Here's my thoughts on making the best of a bad situation.
JayDee, You go to the extreme with your adjectives, all of which are incorrect. Yes, the fact is QMC did not file the required quarterly SEC reports but the only thing we can say for certain is that QMC cited the Auditors as the cause. Other conclusions are speculation.
Until recently, QMC was defending itself from a lawsuit it lost, but only lost court costs, attorneys fees and interest rather than 150 million shares and more of instantly tradeable stock that would have been disasterous to the company. To me that's a good outcome. Should the company given less time to the case and more time to reporting? It's debatable. Hard to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators.
IMO, two big reasons Pasaca stays the course is that Squires moves on if they don't and the company flounders because if it, and second, both are invested in the future success of the partnership, both in Pasaca's 51 percent ownership, Squires tens of millions of shares, and Innova's dependence on whatever QMC is doing for it. The relationship is described by both parties as a partnership, and QMC had to earn it, by it's products, it's ecosystem, and future plans for DLT and quantum dots. So call Squires and me any adjectives you want, you're so wrong you should be happy I corrected you.
Yes, it's a shame it got to this risky situation, but let's really look where we are.
Would it really be better to file separate quarterlies or one big S-1? An S-1 is better because QMC no longer has to file until it is ready. It has stopped time. (One of
Squires better abilities has been to keep the company running without revenue, against all odds.) This gives QMC the ability to get all it's ducks in a row to present it's best case for registration instead of piecemeal quarterlies (which are never enough for QMC critics).
I think an S-1 will be the quicker route. One should take less time then five, both in writing it and SEC review of it.
We know there must be revenue to reveal or Pasaca would not have guaranteed a minimum $15 million basically for close to $5 Billion in Innova sales that QMC helped to happen. Think about that. A 5 cent penny stock involved as a partner in nearly $5 Billion in sales. Has that not sunk in to the most critical of QMC? Why not? And has Pasaca or QMC given any inkling of unrest between themselves? The answer is no, just the opposite.
The registration process creates a clean slate for QMC but that requires it comes clean, with no more secrets. I don't think they could get away without fully disclosing all revenue and expected or pending revenue. At the same time, let's hypothesize they do an R/S to regain control of and optimize share structure going forward. It's a fait accompli - unavoidable in this situation. Blowback for the R/S would be minimal as part of a package that wraps everything up with a bow and, most importantly, the revenue will shoot the share price up. (In a typical R/S you want the share price to rise before the split, but in this case we see the stock split (5 cents R/S to 50 cents) and then a revenue reveal combining to justify P/E and dramatically higher stock price prior to uplisting. All that IMO and hypothetical, but very realistic.
JayDee, You go to the extreme with your adjectives, all of which are incorrect. Yes, the fact is QMC did not file the required quarterly SEC reports but the only thing we can say for certain is that QMC cited the Auditors as the cause. Other conclusions are speculation.
Until recently, QMC was defending itself from a lawsuit it lost, but only lost court costs, attorneys fees and interest rather than 150 million shares and more of instantly tradeable stock that would have been disasterous to the company. To me that's a good outcome. Should the company given less time to the case and more time to reporting? It's debatable. Hard to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators.
IMO, two big reasons Pasaca stays the course is that Squires moves on if they don't and the company flounders because if it, and second, both are invested in the future success of the partnership, both in Pasaca's 51 percent ownership, Squires tens of millions of shares, and Innova's dependence on whatever QMC is doing for it. The relationship is described by both parties as a partnership, and QMC had to earn it, by it's products, it's ecosystem, and future plans for DLT and quantum dots. So call Squires and me any adjectives you want, you're so wrong you should be happy I corrected you.
Yes, it's a shame it got to this risky situation, but let's really look where we are.
Would it really be better to file separate quarterlies or one big S-1? An S-1 is better because QMC no longer has to file until it is ready. It has stopped time. (One of
Squires better abilities has been to keep the company running without revenue, against all odds.) This gives QMC the ability to get all it's ducks in a row to present it's best case for registration instead of piecemeal quarterlies (which are never enough for QMC critics).
I think an S-1 will be the quicker route. One should take less time then five, both in writing it and SEC review of it.
We know there must be revenue to reveal or Pasaca would not have guaranteed a minimum $15 million basically for close to $5 Billion in Innova sales that QMC helped to happen. Think about that. A 5 cent penny stock involved as a partner in nearly $5 Billion in sales. Has that not sunk in to the most critical of QMC? Why not? And has Pasaca or QMC given any inkling of unrest between themselves? The answer is no, just the opposite.
The registration process creates a clean slate for QMC but that requires it comes clean, with no more secrets. I don't think they could get away without fully disclosing all revenue and expected or pending revenue. At the same time, let's hypothesize they do an R/S to regain control of and optimize share structure going forward. It's a fait accompli - unavoidable in this situation. Blowback for the R/S would be minimal as part of a package that wraps everything up with a bow and, most importantly, the revenue will shoot the share price up. (In a typical R/S you want the share price to rise before the split, but in this case we see the stock split (5 cents R/S to 50 cents) and then a revenue reveal combining to justify P/E and dramatically higher stock price prior to uplisting. All that IMO and hypothetical, but very realistic.
