"Pay attention to who is trying to mislead you"
banchrima (post - 105828) – “…..why the hell is this board still alive if there´s nothing to hope? Don´t get it ...”
Bag8ger ( post – 105831) - “It isn't alive, only ghosts inhabit here.”
My comment – frogdreaming you, GJones and I must be ghosts. The RCCH board is worth lurking on just for the entertainment value.
Fact – CEO Gene Newton/RCC Holdings has not filed for bankruptcy.
Fact – There has not been a reverse split of RCCH shares.
Fact – CEO Gene Newton is now 66 years old. ( Happy Birthday Gene)
Opinion – I am thankful that CEO Gene Newton has not declared bankruptcy, has not reverse split RCCH stock, has not sold out to the naked short sellers who have approached him, has not taken the easy money and walked away. As long as this continues to drag out, we still have hope that CEO Gene Newton sticks to his business plan of building business, building relationships and going after the naked short sellers that have tried so hard to bring him down. This is only my opinion. I have no links to prove any of it. (So have a go at me if you want). I believe that the legal issues (starting with the SEC Gendarme case) will be resolved and then the DTCC chill lifted. With no bid and no volume I will wait without constantly complaining about CEO Gene Newton’s lack of transparency. If I was in the financial battle that he is in I would remain silent also and also have little sympathy for the flippers that wanted a quick in and out profit.
As Trent777 said, game is still on.
*********************************************
frogdreaming (post 105830) – “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.”
GJones (post 105832) – “Great post! Some of the wise people get it....”
My comment – I agree great post frogdreaming. We all agree “There will be no bankruptcy for RCCH……” We can agree to disagree on the reasons why we believe there will be no bankruptcy for RCCH.
Frogdreaming you are correct, JohnWilliams’s question was specifically about “going out of business.” More specifically he wanted to know if a short not reflected in the SHO [a naked short] would have to cover.
*************************************************************************************************
JohnWilliams (post 105817) - “Does anyone know whether or not if you are short on a stock and the company goes out of business if you would have to buy the stock back? For instance, IF RCCH had shorts (I know SHO doesn't reflect it) and RCCH went out of business, would the shorts have to cover?”
****************************************************************************************************
JohnWilliams - "....would the shorts have to cover?"
My comment – Specifically based on this two part/factor question, my answer remains the same. No, and that is exactly the reason for the effort to force a pink listed company out of business.
Hint - Naked short sellers reap immense profits because the short squeeze never occurs when a company goes out of business.
Now if you want, you can expand JohnWilliams’s specific two factor question into a broader discussion of the remote possibility of a company attempting to go back into business (extremely unlikely because of a unworkable business plan/lack of funding) under its original share structure. What circumstances could have changed to even make the effort? The original share structure stock value would be minimal or zero. As you said only the shell would most likely be revived and then your discussion about the eternal existence of the share structure would be appropriate. The diluted share value of the “eternal” share structure would still ensure immense profits to naked short sellers.
Answer - Greed is an excellent motivator.
Question - Why would anyone (for personal gain) want to destroy a company, throw hardworking people out of work and make America less productive?
**************************************************************
Anvil (post 105825) -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.
My comment – Anvil seems to agree that naked short sellers profit immensely when a pink listed company either declares bankruptcy or goes out of business (“they just go dormant” as he suggests is more likely). End result - profits to naked short sellers - is the same. My assumption is that a reverse split results in heavy dilution resulting in covering by naked short sellers at a vastly reduced price with immense profits.
p.s. – Minnesinger, I passed your message to 'Siggy.' He smiled and said something that I interpreted to mean “give my best to him too!”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
