InvestorsHub Logo

Cakes10

12/21/16 2:44 PM

#35534 RE: TJG #35531

Oh so there's a long backstory to the PR....feel bad for new investors here. Don't read the PR's, read the message boards I guess, that's what drives this company. You should have disclaimers that state "please read ihub posts prior to reading these PR's"......WOW

Who is Miss Information anyways? I haven't heard this name on any PR's.

loanranger

12/21/16 8:42 PM

#35562 RE: TJG #35531

"See how simple that is...well its not so simple because Loneranger posted he thought that Seth in saying the company was not going to enact the RS went over the boards head and even though they approved it he was not going to act on it."

Say what you like about me, but for pete's sake at least spell my name right :o)

Here's what I said...
"There's no indication that the Board of Directors withdrew that approval. Rather it seems that Management took it upon itself to ignore the Board's action:
"the Company has decided that it will not enact a reverse stock split""

...and here's what the release said:
"the Company obtained Board of Director approval for a 1 for 8 reverse split under the condition that its authorized shares would also be reduced by the same ratio".

I didn't just post that I "thought that Seth in saying the company was not going to enact the RS went over the boards head and even though they approved it he was not going to act on it"...that's exactly what the release said. If the Board had agreed to refrain from executing the RS that would have been a good thing for the release to mention. It didn't.

Would the minutes show that their approval wasn't just contingent on an equally proportioned reduction in the authorized shares but also that, after carefully contemplating the available options, management would be free to ignore the obvious intent of their approval? Would the actual language of the resolution....that's the way this is usually done by the way, by resolution (there was a written resolution, right?)....make it clear to a reasonable person that the action approved was to be undertaken at the option of the CEO or however "The Company" is defined?

You have to admit that this has been a strange process. They could have simply issued a press release that said "The company has decided not to execute a reverse split." There was no need to report the Board approval. There was no need to state that their approval was conditioned by a proportional decrease in authorized shares.

It's like the whole TAUG power structure has been testing the roll-on to make sure there's not so much THC in it that it draws the attention of regulators.


diannedawn

12/22/16 9:12 AM

#35593 RE: TJG #35531

Hhmmm...

That PR was put out at the request of shareholders who wanted to know if an RS was coming or not. This request was made because there were MESSAGE BOARD RUMORS that an RS was going to happen any day now.

I merely pointed out the FACT that the share price has little chance of going over 1¢ and staying there for 30 days without one...
AND SAINT SETHIE DID PROMISE TO GET BACK ON THE QB.
I remember hearing how just becoming "current" would propel TAUG over a penny...
LMAO...OBVIOUSLY THAT DID NOT HAPPEN....
SO WHAT OPTION IS THERE FOR SAINT SETHIE TO KEEP HIS PROMISE >>>OTHER THAN A REVERSE SPLIT<<<???

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127192253&txt2find=reverse
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127210282&txt2find=reverse

I believe these were the cause of the tirade which followed???

SO FUNNY that I was talking about the RS that had been approved previously...but you basically gave it away that it had been discussed AGAIN by your flipping out about it.

Poor SAINT SETHIE had to put out a PR to fix your faux pas...

So Seth put out the PR that said there was an Approved 1 for 8 RS by the board but the company was not going to enact it at this time.


Which led me to say that Seth had the authority to either enact the RS or not. So Seth in the PR stated all the facts... a RS was approved, but wont be done at this time.



Yes... we all saw the statement about building "fundamental value"...blah blah blah...

THAT IS JUST LIKE THE CLAIM THAT BECOMING CURRENT WOULD GET TAUG OVER A PENNY...
Then...when it does not happen...Sethie will put out a PR reiterating how "important" it is to be on the QB...
and that he has decided to enact the RS in the "best interest" of the company and its shareholders...

OooopPS! ..."We changed our mind".

REVERSE SPLIT IS APRROVED AND CAN BE ENACTED AT ANY TIME!


ROTFLMAO