Will be interesting to see how this plays out. You have the same view as SHEEPWOLF (pasted below) and before Thursday’s press release I also thought it was a very plausible explanation. After Thursday’s PR, though, the explanation doesn’t really hold up anymore. What do you think of Thursday’s PR in regards to GBI’s consideration of SOUP shareholders? The hostile takeover attempt did not go through but it was WealthColony abandoning the plan moreso than a failed attempt IMO.
Why many and I originally believed the commons would survive:
1. Wealthcolony (WC) bought approx. 120M common shares and own a large number of preferred shares as well. (Interest aligned with common shareholder)
2. WC sought to replace SOUPQ BOD in hostile takeover
3. WC wins BK auction with high bid of $6.8M for essentially all SOUPQ assets and debt
4. BK judge approved asset purchase agreement for WC
WHY SOUPQ IS DEAD AND LIKELY SCENARIO
QUESTION : Why did WC buy all those common shares?
ANSWER : to facilitate a hostile takeover bid (however it failed) to replace SOUPQ BOD and get BK dismissed and seize control.
1. SOUPQ announced via 8k that the co. is selling remaining immaterial assets and winding down operations
2. SOUPQ is now essentially a shell
3. WC via its unit Gallant Brands owns all SOUPQ assets BUT has no relationship with the shell. Gallant Brands was created to house the acquired assets and will emerge as the new company in which current SOUPQ shareholders will have no interest.
4. WC will IPO or reverse merge Gallant Brands for it to become a new publicly traded entity
5. SOUPQ shares will be cancelled. Share cancellation could happen at any time, holders need to pay attention to FINRA daily list
6. WC is not required to release any filing (they are not a publicly traded co.) or press release.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
