Replies to post #76481 on iTalk Inc. (fka TALK)

[1manband]

Sorry, but Sarb-Ox makes no concession for intent. The law was written that way on purpose.

TALK stated in multiple SEC filings that the acquisition of UMS was complete and it was a wholly owned subsidiary. And there have been NO filings since which change that in any way.

They certified that statement as true. If it was not true, it is a felony. Especially since there has not been any statement or filing in the last 11 months with the SEC, their legal regulator, to the contrary.

Of course, if TALK gets revoked for filing delinquencies, which is becoming more likely by the day, this major problem will just fade away. No doubt TALK's (former) management will breathe a sigh of relief when the SEC suspension notice comes down.

[wilma6311]

Exactly...not only has this company (iTALK) expended a lot of effort trying to get the filings for UMS audited and standing by them through the bk...Levy owns Preferred A shares which give him voting rights at two times the outstanding.

So if the intention was to lie to UMS and say they were getting preferred shares while iTALK knew they didn't exist...then Levy would have been lying to himself as well. Until the Articles are updated....Levy doesn't have any voting rights greater than an ordinary shareholder so any shareholder can come in and try to get a majority of the shares so they can oust him.

I believe we will see that update to the Articles in order to add Preferred share classes and the merger will be completed.

[buccaneer1961]

then that still leaves them open to merge/be acquired etc

[roosty8]

Guess we will see


Talk