Lime Time
2 hours ago
Post #10000 !!! It's quoted again, it's Pink Current. It has superb share structure. There is a reason to bring it fully Alt Reporting Compliant. You are totally lost in left field, not watching the ball. This will start moving up bigly into 2025. You always miss out on the bottom entry, it's sad.
Acquisitions go through OTCM Disclosures, not SEC, you are misunderstanding this process. It's going to be a huge runner setting up. Now is the time to buy.
Hi_Lo
3 hours ago
Not some rent-a-lawyer's opinions that were debunked
The facts on the attorney websites concerning companies with shell histories having to register with the SEC via a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 have not been "debunked." That is another one of your lies.you push tro try to make a dishonest buck.
Wise investors believe financial attornies over the lies spewed on a message board from an anonymous pumper.
CIVX is a regulatory disaster with an indicted and FINRA banned "consultant" advising the company until proof is shown otherwise.
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Why is there no direct link to an actual verifiable post from Cavan about Christopher Martinez, the company consultant not being that indicted, FINRA banned consultant?
A verifiable published Christopher Martinez bio the way most serious companies reveal insider info would suffice. Especially with all the lies being spread by pumpers on this board.
Just a denial from a screenshot from a personal email that can be easily altered doesn't cut it.
He's been the CEO/Owner of multiple companies that he took to the OTCQB and has advised others that have gone as far as the NASDAQ.
Then why doesn't Cavan list these companies so that people can do proper DD?
Penny stock CEOs often lie so that the cat doesn't get out of the bag. I've seen it many, many times...especially with all the regulatory problems this stock has.
Unless documented verifiable proof with a direct link to information about the company consultant can be verified, it should not be believed.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company and what lies are pushed by anonymous pumpers trying to make a quick dishonest buck.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
https://bradshawlawgroup.com/reverse-mergers-a-basic-primer/
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Lime Time
4 hours ago
That's funny you think I am a pumper. Goes to show how much misunderstandment is at heed. I call out bad picks and I call out good picks. This is one of the best on the entire OTCMarket, heading into 2025. You are free to disagree, but my track record proves otherwise. Your track record is 100% failure, loss, which leaves you with zero credibility. OTCM deemed this Pink Current, and fully compliant. I'll stick to the facts. Not some rent-a-lawyer's opinions that were debunked.
Hi_Lo
5 hours ago
Incorrect. CIVX reports to OTC Markets. NOT the SEC. You've been informed of this several times.
Now who are we to believe - an attorney website who are experts in this matter, or a pumper who will say anything to try to make a quick and dishonest buck?
I'll believe the attorney website who are experts on the matter.
Companies with a shell history like CIVX must register with the SEC.
https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2020/form-10-registration-statement/#:~:text=Both%20public%20and%20private%20companies,subject%20to%20SEC%20reporting%20requirements.
Both public and private companies can register a class of securities on Form 10. Form 10 is also used by shell purveyors to create inventory for reverse merger transactions that take a company from private to public company status. These shells are subject to SEC reporting requirements.
Q. If a non-reporting company was a shell company twenty years ago, is it required to file a Form 10 to cure its shell status for purposes of its shareholders having the ability to rely upon Rule 144’s safe harbor?
A. Yes, if a non-reporting entity was a shell company during any time in its history, it must either file a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 in order for its shareholders to rely upon Rule 144.
And CIVX can't file a Form 10 registration because of its missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which makes CIVX delinquent with the SEC and in violation of FINRA Rule 6490.
Here are some more financial attorney websites. You might learn something but you probably won't and will continue spewing your BS.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
https://bradshawlawgroup.com/reverse-mergers-a-basic-primer/
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Hi_Lo
9 hours ago
Patiencde has nothing to do with it.
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
Christopher Martinez who is CIVX's "consultant," unless verifiably proven that he's not the same individual is a shyster.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Why is there no direct link to an actual verifiable post from Cavan about Christopher Martinez, the company consultant not being that indicted, FINRA banned consultant?
Especially with all the lies being spread by pumpers on this board.
Just a denial from a screenshot from a personal email that can be easily altered doesn't cut it.
He's been the CEO/Owner of multiple companies that he took to the OTCQB and has advised others that have gone as far as the NASDAQ.
Then why doesn't Cavan list these companies so that people can do proper DD?
