InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 159
Posts 22037
Boards Moderated 5
Alias Born 02/07/2005

Re: stervc post# 14536

Wednesday, 10/27/2021 11:49:24 AM

Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:49:24 AM

Post# of 20128
That's frikkin' hilarious.


The SEC, upon reviewing said (at this point, non-existent) S-1, would reject it, based on its claims of future revenue from the mining venture. As well, mentioning a 43-101 also raises an immediate red flag, and brands the company as quite clueless. Of course, seeing as there has yet to be any serious exploration, let alone geo reports, feasibility studies, etc etc, they are years from possibly reaching proven reserves status.

Second, NASDAQ would do the same. However, why even mention a NASDAQ application, when the stock is far from meeting the listing requirements?