Comments on: Footnote 32 Shells – A Second Opinion http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/12/04/footnote-32-shells-%e2%80%93-a-second-opinion/ Everything you need to know about Reverse Shell Mergers by Ralph Amato Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:02:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Bizfin http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/12/04/footnote-32-shells-%e2%80%93-a-second-opinion/#comment-12400 Bizfin Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:30:56 +0000 http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/12/04/footnote-32-shells-%e2%80%93-a-second-opinion/#comment-12400 To begin, I am not a Shell expert. I say, Caveat emptor. I beleive if you can put together all the required paper work to create a Shell and get a trading symbol--why not? It could be less costly than buying a Shell. And You are not harming anyone. In fact it's cleaner than a Shell that may have an unknown history. I can't imagine why this should be considered fradulent. If the SEC finds it to be a violation then whatever the added cost is to defend your position is a cost of doing business. And let the buyer beware. What am I missing? I'd appreciate any disagreements on my reasoning as I am not a reverse merger expert. Here is my email address: capital@bizfin. Thank you. To begin, I am not a Shell expert.
I say, Caveat emptor. I beleive if you can put together all the required paper work to create a Shell and get a trading symbol–why not? It could be less costly than buying a Shell. And You are not harming anyone. In fact it’s cleaner than a Shell that may have an unknown history.

I can’t imagine why this should be considered fradulent. If the SEC finds it to be a violation then whatever the added cost is to defend your position is a cost of doing business. And let the buyer beware.

What am I missing?

I’d appreciate any disagreements on my reasoning as I am not a reverse merger expert. Here is my email address: capital@bizfin.

Thank you.

]]> By: anonymous http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/12/04/footnote-32-shells-%e2%80%93-a-second-opinion/#comment-11645 anonymous Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:56:56 +0000 http://reverseshellmerger.com/2007/12/04/footnote-32-shells-%e2%80%93-a-second-opinion/#comment-11645 Just noticed this one as well. My reading of the people you claim want to be the shell police (I follow their newsletters, blogs and such as well as yours) is that they believe if you see a promoter showing his face on 10 successive shells that go public with a "business plan" that immediately start marketing themselves as a shell, that's about as clear a statement of intention one can imagine. Your view is it can't be bad if you don't get caught doing something bad. Not suggesting you should be the shell police, but why get involved when you know the players did something fraudulent? When I speak to the people you refer to, they say they could just as easily enter the market with the same kinds of shells, so it's not a question of cutting into their action. It's their choice to do things in a way that they know complies with the law. Just noticed this one as well. My reading of the people you claim want to be the shell police (I follow their newsletters, blogs and such as well as yours) is that they believe if you see a promoter showing his face on 10 successive shells that go public with a “business plan” that immediately start marketing themselves as a shell, that’s about as clear a statement of intention one can imagine. Your view is it can’t be bad if you don’t get caught doing something bad. Not suggesting you should be the shell police, but why get involved when you know the players did something fraudulent? When I speak to the people you refer to, they say they could just as easily enter the market with the same kinds of shells, so it’s not a question of cutting into their action. It’s their choice to do things in a way that they know complies with the law.

]]>