Alcar Chemicals Group, Inc. (fka ALCX)

[Minnesinger]

WAG, part deux…

So, since this seems to be degrading from the preposterous to the absurd, I think I’ll float my notion of what I think may be going on and why. Follow the bouncing ball, if you can.

As I’ve previously stated, I’ve questioned whether ACMG/SREG may have an agreement in place with SAT/FST allowing them to buy back shares which were released into the market by the crooked, former principals now under investigation. We don’t know for sure if unauthorized shares were released, but we know this: AC was led to believe that there was a substantial naked short position in excess of 20MM shares in ACMG. The only person/entity that could substantiate such an allegation is the company’s TA. Of course, this could have been a misdirect by SAT to cover their corrupt asses. We do know that SAT is/was corrupt to the core. This much is now beyond dispute.

The story unfolds in an ironic twist when ACMG/SREG concocts a plan to flush out the puported NSers (ARTL spin-off), whereupon they approach SAT to get a list of the shareholders of record, as well as an accounting of the overall share structure so as to enact the ARTL divvy. In all likelihood, it was at this point that AC/SREG discovered that the NS story was a fable and the real culprit was SAT. Now, AC/SREG is faced with one of two choices: file a lawsuit and wait 5 years for the whole thing to get sorted out, meanwhile the ACMG/SREG deal is put into cryogenic hibernation as the entire share structure becomes frozen and dormant. Or, figure out a way to recoup the unauthorized shares in the most expeditious manner possible so as to proceed with the deal. I’m guessing they decided to take expeditious route.

Now the question is, “how in the world can we expediently recoup shares in a manner that’s fair and equitable?” Do they conduct a formal accounting of all outstanding shares, determine how many are unauthorized and ask all shareholders of record to forfeit their proportional share? I think we know how that would go over. The “fairest” solution would seem to be the “you break it, you buy it principle.” ACMG/SREG could have proposed that in lieu of costly litigation, SREG/FST could opt to buy the excess back and return them to their rightful place out of the float. However, with all of the deals brewing and heightened investor interest, waiting for SAT to scoop up 20MM+ shares while competing with the entire market could just be too much of a challenge to achieve in a timely manner. Therefore, in the spirit of achieving the most expeditious resolution, ACMG/SREG have agreed to exploit the market’s efficiency and remove any buying demand and, more importantly, “stimulate” selling to shake excessive shares loose. Thus, they decide to go stone-cold silent. It’s a game of blink: whoever has the wherewithal to gut it out and can hold until the outstanding share count has been rectified wins.

This would account for the accumulation that’s been reported in spite of an ever declining share price. If SREG were the accumulator, then why would they have announced the deal in the first place to stimulate competing demand? If they were so determined to acquire the entire float, they could have just offered to buy the company outright and offered a premium over the then share price that was too good to refuse. What we’ve witnessed over the last couple of months strikes me as an inordinate amount of trouble to acquire a company that could just have easily been purchased outright for a generous premium. No, I believe what we’ve witnessed (are witnessing) is the most expeditious, least painful (when compared to the alternatives) method of rectifying the damage wrought by SAT. Think of it as chemotherapy: the treatment feels like it will kill you and you go through a lot of pain, anxiety, depression, fear and loathing, but without the treatment the cancer persists and will eventually take you down.


I realize I’m painting in broad strokes here and asking for some pretty broad leaps of logic, but at this point I’m pressed for time and feel I’ve largely made my point. If anything, perhaps my premise will stimulate substantive and constructive discussion.

So tell me: Am I FoS, or is there merit to my madness?