(Total Views: 386)
Posted On: 10/26/2018 2:33:29 PM
Post# of 72441
Daubers, don't waste your time. You'll get vague answers from Alan like they don't have to cover if they don't want to. Leo proved the boogeyman story false by changing the name/CUSIP #. Total volume after the change (+3 days) was ~1.625M shares, which indicated the covering was by legal shorts since legal short interest was ~1.2M shares at that time. Total volume didn't spike to 10M+ shares like AMBS did after their change.
IPIX, with legal advice from Michael Sullivan, wasn't the only company who used this method to expose NS. CHMR was another.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/chim...712244.htm
It's no surprise that Alan didn't acknowledge the constant selling pressure by Aspire over the years, despite my math of actual numbers from SEC filings proving otherwise. He certainly won't mention the MFO as possible selling pressure. His 'evidence' of NS is the FINRA file. Think about it, are criminals stupid enough to leave actual evidence of their crimes? If they are, why companies affected like IPIX haven't sued them by now?
As for your BP question, let's say a BP truly believes K's potential. They would've made a lot more money by not attacking and partnering with IPIX early. Let's assume the BP gets $5B annually from K (after royalty). Delaying the time to market by three years on purpose means they'll miss out $15B of profit. If they hope to somehow pick up K very cheaply three years down the road, that's another $15B of missed profit. By the time they bring K to market by themselves, its patent will expire soon. So having a BP behind the attacks in an attempt to get a better deal makes little sense to me.
IPIX, with legal advice from Michael Sullivan, wasn't the only company who used this method to expose NS. CHMR was another.
Quote:
HOUSTON, TX--(Marketwire - Oct 11, 2012) - Chimera Energy Corp. (OTCBB: CHMR) announced today that its new Chairman and CEO, Baldemar Rios, has recommended that the Company immediately determine the most expeditious corporate action that would cause a change in the Company's CUSIP number. The Company consulted several OTC market experts who suggested that a change in the CUSIP number was the only way to combat what has been frequently acknowledged to be an unabashed, manipulative "naked shorting" campaign against CHMR .
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/chim...712244.htm
It's no surprise that Alan didn't acknowledge the constant selling pressure by Aspire over the years, despite my math of actual numbers from SEC filings proving otherwise. He certainly won't mention the MFO as possible selling pressure. His 'evidence' of NS is the FINRA file. Think about it, are criminals stupid enough to leave actual evidence of their crimes? If they are, why companies affected like IPIX haven't sued them by now?
As for your BP question, let's say a BP truly believes K's potential. They would've made a lot more money by not attacking and partnering with IPIX early. Let's assume the BP gets $5B annually from K (after royalty). Delaying the time to market by three years on purpose means they'll miss out $15B of profit. If they hope to somehow pick up K very cheaply three years down the road, that's another $15B of missed profit. By the time they bring K to market by themselves, its patent will expire soon. So having a BP behind the attacks in an attempt to get a better deal makes little sense to me.
(7)
(0)
Scroll down for more posts ▼
