Home > Boards > US OTC > Miscellaneous > M Line Holdings Inc. (MLHC)


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (6) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
tutankhamuns Member Profile
Member Level 
Followed By 67
Posts 8,798
Boards Moderated 8
Alias Born 04/28/17
160x600 placeholder
tutankhamuns Member Level  Thursday, 06/13/19 11:42:01 AM
Re: None
Post # of 61696 

M Line Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the beverage branding and distribution industry through Better for You VEA and TORQUE branded energy drinks in the United States. It also distributes food and beverages; and engages in the cannabis industry. The company was formerly known as Gateway International Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to M Line Holdings, Inc. in March 2009. M Line Holdings, Inc. is based in Costa Mesa, California.

Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act provides only two remedies in an administrative proceeding: revocation or suspension. Gateway deliberately and repeatedly disregarded the Commission’s reporting requirements, which deprived the investing public of current reliable information. The excuses Gateway offered for its actions are unpersuasive. The Commission has spent considerable time and effort, and this proceeding was delayed, in an effort to assist Gateway in achieving compliance with the reporting requirements. While Gateway has begun filling in the gaps in its reporting history, as of the date this Initial Decision was drafted, it has yet to remedy the defects in it comprehensive filing. The recurrent and egregious nature of its violations persuades me that suspension will not adequately protect investors. Viewing the Steadman factors in their entirety, and with attention to the Commission’s views in e-Smart, I conclude that the appropriate sanction for the protection of investors is revocation of the registration of Gateway’s securities.

This is an excerpt from the Order linked below providing legal proof that the SEC believes that the securities associated with this stock are not worthy of an investment. Contrary to the 15-12g filed in 2017, the SEC forcibly revoked the company’s stock registration in 2006 (filed in 2013).

IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registration of each class of securities of Gateway International Holdings, Inc., is hereby REVOKED


Signed, sealed & delivered by Chief Administrative Law Judge, Brenda P. Murray.

No audits coming. IMO

It has already been PROVEN that CEO Anish is a CONVICTED LIAR who has pleaded GUILTY to numerous crimes.

Here’s the proof:

Local News in Brief : 2 Men Sentenced to Prison in $257,000 Fraud Scheme

Another man, Anthony Anish, 39, of Laguna Niguel, who helped supply the credit references, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting mail fraud and was put on three years probation, Lincenberg said. A fourth defendant, Byron Foster, 28, of Los Angeles, was acquitted.

Do you really believe in a criminal who says there are no plans for a R/S? He will have no choice but to R/S when he can no longer get enough funding to run all of his scams.

No amount of volume here will bring in any real interest. Anish is either going to increase the A/S again or just R/S. IMO

Massive dilution is on the way...

At $.0004, the $2,159,185 in convertible debt would be equivalent to 9,814,477,273 shares of dilutive stock.

At $.0003, it’s equivalent to 13,085,969,697 shares of dilutive stock.

At $.0002, it’s equivalent to 19,628,954,545 shares of dilutive stock.

At $.0001, it’s equivalent to 39,257,909,091 shares of dilutive stock.

There is MASSIVE DILUTION from Anish here at MLHC. Multiple gray volume bars and the flat MACD on the chart proves that.

Anish is shamelessly crying for money to fund his shell companies, all of which were created in 2018 and 2019.

American Asset Holdings, Inc.

The Caravel Group, LLC (illegally converted into a corporation in the State of Missouri)

Torque Energy

This is a certified scam.

Let’s not forget how he stole money from kids...

AYSO Official Charged in $100,000 Theft

A regional commissioner with the American Youth Soccer Organization has been charged with stealing more than $100,000 from the nonprofit's Newport Beach office, authorities said.

Anthony Leon Anish, 55, surrendered to Newport Beach police about 1 p.m. Wednesday, department spokesman Sgt. Steve Shulman said. Bail was set at $50,000.

"The detectives are very satisfied that they were able to get [an arrest] warrant," Shulman said. "But from a community standpoint, we are certainly disappointed that money that was to benefit these kids was lost."

Anish, a Costa Mesa resident, oversaw the finances of AYSO Region 97, which serves more than 1,500 children in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and had a reserve fund of $120,000, from February 2001 until May.

According to a civil lawsuit filed in June, he squandered most of the money on personal investments, house payments and four Los Angeles Galaxy season tickets with preferred parking, leaving the organization with less than $20,000 in the bank.

