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.
Says the anon who believes there are 100,000 more than 270,000+ sqft. buildings nationwide that are capable of being turn key for a data center.
Funny enough, I did a quick search on loopnet. If you draw a straightline north to south through San Antonio, Tx, there are only TWO comparable commercial spaces west of that line. One in Utah and the other in Washington. There are ZERO above Route 80 and west of, you guessed it, Webster City Iowa.
Building materials to construct just the shell warehouse alone would cost at least $4 million. And how much time would it take? Then you have to install all the HVAC and electrical infrastructure. How many 270,000 square foot structures are turn key? Then it needs to be near a large power generation source. Webster City has its own distillate fuel oil power plant.
Why don't you go ask your questions to the company that is already apparently retrofitting Iowa without an ownership change.
Here's the elephant in the room. If NSI is insolvent, why wasn't a bankruptcy filed?
The only way to cancel common shares is to either buy them back, or file bankruptcy.
In my opinion, we do not know if NSI's liabilities actually exceed the value of its assets. We have no appraisal on the value of any of NSI's real estate, nor an independent third-party appraisal of the multiple patents / tech.
From my perspective, what Streeterville intends to do is strip NSI of it's assets leaving it a shell company. NSI common shareholders would own only a name. Ampleo's handling of the patents will be the true tell of all things.
There's nothing fast and loose with drawing reasonable inferences. Servers need to be cooled. If the building wasn't ideal for a data center, I guess they'd be looking elsewhere. If the rumors are even true.
And, to address another post: yes, NSI is in liquidation mode, but that means that Ampleo has a duty to maximize what it gets for NSI's assets.
Whatever man. $100 million for $10 million. Hypothetically someone wants to put a giant data center there because the $100 million spent to build out infrastructure for aquaculture RAS also suits the data center industry. All I know is that NSI better get top dollar for sale or lease of that building to a data center.
If my memory is accurate, I believe NSI purchased the Iowa facilities out of a bankruptcy estate for $40 million? The company that constructed the facilities spent approximately $300 million? If a company believes the building to be an ideal location for a data center, then the sale of the property with its facilities should yield a considerable sum commisserate with the demand for the property. I presume the demand for the property is due to the facilities being ideally suited for a data center. Consequently, for a data center company, this bit of land is extremely valuable. Ampleo has a duty to maximize value.
Sounds like the Iowa property is very valuable. Please tell me how that alone wouldn't be enough or close to enough to satisfy streeterville's claims?
Your guess is as good as mine. I like your theory. Mark C. Rose is the new Steven Walker.
That's where, at the very least, Steven Walker should have been present. But he wasn't...
I have no idea what is taking place. I can only speculate on what may be taking place or should be taking place based on my personal opinion of receiverships and bankruptcies.
For instance, I think I wrote a post questioning who had the authority to even put out that press release. Did Ampleo or NSI management issue the press release and, if NSI Management, was it before or after they were displaced by Ampleo? We very well could have a "pope - antipope" situation.
Those Series A are looking mighty interesting now.
I guess they are BOD of a zombie company.
Ampleo should be aware of creditor priorities in bankruptcy. My guess is that Ampleo will find a way to pay off what's owed in taxes and wages, etc. Those are the only creditors ahead of them in pecking order. Streeterville will then have carte blanche to repurpose and exploit NSI's assets (via Ampleo) however it sees fit. My one issue is... if liabilities really do exceed the value of assets, then the receiver really should be taking NSI into bankruptcy. Only if NSI were to file an 11 would the A/S or R/S matter and that would then have to be in a proposed plan to be voted on.
Here, because court intervention was sought, I would argue that before the receiver can make any real material changes, sell off high value assets, do an R/S, etc., it would first have to seek the Court's approval. But I could be wrong.
That was obvious with the 8K, the issue now is someone other than Delgado, Untermeyer and the like will have to value NSI's assets. What is the FMV of those assets?
If this is occurring without a corresponding sale or rental of the land / buildings for a Fair Market Value paid into NSI to statisfy debts and bring value to NSI common shareholders, then this is trespassing and conversion.
It's my opinion that both NSI management and Streeterville want to avoid bankruptcy. Common shareholders would get a lot more rights in a bankruptcy than they have right now. This makes some of the contradictory statements made in the Complaint filed by Streeterville very interesting.
