You are incorrect in saying that BLDV was a shell because it ”officially” was not and currently is not a shell.
I was referring to the company's status under Moaning, and using the term in a general way. I don't know whether it's ever been a shell in the SEC's sense of the word.
FINRA wanted to see documentation or other proof of how the current management was not part of that TJ Management transaction from the past. BLDV believes that proving such would not have been difficult at all of which I think it’s very easy to see this after doing further research. Those shares were issued three managements ago and had absolutely nothing to do with the current management.
As you say, that should have been very easy to prove. The company's disclosure has been extremely spotty over the years, but the TA would have issuance records for the TJM stock.
My point was not that current management is "in trouble". My point is that the shell was problematic because of the TJM mess, and continues to be until the problem is cleared up. As I said, FINRA will likely deny any corporate action the company applies for until that is done.
BLDV instead, has decided to ”officially cancel the reverse split” which is a good thing when you consider the lack of liquidity.
Lack of liquidity?? Stocks that trade between 200 and 500 million shares daily are not illiquid. As for those trades being "mostly buys", in reality trades on the ask and trades on the bid have been fairly evenly divided.
Those TJ Management shares are simply going to have to remain locked and for reasons totally unrelated due to BLDV.
Why? You say it would be relatively easy to satisfy FINRA. I agree that it should be. So why wasn't that done? The company wanted a reverse split, and for good reason: there're billions of shares in the float, even without the TJM paper. Any startup company--which is what this one is--will need financing, and will need to issue stock going forward. So it's best to begin with as low an o/s as possible.
Imagine you buying shares in Microsoft (MSFT) to be only a shareholder and you go out and get a DUI. Is it really even logical that Microsoft to be frowned upon and negatively judged because of you getting a DUI?
Not a good analogy. When Alper decided he wanted to go public, he could have started from scratch, creating a new public company that was an SEC registrant. Or he could have created a new Pink. Either would have taken between a year and a year and a half (unless he'd already had a couple dozen "friends and family" shareholders).
But he presumably wanted things to go faster, and so opted to reverse merge into a public shell. He COULD have chosen a relatively clean shell; one with no history of relationships with SEC-sanctioned entities, one with a reasonable number of shares outstanding. Say, an o/s under 100 million.
Instead, he chose BLVD. To me, that shows poor judgment on his part.
AI
