Replies to post #105824 on RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[Anvil]

Mcokpba: a comment to ponder between your next post.

How many pinks, particularly non-reporting pinks do you see file for BK. Very, very few as most don't have any assets or business that would make it worth while going in BK. Rather, they just go dormant until the shell is sold or a new business plan emerges usually in conjunction with a reverse split.

RCCH is a prime example. Except, for the shell to have value to newty or a new owner, the chill would need to be lifted.

Edit: Some also just get revoked due to inactivity, but that usually takes a long time.

[EarnestDD]

Scammy Pinks like RCCH don't file for bankruptcy ... they just go to the graveyard and die without a ceremony and the SEC delists them.
jmo

[frogdreaming]

Bankruptcy is NOT the same thing as going out of business.

Bankruptcy is the process of being protected from creditors while a company tries to STAY in business. There will be no bankruptcy for RCCH since that would require making the books public and showing them to a judge. There would have to be PROOF of business and a viable recovery plan. None of which are possible.

It is worth noting that this point has been made several times in the past and yet the intentional misinformation continues. The question was specifically about going out of business, bankruptcy is exactly the opposite of going out of business. Pay attention to who is trying to mislead you.

[JohnWilliams]

Thank you for your reply.

So from what I gather form your response to

"....would the shorts have to cover?"

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76390582, in reply to my post of

"IF RCCH had shorts (I know SHO doesn't reflect it) and RCCH went out of business, would the shorts have to cover?"

and from what others have replied to you http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=76390582, is that either way, whether it be the company filing bankruptcy or the company just going out of business (or "dormant", as someone had mentioned), it really doesn't matter. The shorts would NOT have to cover in either situation, right? Wouldn't that make a huge monetary incentive to try and keep the company down?

Rather, they just go dormant until the shell is sold or a new business plan emerges usually in conjunction with a reverse split.

RCCH has had NO RS (reverse split) even after this extended period of .0001-.0002 / no bid / cellar boxing stage. If there was going to be a reverse split, it would have happened years ago IMHO. (Probably around the time that it got to .0001. GJones can help us out with his FOOLish chart! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77077535 (only 3 1/2 months out of date :) )

It is worth noting that this point has been made several times in the past and yet the intentional misinformation continues. The question was specifically about going out of business, bankruptcy is exactly the opposite of going out of business. Pay attention to who is trying to mislead you.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76402609
In response to http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76390582. Agreed! Pay attention to whom is trying to mislead you!

What misinformation? In a bankruptcy situation his post is correct, right? The question "IF RCCH had shorts (I know SHO doesn't reflect it) and RCCH went out of business, would the shorts have to cover?"... "Would the shorts have to cover?" In either situation the answer is the same! No, they would not have to cover! At least that is what I get from the responses (IMHO).