It's in the Complaint filed by Streeterville.
Steven Walker was served because he's the company's registered agent. It's just a procedural requirement and should have no significance on subject or substance of the case.
The Judge issued the TRO and because NSI did not object to the TRO, the permanent RO was a foregone conclusion. For all intents and purposes NSI's management has conceded Streeterville's case. NSI is in the hands of Ampleo for management, for good.
Ampleo's job will primarily be to windup NSI's operations, bringing in as much value as possible to pay off creditors. Any value remaining after creditors are made whole will go to shareholders. Therefore, a receiver does owe common shareholders a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of a company and secure the greatest value possible for its assets.
I would argue that the 8K for the TRO is sufficient and no further notice is required. My reasoning would be that when one had sufficient notice of when and why the TRO was issued, modification of the TRO into an RO is not really a material change. However, I would expect that any further material changes to NSI's business, such as sales of real estate, would require Ampleo to file an 8K, but that's just my opinion.
Hearing Minutes:
"HEARING
1:31 Parties make appearances.
1:33 The Court addresses issues with defendant, NaturalShrimp Inc., (Gerald Easterling - CEO & Thomas Untemeyer- CTO in attendance).
1:34 Mr. Barton of plaintiff counsel provides context for the Court as to the established receivership resulting from a previosly-entered (temporary) order.
1:37 Mark C. Rose, attorney for the established receiver, provides context for the Court.
1:39 The Court makes findings as stated on the record. Given that no objections to the previously-entered Temporary Restraining Order were filed by the defendant, the Temporary Restraining Order is hereby converted into a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65(A) and 66. Mr. Barton is to prepare an approprate order subject to the Court's verbal ruling."
"Because Lender’s collateral, if liquidated, would be worth only a small fraction of
the outstanding indebtedness to Lender, it is absolutely vital that Borrower’s business continue to
be operated as a going concern. Any interruption to its online presence, its taking and fulfilling
orders, its payment of suppliers, the sale of its real estate, and its service to its customers would
inflict grave and irreparable harm to its business and, consequently, the likelihood of any
recovery for Lender and other creditors." Complaint, at Par. 51.
There was a hearing yesterday. No mention of the outcome in that release. Also, per the 8K, a receiver was appointed ex parte prior to yesterday's hearing. Therefore, unless the Court required the received to immediately relinquish control of NSI's assets, which would tend to include mechanisms of communicating for and on behalf of NSI, not sure who had the authority to make the representations in, let alone publish that puff piece dated the same day as the hearing.
Most of this information is at least 2-3 years old. You should really pay attention to the last 10K and three 10Qs
Just so you know, It's my opinion / feeling that I've always given my honest assessment. I have just chosen not to speculate or make assumptions where so many have. If that means people were "right" before me, then so be it. I'd rather be precise than accurate.
They've represented they were building one / working on building one for a long time.
This is the dilemma though is it not? Is it a PL issue (seems pretty straight forward to resolve) or a tech issue (not so straight forward to resolve)?
Having given Management a very liberal benefit of the doubt, taking them at face value, they have repeatedly mentioned PL issues / supply problems (EC production only came up once during or immediately following COVID) as the reason for delays in scaling. Consequently, the "PL excuse" has been a "screen" to accurate evaluation of the economic sustainability and the substantive merits of the EC tech.
IMO, without guidance from NSI management, that screen is lifting quickly now. However, perhaps NSI just doesn't have the money left to build out a hatchery or purchase PLs. Again, this would not be an EC tech issue.
NSI Management has much to explain to its shareholders.
This is an excellent analysis of what may be hampering NSI.
Nevertheless, what isn't happening are regular and transparent updates to shareholders regarding this very issue.
Shrimp sales winding down, not up.
If there are extenuating circumstances which would tend to excuse the poor performance, those should have been made known in greater frequency and with more urgency from Management.
However, Homegrown was billed as the solution to the excuse for lagging sales. The last three filings appear to offer significant support to the indictment certain specific posters have made previously, without the data to back it up. More specifically, that the tech does not operate as intended and represented.
With that said, I will say, cost of goods has remained static, regardless of how much or how little shrimp is being raised and sold. Take it for what you will.
