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.
That tweet was not last week, it was on November 2nd. Here it is:
"I will never be involved with a company that wipes out the shareholders through a reverse split. $FORW $TSNP"
I will never be involved with a company that wipes out the shareholders through a reverse split. $FORW $TSNP
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) November 2, 2020
Today's $TSNP PR referring to 'structural & organizational' changes means that there will be changes to the way the company operates that will have "positive impact on shareholder value".
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) November 6, 2020
$TSNP is currently going through qualitative changes. It is being reshaped and changed into something different. I don't think charts or technical analysis are relevant at this stage.
It's happening bit by bit. I believe the share ownership structure is gradually shifting from traders to investors as more business developments unfold and the potential of $TSNP is realized and bigger players start jumping in. That should result in more shares absorbed by investors into strong hands making the practical float less gradually. This should help the price get higher much easier by time. All imo.
I believe so too. With such management mindset I wouldn't be surprised to know that they managed to come up with another fund to benefit from this buying opportunity. I'm anxious to see where the price goes once the selling pressure subsides.
That's not the app itslelf. It's a video demo of the app or its prototype in action published among others on HUMBL's account on Vimeo here https://vimeo.com/user121738810
I don't think the management would pay over $10 million to buy and lock shares if they had even the slightest intention to reverse split, simply it doesn't make sense. Obviously they have a plan and obviously it does not include reverse split, at least a major one. Maybe a positive small RS like 4:1 or 8:1 that would actually benefit the shareholders but a major one of the 1000:1 size you mentioned, I don't think so.
My first guess was right, a buyback was going on. Maybe that's why the price was held down despite the massive buying? Now hoping for another development, uplisting from OTC to NYSE. Maybe that's one of the news George Sharp referred to in the coming weeks in the tweet below. Let's see.
Big $TSNP PR confirmed for 9:00 a.m. & then yet another one for Thursday. This will be the last time I will preannounce PRs, but presuming there will about two on most (maybe not all) weeks, usually Tuesdays & Thursdays is not unreasonable. So many developments in the hopper.
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) November 16, 2020
News: Tesoro Enterprises, Inc. CEO to Lock Up Over $10 Million Worth of Stock Purchased Directly Out of the Market
http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/17/2128395/0/en/Tesoro-Enterprises-Inc-CEO-to-Lock-Up-Over-10-Million-Worth-of-Stock-Purchased-Directly-Out-of-the-Market.html
Good find. I found the following thanks to your lead, in case it's useful to anyone:
- BLOCK 30's Twitter account is https://twitter.com/Block30Labs with the handle @Block30Labs (it has the same website block30.com associated to it).
- Its LinkedIn account is here https://www.linkedin.com/company/block-30-labs and the address "600 B St San Diego, California, US".
- From the above, it seems BLOCK 30 Holding Co. was named Block 30 Labs before and had the website http://www.block30financial.com (no longer available).
- Block 30 is registered on SEC using the old name and with address similar to the above at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776696/000147793219005389/0001477932-19-005389-index.htm
- It's listed on Crunchbase with some info here https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/block-30
The retiring shares represent 12% of the total common shares.
As per the PR (http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/13/2126553/0/en/Tesoro-Enterprises-Inc-Retires-Over-551-Million-Common-Shares.html)
Retiring common shares: 551,669,335
Number of Tesoro common shares issued and outstanding is reduced to 3,996,709,773
Total prior to retirement = 3,996,709,773 + 551,669,335 = 4,548,379,108
Ratio of the retiring shares: 551,669,335 / 4,548,379,108 = 0.1212 or 12%
There are currently ~1.43 billion shares at the bid at 0.0002 wanting/hoping to get filled. Only a very small fraction of that size is actually filled by the very little shares (relatively) sold at the bid price. Chances that your order has precedence above most of the other orders waiting in queue (hundreds? thousands?) and will get filled before them is slim. Yes it may happen but I'm talking about the probability.
A good article about telehealth.
