The Krisa/SSM board voted earlier this year on a resolution to delete one billion shares.
How therefore can they legally go back on that resolution vote after tweeting their clearly stated intention?
When a company says they voted on something the perception in the shareholder community is that vote cements “intent”. In this instance the intent of Krisa/SSM was the indication that they were steadfast on the sought after promoted result, and would do everything they could to secure that result. That spirit of steadfastness did not appear to occur though, the exact opposite appeared to occur according to the court documents posted to “suits and stocks” on July 15, 2021.
Investors in the OTC are used to being in the dark on most things, unless something is promoted to them to believe in publicly. Investors in Avvh could only have been privy to the possible result of a “partial deletion” of the 1 billion shares if they were directly part of the related negotiation process. The publicly promoted intent was that the 1 billion deletion would occur or it wouldn’t, meaning the perception of “all or nothing”, via the tweeted statement that “the judge would rule on the 1 billion shares at the hearing on July 15, 2021”. On the contrary, there was no hearing on July 15th, 2021, and there was no prior tweeted statement that the judge would rule on the 944 million shares and also the 68 million shares separately. That separate ruling scenario that investors were not informed of is part of the illegal bait and switch and now “upsell” process on social media in my opinion.
Lastly, if allpennystocks owners, affiliates or anyone else acquired direct knowledge that allpennystocks was going to keep their shares due to a separate judge ruling on those specific shares, and before the public was “informed” of that by court documents posted to “suits and stocks” Twitter account, traded even one of those shares, and if allpennystocks was communicating or negotiating with Krisa/SSM etc in regards to those shares prior to the court hearing, then that trading process could be considered as the crime of insider trading, and the possibility of that crime requires an investigation by all relevant authorities in my opinion.
The parties involved likely knew for months that it was most likely 944 shares and not 1 billion, while Krisa/SSM communications continued to allude to the 1 Billion shares as if it was a possibility.
If someone wants to say that investors simply fell for lawyerly word games, the word game used was that the judge would rule on 1 billion shares and literally that is not what occurred. The judge ruled twice. Once on 944 billion shares and once on 68 million shares, and never on 1 billion shares. There is no single judge ruling in existence on 1 billion shares related to Avvh. So some would say that the ruling was collectively as 1 billion and they would be correct, except that isn’t what was tweeted, and the public communications are what make this situation defined to be a financial crime of bait and switch deception. If there are authorities out there please investigate all parties involved, thank you for your consideration.
No Wall Street whale is going to invest in a stock without clarity as to when a website can sell shares which equal 10% of the common stock, that is why this topic matters to the value of your shares going forward. They might not even invest in it regardless of when or if those shares could be sold, simply that they exist in the hands of a stock promoter might nullify the ability of firms to invest in Avvh. The only recourse I see for this stock is not infinite patience but relevant authorities promptly filing a lawsuit on behalf of Avvh investors to recoup as many funds as possible from Krisa/SSM etc. to be distributed to those who incurred or incur losses from the date of the first PR release onward, when heavy selling bizarrely began minutes before the PR.
What is the merger candidate vetting process for? To see which CEO’s don’t notice these types of shares being owned by a website? All imo.
my posts are always theory and not financial advice
AI
