I feel so sorry for guys..I suggest you guys find a better hobby..Even better would be to find some life outside Grifco. To speak for myself, I laugh at your posts. The shares I bought at 12 to 15 cents are already in money..May be yours too. Why in the world you whine all day like this ? Grifco is a gamble. I am in in because I like the risk/reward. I think we are going way higher..Just my thoughts.
“The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the small business issuer, computed by reference to the price at which the common stock was sold, or the average bid and asked price of the common stock on April 16, 2004 was $4,691,841.”
There were 10,000 shares sold on April 16, 2004 at an average price of $0.41 per share (actually, the low and high of the day were exactly the same). Therefore, the number of shares owned by non-affiliates on April 16, 2004 was $4,691,841 / $0.41 = 11,443,515 shares. The number of shares authorized on April 16, 2004 was 25 million shares.
“On July 30, 2004 by resolution of the Board of Directors, the name of the Company was changed from GoHealth.MD Inc. to Tree Top Industries, Inc., the number of shares of common stock the Company is authorized to issue was increased to 75 million from 25 million, and the par value of the common stock was changed from $.01 to $.001 per share. The financial statements for the periods presented in this annual report reflect these events.”
On December 31, 2004 Executive Officers and Directors as a Group for GOMD owned a total of 11,404,800 shares, and on that same exact day, there were a total of 25,279,117 Shares Issued & Outstanding, which means that Executive Officers and Directors as a group owned about 45.1% of the company.
“The Company has cumulative net operating loss carryforwards of $14,606,879 at December 31, 2004. No effect has been shown in the financial statements for the net operating loss carryforwards as the likelihood of future tax benefit from such net operating loss carryforwards is not presently determinable. Accordingly, the potential tax benefits of the net operating loss carryforwards, estimated based upon current tax rates at December 31, 2004 have been offset by valuation reserves in the same amount. The net operating losses begin to expire in 2019.”
“At April 16, 2005, there were 25,279,117 shares of the Registrant's common stock outstanding, and Company had 643 shareholders of record.”
“On June 30, 2005, the board of directors of the Registrant voted to approve a one hundred for one reverse stock split. They based this decision on their belief that the reverse split would enhance the Company's ability to attract a merger or acquisition candidate as well as increase the effective marketability of common stock to institutional buyers and to enhance the liquidity of the common stock so that the Company can better access capital markets. This reverse stock split reduced the number of Registrant's issued and outstanding common shares from 25,279,117 to 252,791 common shares. The Company had 643 shareholders of record.”
“The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the small business issuer, computed by reference to the price at which the common stock was sold, or the average bid and asked price of the common stock on April 12, 2006 was $4,691,841.”
“At April 12, 2006, there were 252,791 shares of the Registrant's common stock outstanding, and Company had 643 shareholders of record. This is a function of a previously Board approved reverse split, although not yet effective.”
Now, no stock was sold on April 12, 2006, but the “average bid and asked price of the common stock” on April 12, 2006 was $0.02 per share. Nevertheless, they do qualify the fact that this claim is “a function of a previously Board approved reverse split, although not yet effective.” This then means that the share price that is utilized for the claim is 100 times greater than the actual value of the price bid and asked on that day, or in other words, $2.00 per share.
Furthermore, since the only change that should have occurred in the share count over the previous two years is insider compensation, the number of shares owned by non-affiliates should be 100 times less, as a result of the reverse split. On April 16, 2004, non-affiliates owned 11,443,515 shares, which can only mean they now own 114,435 shares as of April 12, 2006 – again, as a result of the reverse split. At a market value of $2.00 per share, this can only imply that the non-affiliates owned an aggregate market value of 114,435 x $2.00 = $228,870 on April 12, 2006. Now, this is a far cry from the aggregate market value of $4,691,841 they actually had back on April 16, 2004, but then again, the market price then was the equivalent of $41.00 per share. I very strongly believe that the old 10KSB was used as a template, and the old value was left inadvertently. It should NOT be shown as $4,691,841; rather, it should be shown as $228,870. I’m not even a CPA, and I caught that one!
As of December 31, 2005 the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted, and the total number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted, amounted to 252,791 shares, which means that there was no apparent change in the share counts for all of 2005. Obviously, the number of shares represented as such is based upon a one for one hundred reverse split that was approved on June 30, 2005, although not yet effective.
“The Company has cumulative net operating loss carryforwards of $14,457,207 at December 31, 2005. No effect has been shown in the financial statements for the net operating loss carryforwards as the likelihood of future tax benefit from such net operating loss carryforwards is not presently determinable. Accordingly, the potential tax benefits of the net operating loss carryforwards, estimated based upon current tax rates at December 31, 2005 have been offset by valuation reserves in the same amount. The net operating losses begin to expire in 2019.”
“The common stock and additional paid-in capital as reflected on the December 31, 2005 and 2004 balance sheets is restated to reflect the change in par value of the common stock from $.01 to $.001 per share which took place during the year 2004, as well as a 100:1 reverse split that occurred during the year 2005. As a result the change in common stock was charged to additional paid in capital. This change has been retroactively restated on the statements of stockholders' equity.”
It is a rather interesting thing to take special note of the fact that although they do state early in the filing that the reverse split is “not yet effective,” they do state later in that same filing the fact that their 100:1 reverse split “occurred during the year 2005.” That is a little bit of contradiction if I ever saw one. Did it happen or not? Well, it happened, but it is just NOT YET EFFECTIVE, much like the CTT spin-off – it happened, but it is just NOT YET EFFECTIVE.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
