what kind of idiot believes that a billionaire doctor with a cancer drug is going to choose a delisted pink shell as a vehicle for financing his breakthrough technology?
Once again I am not arguing who people really are, what part of a shell Hijack process do you not understand. They use the same names, all that changes are certain pieces of info allowing the entity to issue shares and or just simply create activity to use for a pump.
There isnt a "law" that requires them to "do this" before a supposed "reverse triangular merger". Who ever came up with that bullshit is full of shit. Show me the Delaware code requiring such nonsense.
It would have been a more believable statement if one stated that NRS required them to currently dissolve an inactive or defaulted registration if no future plans. Or that the last known entities were contacted as part of a new effort to prevent such hijacking to properly dissolve their defaulted or inactive registration.
But lets us put this to rest once and for all because this is quite simple. Someone "Reinstated' the registration in Nevada. Then 2 months later it was dissolved, as a matter of procedure as the bullshit theory of "triangular reverse merger" requirement, why was the Nevada registration "Reinstated" in the first place? Can you show me where a Defaulted registration in order to be dissolved must first be reinstated in order to do so? If it was procedure to dissolve any last known foreign registration according to Delaware law can you tell me why they simply just didnt file for dissolution in Nevada? Can you show me where in the NRS Chapter 86 in either the reinstatement or dissolution sections that requires the process of reinstatement before filing dissolution?
Here is what I can tell you, someone filed to reinstate to use the shell. If they simply wanted to dissolve it they would have paid any outstanding fees and completed any outstanding liabilities as of the date of dissolution. There is no requirement to reinstate the registration under Nevada law.
Tom W is the one who filed the reinstatement and then the dissolution. This was done as a matter of law before a reverse triangular merger can take place, and also to separate any connection of the old company from a new merging company.
Why the lapse of time--two months--between the two events? Wittenschlaeger could have reinstated and dissolved the same day, were it really necessary.
And who is Christian Zepf? Though that isn't necessarily relevant.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
