News Focus
News Focus
Followers 2
Posts 117
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/05/2004

Re: Gigwoof post# 267

Tuesday, 12/28/2004 8:31:05 PM

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:31:05 PM

Post# of 367194
Gigwoof -

Offor made multiple Form-4 and Form-5 Filings where the share totals listed for both Chrome and Offor were 366 Million shares, direct and indirect appropriately. There were no footnotes on those filings stating that they were including 'warrantable shares' or 'option shares' (that had not yet been exercised) in those totals. Those totals, according to both the Form 4 & Form 5 instructions indicate that ACTUAL SHARE OWNERHSIP is to be listed - both direct and indirect. Indirect ownership is NOT from unexercised warrants, nor is it from unexercised stock warrants.

With me so far ?

OK - (and yes, Offor has subsequent to my post filed yet another ammendment to his 'actual' ownership totals) - now -

There is no discussion that on both the Form 4 & Form 5 Filings, transactions and totals of shares on 11/10/2004 reached 366 Million shares (again, strictly according to the SEC filings).

What is the mechanism whereby Offor could have possibly reached a holding of 366 Million shares ? Open Market purchases ? Not with the volumes that have traded all year long, and the limitations of insider/greater than 10% holders trading per month. Not without a SINGLE filing in the year (absolutely required) that indicated such purchases going on.
Private buys of shares ? Again, not possible without having violated SEC filing regulations on sales and purchases by insiders AND 'greater than 10% holders'. Those filings are required for ANY CHANGE IN HOLDINGS. None of those filings had been made through the year.


The only reasonable conclusion from those Form 4 & Form 5 filings were that sometime in November, in a filing that had not yet been made, was that 104 million new shares had been issued, either cheap warrant or option exercise being the most reasonable avenue of issue.

Now, gigwoof - are you going to remove this post, or allow it stand as reasonable discussion ? My last post, made and removed today, was certainly reasonable, and did not attack balance-builder. Yes, It did question him, and challenged him. But there was no name calling in it. The same can not be said of balance builders post to me.


Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y