in revenues."

And then made a qualified statement that he thought they could be worth that much. I would guess they dug through all these Valuation Models and picked a favorable one that let him "honestly" say that. But, again, you not knowing these things lead you to fall for it, and latch onto qualified and highly speculative statements. Did you ever think to ask what model they used? What market comparisons, if any? How they projected revenue? All the things you complain about the most aren't real problems, they're just knowledge gaps on your part. While Sym is responsible for a lot and has a lot to answer for, THIS STUFF ISN'T IT.

Yes they did, they did about 3 million in 2012.3 million is 30% of 10 million. Which is why this whole thing is so serious, how did they go from 3 million to nothing? the answer is poor management and the whole lawsuit debacle. Now that I think of it, why did they have 1 million in cash anyway? They must have been slated to pay HUGE taxes on that money, just another thing they messed up by not spending that money earlier to reinvest in the company.

Do you work under the assumption Honeywell and Cameron aren't on the level? Because I am reasonably confident that Honeywell, as a PTC does audit. As their are two parties to these financial transactions, your assertion is an audited company was paying people under the table illegally, and hasn't been detected, but the audit on EVRM would detect these transactions? My guess they couldn't secure the money to continu (audits are expensive) or the audit uncovered the whole Weitzel thing and lead to the lawsuit, which I am sure cost hundreds of thousands. We don't really know how the lawsuit came about.

I never accused you of dishonoring our vets, you seem like a nice enough and honest guy, but your saying this stuff that just doesn't hold up and needs to be corrected in the public eye.

Ultimately, we're closer aligned than you think, I think your criticism, handled the way the way you handle it, undermines our efforts and creates a hostile environment for legitimate criticism. The company isn't going to listen to people like me, or even engage people like me, when they think everything is an ambush.

I need to address these two statements in more detail.

1) As I already mentioned, this is your great defense against not knowing how the industry works. Who else would sit here and post thousands of messages about the topic unless, in some way, they had money on this.....so if you're not a shareholder like me, you're a paid shill or a flipper. Which is it Louie? You want to talk about shady dealings and scams over thousands of messages for free (yet take no legal recourse, which you would do if you had any real proof)? It doesn't add up. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

2) Of course they haven't made anything on their own. Federal contracting is all about relationships and working with primary contractors to secure work. They probably bid jointly with a large prime for just about every contract they've ever been on, again, unless you're actively pursuing opportunities on something like FedBizOps, pretty much everything you do is going to be through a prime. Last I checked, they didn't have a Business Development specialist on the team, so it would make sense that most of the stuff they do in through their legacy contracts they had pre-lawsuit. They probably don't have the money or the manpower to have someone writing proposals 24/7 to secure those types of things. Which is my big criticism of the terrible way they handled the money after the lawsuit. They could have taken that money, HIRED A FULL TIME BUSINESS DEVELOPER and used the remaining 300ish thousand to expand their operations. Yes, Sym and co would have probably had to have taken on some lean times to fully support the business, and worked long hard hours to revive it, but with proper planning it could have been done with that level of cash infusion.

By the way, that is also why Weitzel's actions are so damaging. My favorite "fan theory" as to why he did it is because of the sequester. What this tells me is Weitzel didn't understand enough about the industry (or have the energy/drive left in him) to do this kind of spin up, because with a million in capital, they should have been easily pounding down the doors despite the cut backs, due in large part to their SDVOSB status.

So your defense, when confronted with the fact that you have no idea how the actual contracting side of this type of work is done is "well who said I am a shareholder?" Heh, Okay then.

You have no evidence for that assertion. None. There is/was money in the company. The DHS contract was real, and obviously worth a lot of money since Weitzel took almost a million in cash. Poor management and terrible leadership from Sym does not a scam make. The problems here are leadership and direction, it's clear to me that Sym is not capable of leading this company, and I don't understand why the BOD has let this go on for so long. They must have checked out, or simply know it's a lost cause. But it is clear to me that, the model works, 2012 proved that and plenty of other companies in the same space have seen success. They haven't been able to replicate that growth, and that's the problem.

As I have already explained, of course they used their service disabled status to get business, the government actively encourages that, and sets aside money in such projects just for minority owned businesses. They want their disabled vets to have a leg up in the market, The set aside for these things is huge, it's like 3% or something, which when you're talking about the totality of federal contracting, is a ton of money. I've explained to you they don't need to use their name under the table the government wants to pay their vets this money. Paying them "under the table" would only endanger the "gravy train" and cost them money. What the VA has to Say on SDVOSB Note that they set aside contracts and opportunities just for said companies.I fully endorse this, our veterans deserve special consideration.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "paid compensation teams" but I can only infer you are talking about the marketing companies they were using for their PRs and shareholder response pre 2013. Marketing is a common practice, it isn't unusually nefarious. If you don't do your DD and fall for those "might possibly be worth 80-100 million dollar" statements, that's on you. Of course marketing is crap shoveling, but it's legal in the United States and done by just about every one.

See here's the thing, they did get billions in contracts. You just don't understand how federal contracting works. You get a contract, from which you derive task orders. You can be on a contract and never perform a single task order, which is what I assume happened with the Seaport-E contract. You don't understand the most basic elements of how this type of business works, and frankly that's the source of most of your complaints here. Instead of focusing on the legitimate mismanagement, you undermine effective criticism by trotting your ignorance out for the whole world to see. Please, spare us.

