Replies to post #42252 on Sunset Island Group Inc (SIGO)

[emit]

Damn you are good!


e

[emit]

What are those silver structures to right of your yellow circle?
more green-houses


e

[integral]

You are correct, I parked right where "X" is. I love the photo of flowers, as at Tuesdays visit there were quite a few flowers behind or below "X".

Great thing about drones and not "Google Earth" is they can actually get down to an altitude that can capture live shots. Both my daughters have been in film and television and one is constantly followed by paparazzi, including drones popping into the back yard and photographing the living room. She received a bloody nose thanks to euro trash paps, a Malibu Urgent Care bill I had to pay.

I would love to see the Bay of weed and not a pic of flowers. Then again, UCSC, SJSU or CSUMB students would love a drone shot of Valerie.

I just want to know they are there. From there let the SEC deal with the issuers failure to comply with Regulation S-X.

[loanranger]

Enjoyed the pix.
Sometimes there's a value to a visit and sometimes there isn't. In this case you have provided an overview of the property and a few pix of the non-operating bits of the place taken on a visit and the Instagram photos show a grow operation, for sure. A successful visit by Integral isn't likely to have added to those things very much and it sure wouldn't have satisfied me as to what I see as the more critical issue:
Does Sunset Island (and hence its shareholders) actually occupy the pictured facility and have all of the benefits of its operations?

There's something not quite right about all these captions....
"...Y is where we entered the SIGO Grow."
"Here's the gate we entered the SIGO compound:"
"And here's a picture of the pretty pink canopy in the courtyard inside SIGO."
....and that something is that everywhere that it says "SIGO" it SHOULD say "VBF Brands, Inc.,". VBF Brands is the subtenant of the property and VBF Brands holds the licenses to operate at the location.

Even the InstaGram account is in VBF's name.

I know that this isn't a new subject but its importance can't be overemphasized. A convoluted explanation indicating that VBF is a wholly owned Subsidiary of Sunset and how that came about has been provided in a Form 8-K***, but the Form 10-K is where the company is OBLIGATED to list its subsidiaries (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.601). They also had the obligation to list their subsidiaries in their S-1 filing but that filing pre-dated the dates that accompanied the mumbo-jumbo explanations in the 8-Ks.
So the Form 10-K is the first periodic report where we MIGHT see VBF formally identified as a wholly owned sub of SIGO, but even then the filing is for the period ended 10/31/17, again pre-dating the mumbo-jumbo dates. Failing that there would be an obligation to report that VBF was a wholly owned subsidiary as of January 31, 2018 in their 10-Q filing for that date IF it was true.

One can only guess about these things at this point and visiting the property won't solve the mysteries (and Integral didn't suggest that it would):
1. Does Sunset really own 100% of VBF Brands, Inc and exactly how do the public company and its shareholders benefit from whatever is going on at 20420 Spence Rd.?
2. Why, exactly, hasn't the Company made the filings with the SEC that it is obligated by law to make?
The NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING made when the 10-K was due had the following as its only explanation:
"Certain of the Registrant's review processes have not been and likely will not be completed prior to the filing date."
There were 10-Qs due in March and June that weren't filed. No Lateness Notifications were filed as they should have been so there has not been any update to the "review processes have not been and likely will not be completed" explanation.

The 10-K requires an audit, not "review processes" (which are required for the quarterly reports) so the initial explanation is suspect. Frankly THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION for their failure to file...there has been far more than adequate time to complete, audit, review and submit ALL 3 of the missing filings.
The only explanation possible at this point is that the Company does not want to reveal some of the information that the filings call for. That is no longer mere speculation...no other explanation is reasonable.

But I did enjoy your pix.




***The 8-K explained the transition of VBF from a not-for-profit to a for-profit company but never fully explained how Sunset came to own that company. They couldn't even get the simple stuff straight in two tries:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689066/000147793218000068/sun_8k.htm
"Prior to December 21, 2017, VBF Brands was a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689066/000147793218000385/sun_8k.htm
"VBF Brands was a nonprofit company until January 4, 2018."