LOL, FM 11…
Yes, you were wrong and to not understand why it is a relevant detail, goes a long way in demonstrating why we continue to talk in circles about it.
Your assumptions seem to have gone awry again.
Making the observation that because there is a SEC filing history that goes back over five years, doesn’t mean that Breitling was public for that whole time. In fact, it is a silly assumption to make.
By making incorrect observations, you seem to be implying that Faulkner was responsible for Bering Exploration’s poor performance that was largely funded by toxic debt and CDs that were dilutive in nature and destructive to shareholders back then. You also falsely imply that Faulkner was responsible for executing two reverse splits (1 in 2010 and one in 2012.) That is also not the case.
If people don’t care, they should.
The benefit of doing a reverse merger should also be obvious to everyone.
While Breitling did issue shares to settle toxic debt and salary obligations of former officers and note holders, they did so by granting around 10,000,000 shares (I think it was less than that, but I am not bothering to look it up.)
The PPS at that time was $.08. That was roughly $800,000 in stock to settle all outstanding debt and obligations, while picking up oil and gas interests that were valued at roughly $500,000 at the time according to the final BERX 10Q.
While BERX did have total liabilities exceeding their total assets, its not really relevant and stock traders would simply refer to that as a shareholder “deficit,” rather than the “negative equity” term that you used.
There is no real reason to use big words, when small ones will work just as well.
BERX shareholders were permitted to maintain an equity stake in Breitling when they went public and enjoy the gains of the PPS appreciation.
Faulkner took a diluting, stock promoting and reverse splitting, POS going concern, company off the market and replaced with his own company that at the time was fully funded and profitable.
BTW, that is what I mean by protecting the integrity of share structures. Avoiding toxic debt, CDs, dilution, etc.
Breitling has never engaged in funding activities that would be destructive to shareholders, contrary to all the nonsense that gets posted on the blogs and boards.
While several people have claimed that the erosion in the Breitling PPS was due to dilution, all available information shows that to be wrong.
The underlying commodity tanked, causing hardships for almost every public company in the sector.
UPLMQ is a great example of one of the many NYSE/NASDAQ energy stocks that suffered similar or greater losses than BECC.
FKA UPL was trading @ $30 a share in early 2014 before hitting a low of $.16 a few weeks ago.
Strange that I don’t see the same folks that are harassing Breitling Energy CEO Chris Faulkner, over on the Ultra Petroleum board harassing CEO Michael Watford, even though that percentage loss to shareholders was about the same as Breitling’s.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
