in this day, most stocks including VII are traded on many exchanges, with each company basically choosing the main exchange of choice. That being said, many trades happen over the counter anyway. Simply put, I cannot see blaming an exchange for a companies poor stock performance, rather, as in this case, the merits of the financial performance of this company speaks for itself.
The reason for increase in outstanding shares has not been provided to the public, at least, not this public lol. They used to provide the audited financials on this website, which were prepared, at least, to satisfy the requirements of their lenders. However, they have removed all published 10K type year end audited postings, and, replaced with a simple summary, which is totally inadequate for the investing public, which, I am pretty sure, they realize. For one, I would like to see spelled out. the remaining balance owed to Estes, as well as the breakdown of business by operating subsidiary.
I recollect the last explained increase in shares outstanding occurred in concert with acquiring another operation, which was
..."in November 2012, the Company issued 4,000,000 additional shares of the Company’s common stock as part of a transaction to purchase a minority interest (47.98%) in Meshach Holdings, LLC and its management company (Meshach Management, LLLP), collectively referred to as “Meshach”. Consideration for this transaction was $1.2 million, or $0.30 per share.".
If my memory serves, Lloyd Miller III, or an affiliated entity, was going after the SYBR auditors. I can only wonder why the bankruptcy trustee did not do the same.. That liquidating asset disposition seemed to go much too quickly. I am not aware of any shareholder suits filed n behalf of the common shareholders, who, typically have a cadre of ambulance chasers waiting to do their bidding. After all, an audited financial statement should have vetted out this transgression. In addition, WHERE was a warning from B. Riley, Synergy's engaged financial DAD. Unfortunately, B. Riley only seemed to be brought on as an inducement, IN MY OPINION, to lend credibility to SYBR as an on going concern, and thus, allude to any prospective common purchasers, that this was a company on the up and up. Maybe the common stock owners should have taken the hint that SYBR was suspect when B. Riley did not seem to support the stock, and, NOT WARN others of the reasons for their lack of support.
According latest filing, .."September 2015, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors placed the Chief Executive Officer on paid leave". PAID LEAVE? Why, to gather funds to buy the company at a bargain basement price after it dissolves into dust? It was Spiers choice to throw his hat into the ring to purchase the company and create his own conflict of interest. He should NOT be paid for taking an extended vacation!
From reading Infinova's website, they indicate they are a US company based in New Jersey, with a subsidiary named Shenzhen Infinova Am I incorrect?
Facial recognition should be a major feature of a video surveillance company.
Short interest is negligible in this stock, around 5,000 shares- a spit in the ocean. The current price seems to have little or nothing to do with shorting, just simply, this company does not seem to have an ability/want to turn a profit.
Any civil penalty here? Is that a short duration compared to the size of the crime? I believe I have heard of longer sentences for stealing candy bars.
Over the last 5-10 years, I have put less relevance on the exchange a stock is traded, simply because secondary markets exist on most stocks. If the company has a decent story, folks can find where to execute a trade. If the story is marginal, and no firm is touting the company, sellers have not much choice but to hit the bid.
This is an outrage. Dismiss Spier, have Jim Brace either resurrect this company, or, hire someone who gives a cr*p about getting paid and performing. This has gone on way too long!