Blencowe Resources: Aspiring to become one of the largest graphite producers in the world. Watch the video here.
Probromley
Shareholders calling over and over is a terrible way to run a business. It does not give all shareholders visibility or the ability to track progress against major milestones. And yes…you can give timelines for progress in the hands of the TSX. Based on hundreds of companies that have been listed it is easy to see typical timelines for listing. Their website show standard timeline BY activity. This is not hard to comprehend. My guess is SB continues to have listing issues due to his prior delisting in Canada and on other exchanges. Either that or he is busy sneaking Faberge artifacts out of Russia with the help of the boy scouts:)
In terms of milestones it should also be easy to provide milestones based on operational activities WITH timelines. CIC lacks any resemblance of professionalism or standard business practices, which would include setting targets. How do you measure success without setting targets and measuring against those targets?
Thank you for posting Ian/Anthony ;)
---How bizarre to "test" your name. Definitely behaviour I look for in a CEO. As I see there are more "updates" without timelines or expectations to track against. I have a few responses…
Prospectus filing dates are very flexible as significant milestones have are being achieved by management and needs to be included in the prospectus.
---Decoding the statement: Prospectus dates are moving targets that we don’t care about due to self-serving decisions related to the CIC entities that only benefit SB. Why can't progress be made in parallel to a submitted prospectus? The answer: IT CAN.
2. Confirmation that PureFlowCath medical device does not require multi year clinical testing as it is an advancement on approved devices (3 year time saving to market)
----How is this new news? The answer: IT IS NOT. In the 2021, January prospectus there were sections dedicated to information about utilizing a "Breakthrough Device Designation" status. In lieu of that a 510k predicate pathway would be utilized. This "progress" is was identified over a 1.5 years ago?
3. Securitisation parties being finalised. I have attached the parties diagram and you can see CIC is way ahead in its Luxembourg operation vs. any competitors
----Who cares about Luxembourg competitors? What an odd statement to mention. I suppose instead of providing a legitimate timeline the only thing CIC has is an ambiguous comparable.
----I have a comparable, The TSX ventures has an average listing time of 3-6 months according to their official site. This means best case CIC is 5x over average.
CIC Capital Ltd is now regulated Transaction Advisor in EU, US and Canada. The multi jurisdiction foot print has now attracted multinational corporation requiring specialist securitisation and coupled with Transaction advisory using a single provider - CIC rather that engaging different legal, accounting and other advisors focused in a particular jurisdiction.
---CIC cannot be a regulator and advisor or a "regulated advisor". That statement makes absolutely no sense. To be a regulator you have to be appointed such as the Canadian Securities Administrators or the Securities and Exchange Commission. What designation does CIC have as a regulated transaction advisor in those locations? If they are simply an advisor they have to stay within the guidelines set by those regulators.
The devil is in the details….
It has officially been 885 days since the original innomedtec prospectus was submitted to the TSX ventures. In that time China completed a takeover of Hong Kong, a global pandemic hit and covered the world, The Taliban returned to power, the US capitol was attacked, Myanmar military staged a coup, Russia invaded Ukraine and SB has failed to achieve any meaningful progress or a listing. The comparisons are rather stark. It seems as if it is easier for a government to take over another country than for SB to get a listing on a regulated exchange. He needs to be removed and replaced by a legitimate professional. I am assuming he continues to fail to get a listing due to his soiled reputation and prior shady dealings. I am not sure if he continues to use "audits" as an excuse for postponing or if the exchange has no intention of ever getting a company he touches listed. If this continues to drag along I will personally contact the exchange to validate that these activities are actually taking place….time to audit the audit…
The right questions are being asked. Outside of the 22 that are receiving dividends and having the extra 5:1 shares paid for by CIC, will the additional 159 shareholders have to purchase $millions in additional shares to meet the 5:1 requirement? Have they agreed to do this and at what timeframe do they have to complete the transaction post listing?
It looks like there will not be issues hitting 200+ shareholder base when you add up the additional shareholders in the prospectus who were owners in the original catheter company. It also does not look like they have to purchase 5:1 shares, which makes sense as they are not receiving dividends through CIC.
Not sure about what the price will be though after listing. If patents keep maturing then I imagine it will add value to the company. How does that impact the 5:1 purchase agreements?...
I still think we pursue the solicitor option. It would be extremely beneficial for us to understand the options we have available from an unbiased source. The fact he mentioned we should not go that route tells us we are on the right path.
SB could not care less about the investors that have enabled his companies to function. He pushes investors around when they do something to question him. Just remember HE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION WITHOUT HIS INVESTOR POOL! Without the shareholder base he does not meet the minimum criteria the exchanges require for listings.
In his recent post he tries to come across as transparent and having an open door policy…
"I am not opposed but support any shareholder to ask questions by simply emailing or calling me. It's interesting these persons never do. Why? Because they are not shareholders."
But in reality when you approach SB he provides the responses like the one below…..
