temp luvs amy
11 years ago
Didn't Janice post here on that?
Empty and hijacked or sold to the highest bidder when Vision Capital needs the cash, or creates a business. You know that Vision is a business incubator, right?
The SEC doesn't like R/M's, but if the legal staff is capable, Vision has a viable shell which could be used to infuse a new business plan on the cheap. Speculation isn't an investment as much as it is a gamble. Vision could take control, or not. Flip a coin.
Don't bet the farm on it.
janice shell
11 years ago
Reverse mergers are common. Juma was formed through one. They bought the shell of a cosmetics company. But reverse mergers are undesirable. The SEC doesn't care for them one bit.
Stocks are usually hijacked by completely unrelated people. Usually, they wait till a public shell's incorporation has been revoked. They the perps appear, pay the fees due, and then put the company into the control of themselves or nominees. They often use state custodianship or receivership proceedings to do that.
Then, armed with a corporation in their name, they go to the TA and take over the public company. They may start making OTCMarkets or even SEC filings. Sometimes they control the TA. In the Boock case, the perps created their own transfer agency to make things go more smoothly.
What they do is illegal.
temp luvs amy
11 years ago
Normally, when both management and directors of a company resign, as their last act they appoint some new directors. They could have done that in the 8-K of 31 December.
But they didn't.
Normally, when a company is dissolved, it should go through a process to delist and cancel.
They didn't do that either.
So you get what we have here, A failure to communicate.
Which is the way he wants it. He gets it.
janice shell
11 years ago
They are the controlling shareholder, by any standard measure. It is up to them to appoint a board and officers if the old ones resigned.
Yes, they're definitely affiliates. But generally speaking, that would only affect how much stock they can sell in any quarter, and of course would require them to report their holdings and their trades to the SEC. Though they haven't really been obliged to do that since the company went dark.
So I don't know why they filed those last few Schedules 13. They did the same with TCPS after it filed a Form 15. And then eventually they filed a last 13 saying they'd realized they didn't have to bother.
And that's why we don't really know how much stock they own now. They may have simply stopped making insider filings, which it is their right to do.
Even as affiliate, I don't believe they can appoint a board, much less officers who would contact FINRA on the company's behalf. Officers are appointed by the board.
Normally, when both management and directors of a company resign, as their last act they appoint some new directors. Then the new directors appoint new officers. They could have done that in the 8-K of 31 December.
But they didn't.
temp luvs amy
11 years ago
Thanks, I found it earlier and managed to find some special resources on the page.
I also noticed some familiar names.
I traded NGHT last year. It was CNTN when I bought it. The SEC suspended it, and a few years later, the CEO got it reinstated.
I would hate to see that happen here if the hedge fund has to go through extra gyrations because soemone read the PR's wrong.
I originally read them wrong, and I think a few others did, too.
The distinction between Nectar and Nectar is tough.
janice shell
11 years ago
Ohhh, I see what you mean. Yes, if the company files a corporation action request indicating it's planning a dissolution, that happens.
But there is no "company" left here. The Vision funds control JUMT, in the sense that they're majority shareholders, but they aren't officers or directors. Only the latter can deal with FINRA on behalf of the company.
janice shell
11 years ago
No, FINRA can't do that. Some tickers tick on and on for years without meaningful action. Just a trade or two every couple of months. And nobody does anything about them. At least if they're Grey, they aren't likely to be hijacked.
And that's why the SEC suspended 61 stocks in early June, and another 379 in May 2012.
lol, while in the past the CIA actually HAS been involved with penny stocks, I don't think they're interested in JUMT.
janice shell
11 years ago
They could dissolve the corporation, and may do that. Unfortunately unless you pay Delaware $10, they won't tell you whether the company's status is active or not.
Maybe somebody should look into the liability of controlling ownership regarding the interests of minority shareholders?
I don't think they have any, unless something really bad happens. Like a hijacking. Technically, they're control persons, but they aren't management, and they aren't directors.
There's nothing they can do about the ticker. It will continue to trade. There's no way to get rid of it unless it stops trading altogether for a couple of years. If that happens, FINRA will delete it as an inactive issue.