For those that take an objective view on the daily, is the jig up? Testing for reasonability of belief, positive scenarios only.
Quite the opposite. NSI has made affirmative representations, on numerous occassions, to the effect that NSI is ramping up production at both facilities.
ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack because there's no rational substance to anything you say.
Bro, your desire to write fiction does not have a home here. Reasons were stated in court pleadings. The pleadings were adopted and became an order of the Court. Your OPINION to the contrary is irrelevant and just straight BS.
It is a fact. However, there are competing facts.
It's also a fact that the Series A were created as a legal vehicle to hold 75 million shares of NSI for NSH shareholders. And, it is also a fact that NSH shareholders were granted a legal right by court order to receive approximately 90 million shares of NSI. Therefore, using logic, there's a fact that the Series A no longer serve a legal purpose. Consequently, they may factually exist on paper, or even as paper, but they may not have any legal effect.
For example, you could have a stock certificate for WAMU. It's a fact you have a share of WAMU. It's also a fact that WAMU no longer exists as a legal entity. Therefore, your WAMU stock certificate has zero legal effect... it's worthless.
Ultimately I agree with Josh, any actions by NSI management which rely on the Series A, may not be legitimate actions. Someone with standing may be able to challenge those actions.
I will contend because fact and law are two different concepts.
Also, what does "beneficially" mean to you?
"and he uses that FACTUAL ownership to control the voting stock" - I know... remember, I'm the one who initially identified this issue. I'm on record stating this is the issue.
Remember, NSI could not start selling Shrimp from Homegrown's PL's until at least October 2023. Therefore, "SHMP sold less shrimp this year than last year" is not necessarily fact.
Factually, I still contend there's a legal issue here.
With that said, Net revenue 10x over the last year...
Begs the question: Why would someone come here and tell lies?
I never thought you were smart and now you're just continuing to confirm it for all to see.
Your assumption that somehow I lost, am losing, or will lose money because I bought (Past tense) and currently hold (present tense) SHMP, is a hasty generalization, an unreasonable leap of logic. It fails to take into account any scenario other than the one you participated in just recently: YOLOing into SHMP on the claim it was going to go up, only to claim you "sold quickly" and didn't lose any money during the precipitous drop the next day.
Not all of us act in such irresponsible and stupid ways, right Baid?
Ex.: petulant🤡
Reading comprehension, my friend. It is not your strong suit. Go back and re-read what I said, then try again.
The Amended Joint Motion spells it all out.
"Did Easterling convert his Series A shares via the Shover Settlement."
This question is a non sequitur; it conflates dinstnictly separate factual and legal issues. It's premised on ignorance of facts and law. As I've stated numerous times, it is my view that the conversion occurred as a matter of law upon the Court's allowance of the Joint Motion. See the select quote below and the accounting on Page 5 of the link to the requisite 10Q.
"Gary Shover
A shareholder of NaturalShrimp Holdings, Inc. (“NSH”), Gary Shover, filed suit against the Company on August 11, 2020 in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging breach of contract for the Company’s failure to exchange common shares of the Company for shares Mr. Shover owns in NSH.
On November 15, 2021, a hearing was held before the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division at which time Mr. Shover and the Company presented arguments as to why the Court should approve a joint motion for settlement. After considering the argument of counsel and taking questions from those NSH Shareholders who were present through video conferencing link, the Court approved the motion of the parties to allow Mr. Shover and all like and similarly situated NSH Shareholders to exchange each share of NSH held by a NSH Shareholder for a share of the Company. A final Order was signed on December 6, 2021 and the case was closed by an Order of the Court of the same date. The Company is to issue approximately 93 million shares in settlement, which has been recognized as stock payable on the company's balance sheet, and its fair value of $29,388,000, based on the market value of the Company’s common shares of $0.316 on the date the case was closed, has been recognized in the Company's statement of operations as legal settlement."
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001465470/000165495422001772/shmp_10q.htm
Clearly, the more precise, accurate and correct questions are: Did Easterling claim his 5,986,667 shares of NSI common stock?
Do the Series A shares retain legal effect post conversion?
Just looked at YOTA's most recent filings... looks like they're doing amazing.