Fad or future? Telehealth expansion eyed beyond pandemic
https://apnews.com/cc1a2cab5dfd1168c30ae25682be6f12
Also both eWellness and Phzio have the same address and phone number? Check this https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
ewellnesshealth.com is no longer used. The official website of eWellness Healthcare Corp is now www.phzio.com as recently updated on their OTC Markets profile at https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/EWLL/profile
Check the screenshot in this message https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157888454
My post is related to the company's fundamentals which define its actual value, not to the current share price which is based on the how people perceive that value.
However, if you want to mention the share price then you need to know this is how profits are made in trading and investing. You find something that is undervalued, or has future potential, or both. You buy it, and you wait till its price appreciates. Personally, I think that EWLL currently is both, undervalued and has future potential.
Do you know that both eWellness and Phzio have the same address and phone number? That alone is very significant imo. Add to this how the last 8-K filing mentions Phzio as belonging to eWellness. Check this https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
Phzio posted this on LinkedIn about a week ago in response to selecting it as one of Shortlister's Top 15 Corporate Musculoskeletal Programs Top Vendor Partners for Q3 2020: "Big updates to our MSK prevention program coming soon."
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phzio_musculoskeletal-topvendor-activity-6701487042892845056-dDC0/
Check this too, both eWellness and Phzio have the same address and phone number https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
Actually since both eWellness and Phzio have the same address and phone number which implies they are both one and the same, it's obvious that eWellness owns Phzio. Not to mention how it was mentioned in the last 8-K filing. Most probably Phzio is one of eWellness services as well as MSK360. Find the details here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
Actually since both eWellness and Phzio have the same address and phone number, it's obvious that eWellness owns Phzio. Most probably Phzio is one of eWellness services as well as MSK360. Find details here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
Another evidence that eWellness owns Phzio is found here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157788821
eWellness and Phzio both have the same address and phone number as shown below.
It seems that Phzio is a service run by eWellness the same as Gmail is a service run by Google. If this is correct then Phzio's revenue would be going directly into eWellness.
As I see it, the way Phzio and MSK360 are mentioned in the last 8-K filing (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1550020/000149315220016222/form8-k.htm) imply that both are owned by eWellness: "As noted above, the Company’s PHZIO and MSK360 systems are currently operated on behalf of the Company by Bistromatics Inc., which is based in Canada."
Otherwise, my second best conclusion based on the address and phone number similarity would be that Phzio is a separate company owned by eWellness.
Details below:
eWellness address and phone number from SEC records (https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=1550020)
Phzio address and phone number from its website (https://phzio.com/home/about-us/)
Phzio on Shortlister's top 15 Corporate Musculoskeletal Programs - Q3 as of July 2020, currently number 5 on the list: https://www.myshortlister.com/corporate-musculoskeletal-programs/vendor-list
"Shortlister is a vendor matching technology used by several Fortune 1000 companies and most employee benefits consultants."
Don't forget they have raised the AS and have about 6.5 billion shares ready to dump any time. Imagine starting converting your shares on a 10 million OS basis and during the process they dump 1 billion. By the time you receive your converted shares they will be standing against 1.01 billion instead of 10 million and worth nothing. Without restriction on the company dumping new shares prices could fall sharply.
They are trying to avoid the option of working on reinstating LAHO and resuming the old plan because it'd be long and that's not in their best interest. They should be in the same hole they have put the shareholders in, either all float or all sink.
Where are the millions of dollars form LAHO share dumping proceeds? I think they are enough to pay whatever MSSV has paid in the agreement then they go separate ways. Dave and Benito can not wait? They created this whole mess so they should wait like any other shareholders. At least it will be a motive for them to finish things sooner.
Voting will result in nothing but shareholders losing their money whatever the outcome is. Management announced they would put LAHO back on track followed by the RM. They wouldn't do so if it wasn't feasible but obviously they preferred the quick way out. This whole mess is harming both LAHO and MSSV shareholders. Reverting to the old agreement is the only way to save both imo.
This value is based on logic that led to calculations that led to values. You can find them on earlier posts including mine. It says what is expected to happen in the case the 1000 preferred shared scenario is executed.