"We haven't recovered the money," Shulman said. "I don't know where it went."

Other AYSO officials said they became suspicious about a year ago, when Anish refused to provide financial information or show monthly reports.

Local AYSO officials were in "disbelief because it was something for the kids and the community," Chris Sarris, a coach and board member who took over Anish's position, said when the civil suit was filed. "We had to start from zero again."

They had to start from zero again. Sounds like what’s going to happen when Anish wipes out his shareholder base with the inevitable R/S after diluting the stock to no bid.

But this is the best part...
"We haven't recovered the money," Shulman said. "I don't know where it went."

Just like the $1,022,696 in other expenses that Anish conveniently failed to discuss in the filings. WHERE DID ALL OF THAT MONEY GO????

Here are several cases involving CEO Anish in which he failed to carry out responsible fiduciary duties:

Based on the foregoing findings, the California Corporations Commissioner is of the opinion that Money Line Capital, Inc., M Line Capital, Inc., Anthony L. Anish and George M. Colin have engaged in the business of a finance lender and/or broker without having first obtained a license from the Commissioner in violation of California Financial Code section 22100.

1. Donald Yu v. M Line Holdings, Inc., et al.; Case No. 30-2012-00574019-CU-BC-CJC

This is an employment dispute asserted by a former employee against M Line Holdings and two corporate insiders, Jitu Banker and Anthony Anish, in their respective individual capacities. The action was filed in Orange County Superior Court on June 4, 2012. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment against M Line Holdings, only, on about May 12, 2013. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, M Line agreed to pay $21,450.00 in three (3) equal installments. M Line Holdings failed to make payment on a timely basis, and plaintiff filed a stipulated judgment against M Line Holdings on June 12, 2013. Plaintiff also filed default judgments against Messrs. Banker and Anish.
In response, defendants filed a motion to set aside the defaults and vacate the default judgments against Messrs. Banker and Anish as well as renegotiate the terms of the prior settlement with Plaintiff. On or about September 30, 2013, the parties entered into a supplemental settlement agreement and mutual release wherein the Company agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $24,000 in two (2) equal installments. The first installment of $12,000 has already been paid.
The final installment of $12,000 was due on or before October 30, 2013, and has not been paid at this time. A judgment remains outstanding against the Company in the sum of $12,000 as of December 31, 2018.

2. Can Capital Asset Servicing, Inc. v. E.M. Tool Company, Inc., et al.; Case No. 30-2014-00727606- CU-CL-CJC

This is a breach of contract and related claims arising out of a business loan that alleges that E.M. Tool failed to pay Can
Capital all amounts due under the loan agreement in the principal sum of $58,313, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
On or about November 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated judgment. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $50,000 in installments on or before May 15, 2015.
As of May 13, 2015, the defendants have made partial payments, and still owe plaintiff $25,500. Plaintiff provided notice of its intent to file the stipulated judgment on May 7, 2015, and commence collection efforts if payment of $10,000 is not paid prior thereto and those payments have been made. Since May, a payment of $1,500 has been made. The balance as of August 17, 2015 and as at December 31, 2018 is $24,000.

3. Fadal Machining v. All American CNC Sales, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles, California,Case No. BC415693.

The Complaint was filed on June 12, 2009.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and common counts against All American CNC seeking damages in the amount of at least $163,579 and arises from a claim by Fadal that All American failed to pay amounts due. On June 26, 2009, Fadal amended the complaint to include M Line Holdings, Inc. as a defendant.
A settlement agreement in the amount of $60,000 was signed on May 31, 2011.
The Company had made a provision in the sum of $210,000 in the financial statements as of September 30 and June 30, 2014 as no payments that were due under the settlement agreement have been made. Judgment was entered on June 16, 2011, and a Writ was issued on February 24, 2012. The balance outstanding as of December 31, 2018 is $210,000.

4. C. William Kircher Jr. v. M Line Holdings, Inc. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 00397576

A former attorney for M Line Holdings, Inc. has sued seeking damages for failure to pay legal fees in the amount of

The parties reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement call for 12 payments of $5,000 per month commencing August 25, 2011 and the issuance of 150,000 shares of common stock. The Company has issued the 150,000 shares of common stock and made two payments to date. The Company has a provision in the sum of $50,000 in the financial statements as of December 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018.
The Company currently is in default of its payment obligations under the settlement. Plaintiff currently is seeking to obtain a judgment as a result of the breach of the settlement agreement.

