jay,
"I also look forward to stox's responses. They typically delve more deeply into the question at hand, and provide more detail than is contained in the initial post. The fact that stox can reply with that level of detail lends to his credibility."
Regrettably I can't agree with the above. I don't pretend to understand most of what he says.......and what I do understand I rarely agree with.
Apparently, and PLEASE correct me if I misunderstand, his most recent two posts indicate that he feels that:
1. A "Wells notice settlement", which I assume refers to a settlement between the SEC and the 3 respondents regarding the violations outlined in the notice, has already been reached and it's just a matter of the details being made public.
"We have the Wells notice settlement detail yet to go primetime".
"We'll soon see just what the talked about Wells notice settlement consists of in its entirety."
2. The company has sought and expects the assurance of the regulatory authorities that an OTCBB listing will be provided concurrent with the filings of the delinquent reports so that institutional and other investors will have a venue readily available to them that allows orderly trading.
"The strong likelihood being that, at the very least, there will be official assurance that the OTCBB goal will manifest in a timely manner following delinquency, etc. matters being cleared up in full."
Even stating that, in the absence of such assurances, the company would just plain not file.
"It being doubtful in the extreme that management would open the info./detail floodgates in full in the absence, at the very least, of official assurance of said opening resulting in an expedited return to being OTCBB quoted."
I have no comment on his phantom shares concerns based on my ignorance of the processes and the non-payment/NSF/stop payment issues seem to speak for themselves......they in no way represent normal negotiating techniques........but the two items above can only represent one of three things (or a combination thereof): inside information, a vivid imagination or an intent to mislead. Clearly, we don't agree that "The fact that stox can reply with that level of detail lends to his credibility." My understanding of that term is that it is a characteristic based upon a history of reliable information, supported by the details.
But maybe I just misunderstand.
ps. Do you know which Terms of Use are resulting in his posts being deleted?
