RM5LG answer to your question.
This will also be posted on the website under questions and answers.
Mallet, I have a question in regards to your previous post. If a company would be willing to buy the shell, why wouldn’t they buyout the stock owners as well? Wouldn’t that fix their problem? It would give them a clean n clear shell, with no previous shareholders and then they can take it up to where ever they want. I am not sure if this is a stupid question, if it is, I apologize in advance. With not too many shareholders, it would seem to be a viable option IMO
They don’t want to buy a shell and GNGR is not a shell. To buy a shell requires lots of compliance and filings to be able to merge a public company with a shell. To make GNGR a shell so they can buy it would be a step backwards.
If a buyout were an option, they would not want to pay much for the shares so no one would be happy. And for everyone to agree would be too complex with many who would say no.
The CEO of GNGR who has voting control can elect to sell at a fixed price like the owners of Snapple beverage did. They sold their restricted shares cheap and that caused the public shares to drop. On Wall Street when the CEO sells out cheap killing the price is called a Snapple.
If the CEO who owns 700,000,000 shares decided to just jump ship and told the company to buy the shares for $.001 for $700,000, the next day the public price would drop from $.007 to $.001 that is called a Snapple.
The CEO of GNGR would not even entertain that option and because the CA company did not want GNGR holders to benefit by a share price rising to $.25 cents allowing GNGR holders to sell the float of 108,000,000 for $25,000,000 was why GNGR pulled out of the deal.
GNGR’s CEO has 89,000,000 free trading shares and the CA Company buying them for $.126 cents directly comes to about $12,000,000. Once that was done the CEO walks away.
Those 89,000,000 shares would likely be sold quickly and not by public sale but to other individuals who want to buy them knowing what the plan would be with the new company for as much as $.25 so the company recovers the $12,000,000 to GNGR’s CEO and they also make an additional $12,000,000.
Once done it’s a good guess the shares would be reversed 10,000/1 and the CA Company would take it from there. When they issue more shares to the market they would not issue more shares to the reduced GNGR holders making those 108,000,000 that were reduced to 10,800 less than 1% of the float shares.
The group who bought the 89,000,000 for $.25 would receive as a guess 2,000,000 of the new shares slated to go to $25 ($50,000,000) at even $25 per share; GNGR holders who received the reversed shares would still be in the red.
The only way any GNGR shareholders would benefit is if the CA Company agreed to let GNGR holders sell on the uptick over a 6-month period or be bought out for a high price, neither of which was agreed upon.
GNGR is still expanding with additional plans to increase shareholder value. The CEO is not one to sell out. That has been proven many times since 2012 by not taking the easy road to a pump and dump dilute and sell 10 billion shares at $.001 and take in $10,000,000 then just fold the company.
The reason why it looks like a massive short took place is the trades and codes and volume far exceeds the true DTC float. Most thought GNGR would have taken the easy path and dump and dilute. Many bet on that by shorting the stock only to find they bet wrong and now the hammer is falling.
If GNGR was shorted 400,000,000 shares as far back as 2012 at around $.10 cents comes to $40,000,000. This is also why some deals made always say no to letting shareholders benefit. They don’t want that to happen because it causes the short squeeze to happen. This give reason to believe the CA Company is really a group to gain control of GNGR just to close it up to cover what may be a $40,000,000 shortfall.
If shorts needed to come up with 400,000,000 shares at $.10, 89,000,000 of the CEOs shares is $8,900,000 plus the additional $31,000,000 paid to GNGR for company shares to cover.
This would make the CEO much more than a buy out or buy in and also give the company a huge bankroll as well as a spike in the share price. The CEO’s 700,000,000 would than be worth $70,000,000 or more. So selling out now is premature especially with the expansion and interest in GNGR products.
Most importantly is the CEO does not make money selling shares like all pumped OTC stocks. GNGR makes money selling products not shares.
Most OTC CEO’s who do sell out are broke or have companies that don’t make anything. They must sell out or sell shares to generate income, this is not so with GNGR.
If the CA Company was really driven to take their company public that is valid and is well known who also want to raise $100,000,000 and move to NASDAQ, you would think allowing a few to benefit and soon after the sky is the limit would be fair.
That give reason to believe they must do the huge stock reversal for one reason. To cover up the old open shorts. We don’t even know if it's 400,000,00. It could be as high as 800,000,000 shorted at a price of $.20. That would mean they would have to pay out $160,000,000 so you can see that saying no to a fair deal may have other motives.
We shall soon see.
