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.
I'm onboard as well...just sitting a few seats behind you. Lol!!!
That old record you're playing has a scratch on it and that's why it keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.
DGF, DFG, NFG, whatever...at some point they will have to assess whether or not it's worth continuing the fight, or as I said many times in the past play nice. We're not privy to what was discussed and proposed to DGF by the company. Sometimes one overplays their hand or they bluff and lose. In due course we will all find out how it all turns out.
Often when assessing the risk a lender will indeed try to get a third party to secure the loan. Someone starting a small business will almost always have to guarantee a loan with their personal covenant or their blood!
Come on give us a break! Do you actually think DGF is going to be wasting more money filing a suit against a company that has clearly stated and proven that it has no money?
I should have clarified that the 200K was not secured by the company so it does not apply in this case. Not sure how it was secured, but regardless it's irrelevant.
Ziv said you can stuff both the business plan and the 10-K. It's hilarious that you are still harping about this. The 200K is not your business, it was not loaned to the company, so stop talking about it. If DGF was stupid enough to lend them unsecured money, then they have to live with their stupidity!
IG the $200K loan that DGF made was the only loan that was secured. The rest of their preferred shares are worthless. Dividends that may have accrued are owed but they need to stand in line.
You need to read up on what is a secured creditor. DGF is a shareholder and they will be screwed!
In a July email to Ziv, this is what I wrote about DGF:
1. Contrary to appearances, they are not in as strong a negotiating position as you might think. More now then ever, to guarantee the return of their initial investment, they need to co-operate.
2. I would play hardball with them. Offer them the keys or co-operate and negotiate a scenario that is a win-win for not only them and the company but also for existing shareholders.
3. Continue to put pressure on DGF and by all means put on your best poker face. Agree, on your terms, to increase the AS so that their shares can be converted, instruct them to go before the judge, preferably with the tail between their legs, and to agree to a withdrawal of the court order.
Lesson to DGF, sometimes you win but sometimes you have to be prepared to lose.
The reason is because as far as I know, the company does not have any creditors outside of Israel. DGF is NOT a creditor let alone a secured creditor.
Just a reminder that a preferred shareholder is just that. They are not creditors!
You mean the same "powerhouse" that Ziv wanted to monetize in 2017 but was overruled by Bignitz? The same guy that wanted to go a different route by "differentiating" it from other companies? The same guy that sucked every last cent before exiting through the back door and turned the lights out?
For now the above is the only reality that the market recognizes. If Ziv pulls a rabbit out of the hat it will be to no thanks to Bignitz.
And the chances of being passed in the Senate are currently slim to none, and slim left town. Unless slim has gone to Georgia!
I agree that would hurt my pride as well, but at least you made a good attempt and you're obviously a good sport.
Unfortunately your math doesn't quite add up. You are forgetting to add the preferred shares held by DGF and Sunbeam that were entitled to vote: 24,825,167 and 43,675,000 respectively. These were included in the "For" category as you've set out.
Sure keep flinging that pasta to see if any of it sticks.
I should have realized a long time ago that trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone that has tunnel vision, and who repeats the same tiresome bullshit over and over again is just a waste of time.
I guess it is true what they say about not being able to "teach stupid", or should I stick with your incorrect and cringe worthy use of the word "edification"? Indeed, I've concluded that it's not possible!
How many different types of pasta are you throwing up against the wall? Mixing one issue with another hoping to obfuscate the matter is a common tactic.
What does the insiders "living off of the $5 million", which by the way I don't disagree with, have to do with Ziv Turner? I am assuming that you are informed enough to know that the $5 million loan was negotiated about a year after Ziv Turner left the company, and that by the time he came back there was nothing left.
BTW isn't it you that has been harping about the fact that the company has no assets? But now all of a sudden you are trying to feed us bs about the company being ordered to put up assets as security against the loan. So which is it?
Please spare us with any more wild-assed theories of what happened, what might happen going forward, and how the judge will rule.
Just wait and see!
Get your facts straight. If you come across a filing that states there is a debt of 3.4 million owed to DGF by the company produce it. But if it did say such a thing then I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is incorrect. DGF has 380+/- Series A preferred stock that they have been attempting to convert to common shares and which is the essence of the court order.
