"For those who were still on the fence, Kandi included a punchy last paragraph to their press release to remove all doubt that it was safe to continue buying Kandi. Kandi stated that:
"The Company filed a similar shelf S-3 registration statement with the SEC on November 19, 2009 which became effective December 24, 2009. Almost one year after that S-3 registration statement became effective, on December 21, 2010, the Company raised approximately $16 million with a shelf take down."
This reassurance clearly worked well. Apparently Kandi didn't need any money and was unlikely to be selling stock for up to a year. "
Pearson incorrectly implies the statement guarantees no stock would be issued or sold which is false on its face. Why file an S-3 unless you plan to raise money? There was ZERO "reassurance" that they would not sell stock. Is "punchy" a legal term? This is spin and misleading.
he acts shocked that they would issue stock after the S-3 but brags in the same article "When I wrote my first article on Kandi, I made it clear that a large financing was imminent. " so in one breathe he claims the co reassured no sale and in the next he says the financing was imminent
Try reading Arthur Porcari's pump articles on SA you total idiot. Also, read Arthur Porcari's denial that the company was going to issue stock-then a few days later it issued stock. Then read Arthur Porcari;s denial afterwards that he never said the company was not going to issue stock. You wanna twist the truth on anything else pumper?