I've found there's a misunderstanding that this scenario would lead to shareholders getting a good portion of their money back, not realizing that they will not even reach 1% of their position value based on last trade close price.
That understanding forms the collective opinion and hence decision that affects the direction the whole case will move in. So it must be clarified to everyone. If you have an objection on the logic or calculations let's know them to discuss and correct each other so we keep the discussion constructive.
I'm worried about that. Many tricks can be played with numbers and with the current voting which has nothing but bad outcomes, they can get off the hook and make it look like it's shareholders' responsibility. The whole voting in its current form must be refused imo.
They are not trying to give the shareholders something back. They are trying to fool them by making it look like they will have something back.
According to my calculations (check my earlier posts), MSSV's equivalent of 3 million LAHO shares is expected to be $87. And much less if they maxed out the AS which will most probably happen after raising the AS to 6.5 billion.
What a joke. They want the shareholders to vote on which way to lose their money. Shareholders should take their money back and more. Dave and Beneito caused that mess so they should solve it even if they pay form their own pockets.
In my opinion, the shareholders should insist on the following counter voting options:
- Option 1: The new agreement with MSSV is revoked, MSSV gets out and LAHO back in, and then back to the reinstatement scenario. I suppose that in reality LAHO is a couple of months away form reinstatement, they just want the quickest path.
- Option 2: Renegotiating the agreement for 1-for-1 LAHO:MSSV share exchange instead of the meager 1000 preferred shares. In this case there must be at least one year restriction on issuing new MSSV shares. If the would-be additional 2 billion shares are issued and dumped in the market then all that effort would be in vain.
Otherwise I expect a thorough investigation will find a lot of holes and wrongdoings in the whole process that undermines the way that agreement was done and LAHO share dumping proceedings were spent.
During August and the first week of September MSSV traded around the $0.08 price and 40k average daily volume levels. That's about $3,200 daily with a total of around $80,000 for that period intotal. Also till now, MSSV has only 6.5 million shares with very small market cap. No way such common share trading could absorb the funds coming from LAHO's same period trading, unless something hidden was done like private placement preferred shares but then again those were supposed to show in the filings. I believe that LAHO shareholders in Dave and Benito's close circle were caught off guard same as other shareholders. The point here if there was a special deal cut to silence them. If Dave and Benito can not take such heat from common shareholders they don't know, imagine how it's like for them from people they know personally and probably see on regular basis.
Actually it is 1 for 692 but this is not the point. The post was about what would constitute a fair agreement for LAHO shareholders if the whole agreement is disputed and renegotiated if wrongdoings are proven.
Renegotiating the agreement for a 1:1 LAHO:MSSV share exchange would be a good provided enough measures are taken to ensure a good share price afterwards. For instance, MSSV should not issue other shares prior to or immediately after the share exchange, otherwise the stock will be dropped to no bid and LAHO:MSSV shares will become worthless. Also the transaction needs to be done prior to the RM.
Also the whereabouts of the proceeds from selling about 1.5 billion newly issued LAHO shares should be declared and if they were enough to cover LAHO's debt, why weren't they? Have they been transferred to MSSV via another "creative" way as part of the agreement which shareholders don't know in full? This element can play a big role in adjusting the balance for shareholders benefit if that money is still there.
I don't have additional information but reading between the lines.
From the solution side, I say the whole path that ended by MSSV taking over LAHO's place and LOI must be disputed:
- When Lans Holdings became a private company, were there possible structures or only one?
- Were there other options that could give the private shareholders the right to decide on the agreement and company management in general?
- If there were other options, why was it structured the way it is now of all the others when it went private?
- Did the shareholders have the right to decide what private company structure they want Lans Holdings to become?
- Actually with the current structure, still was it Dave's right to decide alone on it or such major transaction was supposed to be voted on by the shareholders?
Lans Holdings had a lot going on behind the scenes and putting GSCG and MSSV in the picture makes it more complicated. We could discover that what Dave did was legally wrong at the first place and that agreement to transfer the LOI to MSSV.