Use your imagination and perhaps you might arrive at a plausible answer to your question. Did I suggest anywhere that the 200K was secured by the company? My understanding is that it was not. Therefore there is no obligation on the part of the company to report. I am assuming that you are referring to the last 200k that was lent and not to the initial money referenced in the court order.
Yes if DGF is lucky that would be the case. As for the 200K, my understanding is that was a secured loan, against what exactly and by whom I don't know, but it will very likely be repaid.
It is not appropriate to speak in metaphors on a public forum and expect one to be a mind reader. Unless you are prepared to elaborate, it's much better to stick to the facts, otherwise you will just continue to be challenged. Or as MjMilo did, dedicate a poem to you.
Fact is that everybody knows that OWC does not have any money and that they cannot move forward with the status quo. Also the fact is that, unless you know something that I don't, they are not in "DEBT for MILLIONS of dollars".
At the end of the day DGF is just a shareholder. They are by no means a secured creditor. All they can do is hope that after a reorganization of the company, if that is what it takes, they will still be a stakeholder with the possibility to recoup their investment.
The only thing that can be debated is whether or not the company has assets that can be monetized, and whether or not they have the capability of executing a business plan. If the answer is no to both then DGF, like all other shareholders, will be screwed.
You are really going out on a limb with the following quote:
I agree that Stenocare was not really the issue. It was Bignitz. Ziv Turner did allude to the fact that he's open to talks with any company, including Stenocare, as long as it's a good fit.
Ziv Turner is easy to underestimate. Many of us did exactly that. But if you have a chance to have a conversation with him, you will soon realize he knows his business inside out.
Unless it is properly executed, a MOU is not much more than an agreement to disagree after the first road bump. As you say, at best it's an intention to eventually get into an agreement that is enforceable. A lot of people prefer not to waste their time with MOUs.
Even without knowing the specifics of the MOU between OWC and Stenocare, I knew immediately that the road bump was going to be Bignitz and his tattered reputation. In my opinion Stenocare dodged a bullet.
With reference to Ziv Turner, the shareholder meeting and the question pertaining to Stenocare, it was I that posed the question.
Give Ziv Turner some slack for not being up-to-date with all of the BS that went on from the time he left the company in the spring of 2017 to when he came back. We offered our services if he wanted to be filled in. But I'm not exactly sure that any clarification we could provide would be relevant to the company's current dilemma. Ziv made it quite clear that in terms of research and development not much happened since the time he left and when he came back, except for the advancement of the patents.
So let's put Stenocare to rest. MjMilo is correct in stating that there was never an agreement, just a MOU. Regardless, as he pointed out it would not have been a good fit and certainly nothing to get excited about. If you recall its announcement was just before the December 2019 1:700 R/S.
If you contact Stenocare you can ask Mr. Schnegelsberg if the following email dated November 19 that I sent him had any bearing in kicking OWC to the curb. I think it may have helped flush it down the toilet.
On December 3, I replied to IG, a rare time when we were in agreement, whereby I again made reference to Stenocare and to another email that I sent to the cast of characters.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152587060
Tue., Nov. 19, 2019 at 7:06 p.m.
Hello Mr. Schnegelsberg,
I am sure that you will find this to be a very unusual email.
I came across your name and company due to the fact that I still follow the news releases associated with OWC Pharmaceutical Research. Here is the link announcing the signing of a “strategic Memorandum of Understanding”.
https://www.prnewswire.com/il/news-releases/owc-pharmaceutical-research-corp-and-stenocare-to-enter-partnership-to-develop-advanced-medical-cannabis-products-300958479.html
In the announcement you are quoted as stating: "The prospects of working with OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp on new medical cannabis products marks an important milestone for executing our Strategy. OWC has a strong track record for product development and together we have the basis for strong synergies and a fast forward opportunity towards our goal of building a leading medical cannabis brand and preferred supplier of "pharma" standard medical cannabis."
Is the above statement some sort of a joke? What strong track record for product development are you referring to exactly? I know very little about your company, but I respectfully suggest that if you want to be taken seriously by investors and the industry, then you might want to rethink your association with a company that has nothing to show since its inception in 2014, other than a documented legacy of incompetence, fraud, and pain and suffering that they have inflicted on their loyal shareholders. Meanwhile they and their so-called advisers have done quite well due to the fraud that they committed. Mind you there still are SEC charges and investigations that are ongoing and not yet resolved, and more that might come to light.
