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.
Listening to the conference call of $HPIL, CEO said he didn't know why the company had redomiciled from NV to WY, LOL.
Looking at NVSOS record, $HPIL is still revoked with annual report due 05/31/2019 which tell me that redomiciling of HPIL to WY may not be legitimate. Could this be why OTCM has not yet given them a verified profile since April 2021 when they reported application with OTCM as well?
Thoughts?
So to assert language that FINRA somehow "approved" the application seems misleading. This is no different than saying SEC approved form 15 when such is deemed effective.
What do you think of self-underwritten S-1s that keep getting amended for the 6th time?
Thanks Janice.
FINRA sends confirmation of an application being processed but that is not necessarily approval, correct? And correct that according to the records of FINRA & the brokerages the name still appears as $HPIL.
Given that FINRA does oblige an effective date of name change by issuers, do you believe issuers--in their PR-- should disclose when the effective date is when they announce "approval" by FINRA?
How likely is that an issuer like $HPIL cleared comments from FINRA in less than 30 days to attain approval?
not a delinquent filer from a perspective of a 1934 SEC filer, but since filing the 15 in 08/2019 and amendment filed with WYSOS ~4/11 this year, $HPIL stated in their PR of 04-27 that they applied for a name change and again on 5-14 that FINRA had approved name change. However, looking at the info of brokerage firms, the name still appears as HPIL Holding.
In order to even put in the request for name change, the application should have been made ~4/11 to be in compliance. They PR'd a whole bunch of stuff including FINRA approval.
Also, isn't the standard review period with FINRA 60 days?
Under what circumstances--that you're aware of--would FINRA accelerate an application for corporate action like this, if any? I can't remember which is why I thought I'd reach out to you.
Thanks,
BB
In your memory bank, do you recall FINRA approving corporate name change for an issuer with 6 years of delinquent filing and turn the request around within 30 days?
Hi Janice, a long time
An issuer is claiming that they received FINRA approval for name change within one month of application & the said issuer has been defunct with filings for 6 years. Under Rule 6490, corporate actions may be denied if an issuer is not current in its filings.
Was there a rule change of recent that made exceptions to Rule 6490 that an issuer is getting approval for name change request on short notice?
TIA
Still a lot of flipping by smaller traders on this, yes. However, $FBCD will be dropping all filings at once & that is imminent.
Added $70K today to my stockpile of $FBCD.
Added 0235-0257 today on $FBCD
Bought 0019/002s $TONR.
What I have invested in RETC is what I call "coins" only. As I believe unassuming retail peeps are being taken, I'm more than happy to put up the $$ to litigate this case.
Agree. In the interim, GS must put in an emergency appeal to this case running concurrent with the derivative lawsuit that's already in motion. The case has to remain alive.
These guys will move for 11 which will get them off of 1934 filing duties which will qualify as an event to go 15.
All cases become stayed & we have a party going into summer. This case just became more interesting to me despite my losses.
I am going to donate $500K to try this case. Actions of the guys pulling the strings are so egregious, I'd not mind pursuing this for retail shareholders, win or not.
Read again: "JUDGE"
Judge ruled & sent a clear message that it is fine to disregard laws when it's convenient. And we wonder why the country is messed up. SMH.
An emergency appeal must be filed. Shareholder derivative action is already in progress. We need to see these guys' faces.
This is justice in America. SMH.
True. This is beyond ridiculous. I'm tendering all my shares to Sharp.
UNBELIEVABLE what court allows scammers to get away with. SMH.
We'll see you t the derivative lawsuit.
All exhibits filed are rendered accepted. If these guys continue, corporate actions pertaining to BluWire & appointment of David Wu will come to surface. These idiots at RETC better watch it!
There was NO disagreement among directors/officers but still they opted not to file? Hello.
Doesn't it?
She bent out of shape bc she's gonna be off the share selling scheme which RETC has been, IMHO. LOL.
I think this is a Sharp win!
Amy Tirre should ask how many companies Berman took from 0001 to Nasdaq. LMAO.
Berman is advising so RETC can go from 0001 to Nasdaq. God damn! To da moon! Ring this $shit up! LOLOLOL!
Brassington can't remember if RETC received funds to the tune of 100Ks when it's already been reported. Is she for real?
Judge smells rats
RETC is going to get a butt-whooping! The best bit hasn't even started.
Stay tuned!!!!
OBJECTION OVER-RULED TWICE!!!
RETC
Thank you very kindly!
My best wishes to all parties concerned & great thanks to Erik Grover for his legal opinion throughout.
$RETC.
Anyone streaming the hearing today & can provide access pls?
Thank you!
Oh but Brassington said company made $400K~ in revenues from PPE stuff without publishing any 10Qs to substantiate the claim, talked abt stuff that had not been disclosed?
There are many, many issues with "peeps et al" at RETC.
At any rate, good luck to all holding for the hearing today.
$RETC
Correct. RETC had made 2020 8-K disclosures that they didn't have the resources to get audits done due to COVID and the likelihood of revenues for 2020 being $0. This raises doubts abt any PCAOB auditor running to them. The main issue with RETC peeps is that you can't trust a word out of their mouth.
LOL at $FBCD sellers. added panic here. Too funny!
I think that might happen, produce directors/officers...let's see.
My theory is Mau took back BluWire & bailed hoping no one would catch on to the corporate actions that took place in 10/2020 & thereafter decided to stop even the 8-K filings. By this time, all "operating subs" were closed, nothing to scrap from those units anyways. Sisca had quit, Fashion group closed down...etc.
10Qs of 2020 despite them coming for months & months, not even 1Q 2020 was filed. I reiterate that 10Qs are interim reports that do not require auditor engagement or sign off, and that generally books are closed monthly & Brassington works 50 hrs/wk, this is a task that should've been completed.
Shame on these jerks either way.
RETC case is slightly different than MEIL because we have reason to believe that officers/directors of this company may not exist, and that the real control persons behind RETC could have been David Mau/Belmont all along. Brassington's connection to Belmont & previous deals of RETC that involved her must be examined.
We can connect the timeline of when RETC goes completely dark to the time when Mau files in FL, and that is 10/2020.
Additionally, I have to question what efforts were made to avoid NVSOS revocation in the first place. How difficult is it to come up with $100? To have let this go for 30 months is inexcusable by any measure.
Who actually filed & paid NVSOS for reinstatement? Source of fund...etc, and who actually caused it to be filed? It was Sharp.
You keep bringing up that the court is doing hearing via Zoom calls but that is not support for RETC but evidence that the courts haven't abandoned their duty to continue hearings, right?
7 months refers to October 2020 to March 2021 when no 8-K were filed despite corporate actions that took place in October 2020 hence I have to agree with Erik abt threshold.
Don't be surprised if Sharp's atty asks, "During the 30 months that RETC had not met its registration requirements with the NVSOS, did management submit any official correspondence to the State requesting interim suspension of filings by explaining why the company could not come up with $100?"
What specific actions did RETC take to avoid NV state revocation?
My point is simple:
AGAIN...
Reinstatement of RETC at NVSOS only restored the business's right to do business.
This doesn't suggest that all current management or the board has the right to stay as a result of reinstatement bc officers/board members are elected/appointed. Despite their (re)election, they can be removed with cause and this should be expected shortly.
No one has the right to continued employment under any circumstance esp in this case because NV is an At Will state. Further, that CEO/CFO are residents of a foreign country and work in a foreign country their late claim exerting reasonable supervision over the "business" of RETC will be challenged.