"You remain share holder and respect that we are only going to issue dividends to those that do not denigrate our board and other shareholder of unfounded statements"
MrA, Daierasa, others - thoughts on the solicitor route?
MrA and Daierasa...
I believe a solicitor is a great idea. Regardless of the outcome we need a single source of truth when it comes to shifting through the years of communications, corporate restructuring and broken promises of CIC. Once a solicitor is able to pull out all of the noise we will have a very factual series of events that has led us to our current situation. If either of you would like to take point please speak up. Please let us know the estimated cost for solicitor services. I would not be opposed to help fund.
Based on the findings of the solicitor we will be able to gain clear guidance on legal action available to us if we choose to go that way.
My further suggestion would be for the solicitor to establish and publish an email address that we are able to send past communications, files and relevant materials to. No more passive sitting about…time for proactive action.
Once again SB shows up, throws out random information, but does not answer questions directly. Here are some questions that SB can answer:
Innomedtec Questions
What listed companies (peer measurements) did you use to obtain CAD$20-CAD$68? Would love to see how you calculated that.
What timeframe should this listing take place?
CIC Capital Questions (these are questions that SB should be able to answer without using confidential excuses)
Does CICs various companies past failures "Cease Trade Orders" and "delisting" impact new client listings on regulated exchanges?
Why submit a prospectus to TSX in March 2020 if the plan was to postpone listing CIC? Did TSX reject the listing request? If so, what criteria did CIC not meet?
What revenue target is CIC working to hit in order to seek listing again?
What is the projected timeline to hit that revenue target?
How many current clients is CIC advising? What revenue do they represent in the next 6 month timeframe?
What exchange will CIC seek future listing on?
Good find macnai. Up late thinking... After reviewing the note you reference from SB a few things strike me as suspect. Before that I must say that I have taken it upon myself to never take SB at his word and instead determine the facts.
The fact is after I just reviewed the innomedtec prospectus it mentions 47,000,000 shares on the market at listing, with more to follow. At the prices SB quoted, CAD $20 to CAD $68 that would imply a market cap of CAD $880,000,000 to CAD $3,200,000,000...this would make it one of the highest listed stocks on the TSXV. Currently the highest listed life science company has a market cap of CAD $440,000,000. I am not sure where he is pulling those "peer measurements". This innomedtec looks as if it would be a pre revenue company for years to come. Yet again his words and the facts do not match.
I also took it upon myself to look over some of the clients he previously mentioned while I was on the Sedar site...
Pearl Adventure Holdings - No activity since Dec 2019
Securlinx - No activity since Nov 2019
Solenal - No activity since April 2021...this one is funny because I was having issues accessing their website
Intosol - no information
Detroit Electric - no information
In addition I looked through several recently listed TSXV stocks and it looks as if they have all been able to get listed within 4-6 months after submitting their prospectus. Why is it taking SB years to try and achieve the same results?
Lurker here. I have maintained limited contact with SB over the last 5 years. Here is my opinion. There is no quality or professionalism to be found between SB or his team. They complain about how busy they are, but do not hire additional supporting persons, because they want to make decisions that are unethical or fraudulent without others there to witness. They say they want to stay lean to limit impact to financials, but additional persons would more than give them a return on investment.
It is obvious that SB bully shareholders. I have never heard of another "CEO" who acts in such a childlike manner. The entire board are all collaborating to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of investors. They will spend time tracking down shareholders that question them, instead of fixing and addressing issues!!! Those same actions were seen with companies like Enron in the US.
Possible solution - If you want to make an impact start exposing his communications that threaten us shareholders to regulators and REAL professional institutions. Institutions like Luxemborg securitisation do not like dealing with unprofessional cons, because they undermine the entire system.
Lately it seems SB has been getting increasingly defensive, which is a sign that we are asking the right questions. The harder he starts pushing back, the closer we get to the truth.
Maybe the walls are finally crashing down. When you look back at the history of years of SB companies they are ALL plagued by failure. No company he touches continues to have a successful operating history. I believe this is by design. I have started looking into various reasons why they operate in this manner. When a company they touch fails, they usually end up benefitting behind closed doors. Maybe all of this is some type of pump and dump scheme or something different. I have uncovered several suspicious companies tied to their board in the panama and paradise papers. Perhaps they are using all these companies and listings as money laundering schemes…too many coincidences to start thinking otherwise.
These companies all have significant commonalities with SB companies.
Liberty Minerals Inc (Terrence Larkan Board Member) - British Virgin Islands Jurisdiction
Possible SB company
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/240380629
Larkin Corp (Terry Larkan Board Member) - Seychelles Jurisdiction
Possible SB company through Terrence Larkan
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/10187346
Bromley Group Inc. - Luxemburg Jurisdiction
Possible SB company
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/10052435
Company with same address for CIC securitisation fund
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/14031631
Mr A - SB should have no problem providing non-confidential information to shareholders including:
Pipeline of activities with dates and associated revenue
Short and long term strategies for re