Below are a couple of comments that I recently shared with shareholders and a scathing letter that I sent to Mr. Kenneth Koch, OWC Pharma’s lawyer in April of this year when OWC attempted to gain approval for a reverse split of an unspecified ratio ranging from 1:500. Now they are asking shareholders to approve a R/S of up to 1:700.
Lol!!! Then again I may just retract my previous post.
Thanks for your refreshing post. The article has zero relevance to OWCP.
Binary options, Forex, Crypto and CFD are indeed complex trading instruments and have nothing to do with companies trading on the OTC. Anybody that somehow tries to equate it to OWC, just because it's an Israeli company is an idiot for making that suggestion.
As a moderator I think you should stop it with your idiotic and sarcastic personal attacks. It's not becoming. Grow up!!!!
Good post but I would have suggested a different place for that pipe.
"Lock her up", and "she is insanely undervalued". I know that she was undervalued, but wasn't that fake news from 2016? Get over it!
Lol!! I figured that a beer comment would elicit a response from you.
Mostly on the sidelines for now and I have more than enough beer in the fridge! But I am keeping a close eye on what is going on.
With all of this voting talk, you might want to offer your services to the legal team of the POTUS.
If you recall there was a lot of discussion about the preferred shares not being allowed to vote. If you consider the following:
Thanks for making that clarification about Milo. I would also like to clarify that I never posted that I sold any shares. The only time I posted about selling was last fall. I did so for tax reasons, and bought back shortly after. In retrospect that was nobody's business, not to mention that most people could care less what an individual investor does or does not do.
But you forgot the fact that for that game deuces were wild, so the inside straight was good enough to win!
Lol!!! I was waiting for the fishy part. Don't worry be happy!
Thanks for your post. For the record, in case anyone has any doubt, I was the band leader of the fact finding mission. There were many of us that thought it would be worthwhile to get a first-hand glimpse of what was going on.
As you've pointed out, nobody was coerced into anything, nor was there a minimum amount that was required to be contributed. Most importantly IT WAS NOT A VACATION!!! You agreed to go even though you made it known that you were not fond of flying. To this day many of us remain grateful that you stepped up to the plate.
You are not responsible for being lied to. When we discovered inconsistencies, we always brought them to the attention of management and other shareholders. How much more transparent does one have to be? Only an immature child blames others for their investment decisions. Such a gutless attitude is enough to turn my stomach.
Was it all worthwhile? Absolutely! Hindsight is not only 20-20, it also brings clarity to the current situation and the challenges facing the company.
The only regret is that so far we still haven't earned a dime over the hundreds of hours we have spent. I hope things change, but if they don't, so be it.
Soon you will find out what happens with the Sword of Damocles. As for DGF you were not the only one that identified issues with the SPA. I identified several of them within hours of reading the terms of the agreement.
As it has already been pointed out to you and others, no one put a gun to the head of Bignitz. He did not have to accept the terms of the SPA as written. In retrospect he didn't really care and that's why he did not blink his eye (only has one eye) and did a happy dance when the money ended up in the company's account. More than anything what made the SPA toxic is that the money was not used for its purported reasons, rather it was used to stock their personal ATMs.
What kind of financing do you think a company that is starting out is going to attract? Do you actually think they can walk in a chartered bank and negotiate a loan on favourable terms? DGF lent real money based on their experience of the market after weighing all the inherent risks.
IF DGF is like the Sword of Damocles that is hanging over the heads of shareholders, you should probably read up a bit more on what happened. Legend has it that Damocles had to finally beg the king to take his throne back because he no longer wanted to be king. Realizing that a sword is hanging over your head by a thread will do that to anyone with such aspirations.
The Sword of Damocles is a good analogy. DGF will soon find out that if you constantly play with fire sometimes you get burned. When that happens perhaps you will admit how wrong you were as to why Ziv Turner came back.
If you check the SEC documentation for the company and its predecessor Dynamic Applications Corp. you will see that for OWC a quorum is indeed 50% + 1.
It is under Article IV
QUORUM AND VOTING OF STOCK
Section 1.....first sentence.
https://sec.report/otc/financial-report/78486