Once again, I'll say what I believe is very possible. The comments in the PR are all forward-looking. The papers could be sitting in a folder on the desk of ETLC's lawyers. They may never be submitted...EVER. And ETLC will have done NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER. That is because they are covered by the "forward-looking statements" provision. In my opinion, no company that is planning to merge and infuse 3 million dollars into ETLC would loan them 250K with an 8% interest rate per annum...it's not necessary. To me, it would appear that AHM wants to see if ETLC has the capability to repay them in the next year for the money they're loaning, which would have to happen either by a SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH IN REVENUES (essentially about 25 times current quarterly totals) which would also have to become profit to cover those costs, since to AHM, I'm sure they don't want to infuse money in a company that will continually lose it. Further, AHM can, if ETLC defaults on the promissory note, essentially take over the company. So instead of having to give 3 million dollars to ETLC and only getting 55 percent of the company, they would end up with the entire company, and at worst given 250K to it in the process. Finally, it is very possible that if that were to happen, no shareholders would yield any money from the change in ownership, that it would be somewhat of a bankruptcy turnover, with the outstanding shares being handed in to "repay" some of the debt to AHM, since at that point the shares would essentially be worth nothing. Time will tell if that is the case. But with the balance sheet looking like it does, it sure could happen.
Once again, I'll say what I believe is very possible. The comments in the PR are all forward-looking. The papers could be sitting in a folder on the desk of ETLC's lawyers. They may never be submitted...EVER. And ETLC will have done NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER. That is because they are covered by the "forward-looking statements" provision. In my opinion, no company that is planning to merge and infuse 3 million dollars into ETLC would loan them 250K with an 8% interest rate per annum...it's not necessary. To me, it would appear that AHM wants to see if ETLC has the capability to repay them in the next year for the money they're loaning, which would have to happen either by a SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH IN REVENUES (essentially about 25 times current quarterly totals) which would also have to become profit to cover those costs, since to AHM, I'm sure they don't want to infuse money in a company that will continually lose it. Further, AHM can, if ETLC defaults on the promissory note, essentially take over the company. So instead of having to give 3 million dollars to ETLC and only getting 55 percent of the company, they would end up with the entire company, and at worst given 250K to it in the process. Finally, it is very possible that if that were to happen, no shareholders would yield any money from the change in ownership, that it would be somewhat of a bankruptcy turnover, with the outstanding shares being handed in to "repay" some of the debt to AHM, since at that point the shares would essentially be worth nothing. Time will tell if that is the case. But with the balance sheet looking like it does, it sure could happen.
IMO/FWIW
Nothing's changed. And a 7.41 percent dropoff today further emphasizes that there wasn't much momentum behind last week's late day spurt. IMO/FWIW
That rocket fuel may blow up on the launching pad. Why would any company want to take over a company with a huge negative net worth, that is if the takeover company actually exists.
Popeye, Today there was finally some kind of notice from the company via a press release that they are "planning" to consummate the merger. Here's the info:
eTelCharge.com to File SEC Form 14A and Issue Proxy Relating to the Company's Planned Merger With American Home Market Corporation eTelcharge.com, Inc. (the "Company"), (OTCBB: ETLC), http://www.etelcharge.com, a financial diversified merchant services company, today announced that the Company will file SEC Form 14A - Preliminary Proxy Statement Relating to Merger or Acquisition (Securities and Exchange Act - Proxy Materials and Information Statements Filed Pursuant to Section 14 Submission Types by EDGAR) by September 6, 2006 for its planned merger with The American Home Market Corporation.
The record date for shareholders is September 12, 2006 and a Meeting of Shareholders will be held on October 12, 2006 at the corporate office at 8 a.m. cst. The effective date of this transaction, pending shareholder approval and SEC acceptance of the Form 14A will be October 12, 2006. Shareholders of record should expect to receive a Proxy Statement with Voting Card by September 12, 2006.
"We are most enthusiastic at the prospects that remain ahead with our planned merger with The American Home Market Corporation," stated Carl Sherman, CEO of eTelCharge.com.
"This merger, pending shareholder and SEC approval, will improve eTelCharge on all fronts including making the company immediately profitable, providing the Company with a seasoned operation's team, and allow for effective and efficient growth. This coupled with our recent agreement with a major billing aggregator should allow us to focus our efforts on marketing our traditional and alternative payment systems nationally and bring the infrastructure necessary to meet our full potential," Sherman concluded.
I see many forward-looking statements in this PR, plus the fact that the SEC has to approve this (which is a very easy out for ETLC). Personally, I believe that the information regarding the merger will differ vastly from the numbers seen a year ago in the first PR about an LOI. What are your thoughts? I tend to believe that there will either be many more shares issued, or a reverse split to make the ratio of AHM's input to their holdings match up more reasonably, as a condition of the deal. Essentially, it would wipe out the holdings of most current longs of ETLC. IMO/FWIW
TheOnlyTrueGrib, do you happen to know what city AHM is located in. They are not in Dallas, Ft Worth, Cedar Hills or Desoto.
Popeye, I am on hold now with the Secretary of State of Texas office, and will let you know what I find out. I could have sworn some of this info was out there somewhere, but as we've seen, AHM has hidden itself well. IMO/FWIW
Popeye, Per the SOS of Texas phone line (and confirmed address on the comptroller's site), American Home Market Corporation, Inc has Ray Jackson as both a director (along with, I believe-forgot to ask but remember finding this previously-wife Brenda) and as registered agent. The address given is 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 600, Dallas Texas 75219. Per the Comptroller's site, the company is in good standing, the charter done 8/29/05 (which puts them as a registered active corporation for one year next Tuesday). Of course, if you cannot find a phone number for a corporation that supposedly has those kinds of revenues and can merge and give 3 million dollars to ETLC, I'd find that curious. IMO/FWIW
I have not stated my position in ETLC on this board. Do not claim to know what I have not informed. I have stuck to the facts and information as they have been presented in public filings.
Popeye, I have attempted to do more research on getting a phone number for AHM. Putting the address into 411.com, the closest you get to the parties involved is the Law Office of Ray A Jackson, suite 1400, phone (214) 651-6250. But as for the address on the filings, there is no available phone number. Have you had any other luck? TIA
I’m going to weigh in on the dispute about ETLC, specifically referring to energy_wave and TheOnlyTrueGrib.
Some people don’t like each other. This may or may not be the case in this situation, but you certainly strongly disagree on this stock, which is fine. Debate is fine, as long as it is kept about the topic at hand, and not about personal or irrelevant nonsense. Honestly compared to other disputes we have had on the board you two have been very civil. Please don’t turn it in a bad direction.
The final point I would like to make is that both of your positions could be strengthened in my eyes, and I’m sure many others on the board, if you diversified the stocks you talk about.
I hope no one; especially either of you takes this as an attack, as it is not meant in that way. I’m just trying to keep the peace. Thank you both for your contribution to the board.
Please do not replay to this post. Continue discussing ETLC, but if you would like to comment on this post in particular please PM me.
Thanks, DeMerchant
"It's not nessicary to be rich and famous to be happy... Just rich"
Logged
Male