You have yet to account for 13 million in share cap, 1 million in cash, and proven multi million dollar task orders in the form of DHS.

insert-text-here

I don't think the address is still accurate, as I mentioned before I contacted that office building, but the e-mail and phone are live. If he answers is a totally different issue.

Wasn't Sym supposed to get deployed? What happened with that?

Company would have been better off with him gone to be honest.

Oh look, the same cut and paste thing containing the same contradictions I mentioned before.

But I'll go in order-

1- Annoying, morally wrong, doesn't impact share value.
2- They do mostly ATG work, so lots of short projects makes sense. They probably can't say where.
3-So what? A million legitimate reasons it could have stalled including the lawsuit and money concerns.
4- Annoying, morally wrong, doesn't impact share value.
5- Obviously false as they report earnings, have some money, and tweet about those 6 week projects which are probably all task orders.
6-Probably cancelled due to sequestration
7-No tweets, except the ones about 6 week projects. Self contradiction.
8- Pointed out the big problem with this, as you cite the numbers for the settlement at the end of your post.
9-Of course they have contracts, that's where the task orders come from. I've already proven you have no idea how federal contracting works, but this only further supports that assertion.
10- Yes, this is correct and absolutely shameful. A waste of corporate time and shareholders dollars, let's talk about this more it's legitimate.
11- Same problems as mentioned with the audit, and uplisting requires an audit in most cases, so not a separate issue, but part of another one.
12-what?
13- I had no idea what this was, so I looked it up. They have like, a website and everything, it's amazing.
14- They never said that. I know the quote you are referencing, and that was a forward looking statement, they never should have said it, but if you bought stock on a "maybe could be" you're a fool.
15- They should be pursing this more aggressively, I agree. They are probably sitting on a lot of contracts they haven't received one single task order from. That's shameful.
16-See 15.
17- Erm, they've stated most of their revenue is from Honeywell and Cameron, so.... They aren't making ENOUGH from those contracts, but that's a different issue.
18-As far as I can tell, this is true. See 15.
19- Yes, shameful. Waste of shareholder money and corporate time.
20- The lawsuit was a debacle.
21- Yes, and I have addressed this. Was probably done out of necessity, but we need to be told WHY. They fact the Board of Directors did that and then has said NOTHING is wrong and needs to be corrected.



The shareholders deserve a better critic, and I'm gonna give it to them.

So a million dollars goes missing from a scam company not doing any work, and your theory is....what?

We know the money existed, it was verified by the court log on the Bexar County website.

A million dollars in cash doesn't just materialize.

You're talking out both sides of your mouth, and you can't even keep your posts internally consistent.

Do you think if you buy stock tomorrow the company gets a little check in the mail with your dollars? Of course not, it's a publicly held and traded commodity. Weitzel's shares were, at the time, worth triple what he took in cash. Again, you keep talking about how nothing was happening, but they did almost 3 million in revenue, they had a million sitting in cash, and the stock was worth, what, 13 million dollars total in 2012? Weitzel taking the money wasn't a blessing, it killed the momentum of this company, and will probably kill the company if Sym doesn't change his game plan up and actually do something.

The lawsuit killed the value of everyone holding stock, including the two disabled guys, Weitzel and Sym. How does Sym taking a hit to his net worth of 3 million dollars benefit him? How does killing the momentum of his company benefit him?

Let's think critically for a moment, I will even assume for the sake of argument Sym is a total con man. He was a con man with 13 million dollars in market cap, a million in the bank, no debt, and a record setting year in revenue for the company. Why would be tank his own value when he could have held operations for another year, freed up all his shares, and dumped them? With that much cash the operations could have expanded, and the company might even be worth more in that year of holding.

What kind of moron, even a scammer, would give up that kind of value and potential life changing money for such a small pay out?

A guy who, in your world, is smart enough to orchestrate this whole thing as a scam, but dumb enough to not do a basic ROI calculation?

You're a shareholder of this company, and you don't even know how the industry works?

Of course the large companies use EVRM to bid contracts, that's the whole point of having minority owned businesses on your payroll. Federal money is set aside specifically for contracts and contractors that use said minority businesses, be they woman/veteran/etc. owned. The "bigs" as you call them, take these contracts, and dole out individual components to these small businesses, who then complete said projects on behalf of the larger company.

They don't have to pay them under the table to do this, nor would they even want to, it's to their benefit to have these small companies on their payrolls because it makes them more money and affords them more contract opportunities, and in many cases, there is a minimum quota to have before you can even bid something in the first place.

The way you're describing this known and encouraged thing as some shady dealings, tells me you don't really understand the industry you've invested in, OR you think the other shareholders here don't and you can get away with sneaking in these things. Kind of like how you describe the "billions in contracts" they promised.
If you have no idea how federal contracting works, I could see how you would reach that conclusion, but any one who knows anything about federal contracts knows the difference between a "billion dollar contract vehicle" and the actual potential revenue stream from individual task orders. You're either solely misinformed, or think the other shareholders here are and you can leverage that to your advantage.

they both work.