5 Timothy D. Consalvi v. M Line Holdings, Inc. et.al., Orange County Superior Court Case No, 00308489.

A former president of All American CNC Sales, Inc. has filed suit against the Company seeking payment on an alleged severance obligation by the Company. The Complaint does not specify the damages sought. The parties then reached a settlement in the principal sum of $40,000 to be documented in due course. Meanwhile a default was entered against the Company, which management believes was in error because a settlement was already reached by the principal parties involved. The default has since been vacated, and the Company has answered the complaint and has filed a motion for leave to file a cross complaint.
A settlement of $50,000 was reached in this case, requiring payments commencing on March 11, 2011 for 10 months. The first two month’s payments were made; however, the Company currently is in default of the terms of this settlement agreement. Mr. Consalvi filed his stipulated judgment on March 5, 2012. Abstract of judgment and Writ were issued on March 13, 2012.
A provision in the sum of $40,000 has been made in the financial statements as of December 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018. To date there has been no further action on this case,

6. TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. vs M LI ne Holdings, Inc. EM Tool Company, Inc. dba Elite Machine Tool, Precision Aerospace and Technologies, Inc., Anthony Anish and Jitendra Banker case # CACE-14-012871

Plaintiff filed this case on July 1, 2014 in Broward County, Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company owes the Plaintiff the amount due under the revolving note, and is claiming foreclosure of the collateral, breach of the credit agreement and a claim against the individuals under the validity agreement due to the non-payment.
The Plaintiff obtained a default judgment however due to a settlement agreement reached on September 5, 2014 ceased any further legal activity. The Defendants were unable to honor the agreement and Plaintiff continued to obtain sister state judgments in California and Nevada.
In June 2016 a agreement was reached between the parties under which plaintiff agreed to dismiss the current action and rewrite the loan. The loan was written at a lower rate of interest. Further details are included in the subsequent events section.
The Company has accrued $2,786,030 and 2,633,030 in the financial statements that includes all interest and fees due to Plaintiff through December 31, and June 30, 2015.
Due to the loss of documentation that was removed from the building by a lender (see the going concern and subsequent events notes) it is possible that there is litigation that is not included in this list.
The Company has accrued $3,245,030 and 3,245,030 in the financial statements that includes all interest and fees due to Plaintiff through December 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018.
Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur in any of the above matters, there could be a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
The related provisions for these litigations are reported under litigation payable, accounts payable and accrued expenses and other in the consolidated balance sheets.
All documents and files relating to lawsuits were removed by TCA.


As I explained earlier, Market Cap is not the only factor used to determine the true value of a stock.

In light of some unsubstantiated comparisons, let’s compare APRU’s liabilities to that of MLHC:

APRU has $0 convertible notes payable and $0 notes payable. They are at no risk of a toxic death spiral response from unwarranted selling pressure in the open market.

MLHC has $1,889,909 in convertible notes payable, which poses a significant threat of dilution on the open market.

Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to compare these two companies.


The acquisition of the new public entity is worthy of an SEC investigation...

From the PR announcing the initial LOI:

The new entity we plan to acquire currently generates over $12 million in revenue and is expected to grow to over $17 million revenue this year.

And from the PR announcing the closing of the acquisition:

Newport Beach, CA, March 15, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via NEWMEDIAWIRE -- M Line Holdings, Inc. (OTC Pink: MLHC; "M Line" or the “Company”) announces that it has sold its real estate assets and its interest in the Caravel Group to Square Chain Corp. (OTC Pink Stock Symbol “SQCC”) for stock in Square Chain Corporation (“SQCC”),  a significant portion of which will be issued to M Line shareholders as a dividend.

As of the most recent filing for SQCC:
- $0 in revenues
- $979 in cash
- $233,318 in liabilities
- $10,381,179 in Accumulated Deficits
- -$631,361 negative cash flows from operations

It is essentially an empty shell that Anish is using to move MLHC’s assets into, which raises further concerns about possible money laundering throughout his shady organizations. IMO

To file an SEC complaint to help expose this scam: https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (6) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
Current Price
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist