I know man. Thats GUMP and I think its apparent , he has a love/hate relationship going on with both of us. What can you do. I wanted to ask you about something that's a little bit more of an issue for me right now. Check it out ; My last IGTN trade I got totally toasted. The only thing that saved my azz is I dont trade the pennies too hard. The situation got real peculiar a couple of days ago. A couple of posters on Raging Bull apparently had lunch with the CEO. Anyway , the CEO tells these guys that they are contemplating a reverse split. So they come back and tell everyone on raging bull about this. Needless to say I thought it was the usual bashing BS (or else I would have got out immediately) so I pretty much told them they were full of it (to put it mildly , LOL). These clowns had some pictures of the CEO and other financial docs and were EMAILING to anyone who asked! I figured no way , this has got to be BS. Well , you guessed it , two days later a PR comes out and they're going to "vote" on a reverse split. WTF? Is this legal? Brainer , what is your opinion on this. TIA.....bulletjoe
First off, I have not followed this company at all, so my first instinct when you said reverse split is that the market is punishing them for doing it for the wrong reasons. As you know a true split does not affect the relative stake a share represents in the company. If it is a true split and it is done for the right reasons it should have no affect on the net investment a shareholder has in a company. That is not the case here.
At the present time there are 990M shares, of which 490M are common outstanding and 500M are company treasury. That yields a 51/49 percentage ratio in the company. What they plan to do is reverse split the common outstanding by 40-1 but only reverse theirs by 5-1. This will result in 112.2M total shares of which 12.2M will be outstanding and 100M will be held by the company. This yields a new ratio 89/11 % ownership.
That is not a true R\S. That is just a vail to rip off the shareholders for 38% of the company or 78% of their relative position. No wonder the stock dropped from near 5c to 0.7c (~80%). Illegal Joe? No that portion is legal but it is up there with the great "Snake in the grass" routines. Now on to the loose lips CEO.
Technically Joe, you have grounds for a class action suit since the stock did most of its decline based on insider information. You were put at an unfair disadvantage by having the share price already in a depressed state when the news became official. If it had not been leaked, in theory, the share price would have been much higher at the time of the PR so therefore it is only logical to assume that you would have had an opportunity to exit this company at a much higher PPS than you did.That would be the basis for your claim for damages. Now in the real word , well...You are screwed!The recovery would be minimal if at all, it would for the most part be eaten up by the lawyers and it would drag on for years. As far as SEC action against him? MY God the SEC could not begin to count the insider violations in 'Pennyland'. It is not highly likely they will act...but you can always hope. Lodge a complaint just for the hell of it.
Sorry my friend. You do have options, but in the real world I think you are just going to have to suck this one up.Check to see if a class action is starting up. If so,jump in. You have nothing to lose and maybe a hair more than nothing to gain.