post 16224 on the other board for those who have
Post# of 9122
(Total Views: 371)
Posted On: 01/15/2024 2:29:42 AM
post 16224 on the other board for those who havent already seen it
as I've said the nine steps of legal fraud are extremely hard to prove
one of the things he mentions is NNLX stepped down from the BB- possibly a previous name for what is now the otcqb-
and otcqb's immediate predecessor name was simply fully reporting-meaning sec reporting (when my late best friend dragged me into the otc exchange (after making a 40 fold return in 6 months in other otc stocks) there was a dying tier of only ca 6 phone info in companies also-or same as-which may have been tied to BB [not Bret-a board called Bulletin Board? i dont remember exactly
well, thousands of companies I believe stepped down from the otcqb in 2014-2015 (depending on fiscal yr, as I've reported several times) when OTC added 2 new requirements for such board- a min bid price of 1c and a 10k surcharge/yr for the OTC News and Disclosure service ) (otc is a publicly traded FOR PROFIT company and realizes a varying % of their income from otc companies filings)
over 1000 companies could not meet one or both new requirements so such companies fell back to the pinks-but many kept SEC reporting and all that entails which is why many pinks companies were then and many are still are now sec reporting w audited financials
in its drive for transparency (emphasized in their PR's) and profit (de-emphasized in their PR's) OTC has dramatically changed the otc exchange board the last couple decades-causing thousands of companies to move up and down the changing otc tiers as a result
people can google some of the other things mentioned
I've also said that states/courts etc grant directors quite a bit of leeway protection against personal liability as an inducement to get people to serve on such boards unless of course the always difficult tests of legal fraud and intent can be proven
negligence is common but often not culpable in such situations
interesting re possible reasons for Faro's withdrawal
fiduciary duty is about the highest duty known to the law but...
Brets lawyer: did you have a heart attack? was that planned as a way to deprive stockholders? did sales plummet when schools were closed due to covid -did you have any control over that?---
you see, it gets ridiculous- things happen -Murphys law is alive and well-which is why over 90% of startups reportedly fail-these things are true no matter what Brets negotiating positions are-and I cant speak to that or his personality because I have never met nor spoken with him
if permitted those companies offers to NNLX could be made public and then it may be seen it was reasonable to reject those offers-and so on
as I've said the nine steps of legal fraud are extremely hard to prove
one of the things he mentions is NNLX stepped down from the BB- possibly a previous name for what is now the otcqb-
and otcqb's immediate predecessor name was simply fully reporting-meaning sec reporting (when my late best friend dragged me into the otc exchange (after making a 40 fold return in 6 months in other otc stocks) there was a dying tier of only ca 6 phone info in companies also-or same as-which may have been tied to BB [not Bret-a board called Bulletin Board? i dont remember exactly
well, thousands of companies I believe stepped down from the otcqb in 2014-2015 (depending on fiscal yr, as I've reported several times) when OTC added 2 new requirements for such board- a min bid price of 1c and a 10k surcharge/yr for the OTC News and Disclosure service ) (otc is a publicly traded FOR PROFIT company and realizes a varying % of their income from otc companies filings)
over 1000 companies could not meet one or both new requirements so such companies fell back to the pinks-but many kept SEC reporting and all that entails which is why many pinks companies were then and many are still are now sec reporting w audited financials
in its drive for transparency (emphasized in their PR's) and profit (de-emphasized in their PR's) OTC has dramatically changed the otc exchange board the last couple decades-causing thousands of companies to move up and down the changing otc tiers as a result
people can google some of the other things mentioned
I've also said that states/courts etc grant directors quite a bit of leeway protection against personal liability as an inducement to get people to serve on such boards unless of course the always difficult tests of legal fraud and intent can be proven
negligence is common but often not culpable in such situations
interesting re possible reasons for Faro's withdrawal
fiduciary duty is about the highest duty known to the law but...
Brets lawyer: did you have a heart attack? was that planned as a way to deprive stockholders? did sales plummet when schools were closed due to covid -did you have any control over that?---
you see, it gets ridiculous- things happen -Murphys law is alive and well-which is why over 90% of startups reportedly fail-these things are true no matter what Brets negotiating positions are-and I cant speak to that or his personality because I have never met nor spoken with him
if permitted those companies offers to NNLX could be made public and then it may be seen it was reasonable to reject those offers-and so on
(1)
(0)Nanologix Inc (NNLX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