Besides, where did the millions of dollars form dumping all those LAHO shares go? Why weren't they used to pay the debt instead of having MSSV do it as part of the deal.
Some digging will unveil a lot imo.
> "What about their prior affiliat level investors? So I'm not sure the mindset was "kick shareholders in the teeth"... that would be their own teeth."
The news mentioned "As part of the transaction, Lans will transfer over its LOI with...". This is only a part, we don't know the whole deal. Maybe there's something for them there. Besides, what if they will be compensated from MSSV's side somehow via other preferred convertible shares or private placement, ...etc. We don't see the full picture. They might be safe after all.
> "Finding a new stable vehicle to get GSCG to market still makes sense to me"
Yes it's good for GSCG to achieve its goals but is it good too for LAHO whose sole reason for share price appreciation form 0.0001/2 to 0.0046 is the RM agreement? When the agreement it removed, the price should go back to 0.0001 and maybe no bid when everyone dumps, right?
Yes I believe the same as they found a creative way to jump from LAHO to MSSV taking the LOI with them, they can find another creative way to do the opposite. Their mess, they solve it.
I don't know what 1 year you meant, there's nothing like that as far as I know. Also I see things differently. LAHO was supposed to become current around mid September, they mentioned that so supposedly it was very close. Then came the halting and talks about working on fixing things. From the available information, LAHO reinstatement and the RM were expected to be done by March/April 2020. So far so good, everything was going fine. I presume that the management that gave optimistic information twice knew that things in reality were fixable and feasible.
Then came this news https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/meso-numismatics-inc-MSSV/stock-news/81254403/lans-holdings-enters-into-strategic-transaction-wi stating that "Lans Holdings Inc. has determined that continuing on its pre discussed path as per its September 20th, 2019 press release is no longer feasible". What happened between then and now? My interpretation to this statement is "We found that we have a great business opportunity and we can make millions of dollars but waiting for fixing LAHO would delay us so why not kick shareholders in the teeth and move on to something else as long as we can get away with it". Fixing LAHO was feasible then and still feasible now imo, they just don't want to wait.
Keeping MSSV in the picture will wipe out LAHO's shareholders value and probably MSSV's too imo.
Have you calculated the expected outcomes in monetary value? What I saw was not good at all.
MSSV has 6.5 Million shares now. If shareholders get 80% that's 5.2 million.
LAHO had about 3.6 Billion shares. That's a 692 to 1 ratio.
If you own 3 million LAHO shares, you get 4335 MSSV shares in return.
MSSV current PPS is about $0.035, when new shares are issued and sold, say it drops to $0.02 so the 4,335 shares value becomes $86.7.
So the 3m LAHO shares that at last price of $0.0046 were worth $13,800 becomes $86.7 with MSSV.
If it goes the other way and the conversion is done after dumping billions of MSSV shares after raising the A/S to 6.5 Billion recently (guess why), or worse, after maxing out the 6.5 Billion A/S and raising it again to make room for converting LAHO's shares into new billions of MSSV shares, the stock will most probably reach no bid and whatever you have will still be worth nothing.
I hope my logic or calculations are wrong but if not, you'd be better off reverting to the old LAHO/GSCG agreement than the new one with MSSV. If any voting outcome could result in shareholders getting 80% or 50% of their money back I'd say go for it.
More on why go backwards is here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152704767
I see this as trying to let the shareholders stab themselves with their own hands. All suggested options would have bad outcomes for current LAHO shareholders. Only reverting to the original LAHO/GSCG agreement is what can save them. Let that be up for voting too if they are serious about it. Besides they need to answer where did the revenues of LAHO's dumped shares go and why not used to pay the debts instead of resolving to MSSV for that which I see as a cheap trick to jump to MSSV taking the LOI with them.
Can this lawsuit result in compensating the shareholders for their money? I just want to make sure this option is worth it.
Any effort that does not result in getting MSSV out of the picture and reverting to the original LAHO/GSCG agreement is worthless imo.