Penny stock CEOs often lie so that the cat doesn't get out of the bag. I've seen it many, many times...especially with all the regulatory problems this stock has.
Unless documented verifiable proof with a direct link to information about the company consultant can be verified, it should not be believed.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
https://bradshawlawgroup.com/reverse-mergers-a-basic-primer/
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Hi_Lo
3 days ago
Pumpers here are desperate to spread false information so as not to let the truth out.
Cavan has not verfiably denied that the company consultant Christopher Martinez - the indicted and FINRA banned ex-broker and financial advisor and consultant is not the consultant for the company.
This scammer has the same name, was a broker before getting banned by FINRA and was/is also a financial advisor and consultant.
Christopher Martinez who is CIVX's "consultant," unless verifiably proven that he's not the same individual is a shyster.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/profile
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_4072355.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA-9CQot6GAxVj4MkDHW3DDx0QFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PGAqtt2DEJXJ5Q_H6hCAm
Why is there no direct link to an actual verifiable post from Cavan about Christopher Martinez, the company consultant not being that indicted, FINRA banned consultant?
Especially with all the lies being spread by pumpers on this board.
Just a denial from a screenshot from a personal email that can be easily altered doesn't cut it.
He's been the CEO/Owner of multiple companies that he took to the OTCQB and has advised others that have gone as far as the NASDAQ.
Then why doesn't Cavan list these companies so that people can do proper DD?
Penny stock CEOs often lie so that the cat doesn't get out of the bag. I've seen it many, many times...especially with all the regulatory problems this stock has.
Unless documented verifiable proof with a direct link to information about the company consultant can be verified, it should not be believed.
No merger coming for CIVX per SEC/FINRA regulations...no matter what the CEO of a penny stock company pumps in a press release to promote his company.
CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 because of its 13 years of missing financials and all publicly traded stocks need to conform with FINRA Rule 6490.
There is a huge gap of missing financials from 2008 - 2020 which means CIVX is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490 which will prevent CIVX from getting any corporate actions such as a merger approved by SEC/FINRA. The same thing caused GVSI's catastrophic collapse. Look at that ticker as a good example of what will happen here.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CIVX/disclosure
More proof CIVX is a dirty shell and a scam.
HOW FINRA RULE 6490 lMPACTS REVERSE MERGERS
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567
FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.
These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers. Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.
The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.
It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.
The Problem with Reverse Mergers & Disclosure under Rule 6490
For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.
Rule 6490 Disclosures
Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.
Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490
A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:
• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;
• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• Persons involved in or related to the corporate action are the subject of pending or settled regulatory action or are under investigation by a regulatory body or are the subject of a pending criminal action related to fraud or securities law violations;
• Persons related to the corporate action are likely involved in fraudulent activities involving securities or may pose a threat to investors;
• There is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the issuer’s securities.
Any company contemplating going public using a reverse merger must consider the potential impact Rule 6490 could have on its future corporate actions. Rule 6490 provides one more compelling reason why private companies seeking to go public should do so using a registration statement instead of a reverse merger.
https://bradshawlawgroup.com/reverse-mergers-a-basic-primer/
Conducting effective due diligence on the shell company is essential, as merging with a “dirty” shell (i.e., a shell whose management failed to follow proper SEC reporting procedures) could prove fatal for the private company.[13] In searching for “clean” shells, private companies should consider the shell’s number of stockholders, reporting record, and how and where it is listed.[14]
Hi_Lo
1 week ago
It’s not currently a shell.
It doesn't matter what a company designates itself in an unaudited financial report. It's what the SEC designates the company, and the SEC has designated CIVX as a shell company.
Plus, even if it isn't currently a shell company, it was a shell at one point in its history so it has to file a Form 10 registration statement by filing a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1.
https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2020/form-10-registration-statement/#:~:text=Both%20public%20and%20private%20companies,subject%20to%20SEC%20reporting%20requirements.
Q. If a non-reporting company was a shell company twenty years ago, is it required to file a Form 10 to cure its shell status for purposes of its shareholders having the ability to rely upon Rule 144’s safe harbor?
A. Yes, if a non-reporting entity was a shell company during any time in its history, it must either file a Form 10 registration statement or a registration statement on Form S-1 in order for its shareholders to rely upon Rule 144.
...and CIVX is not registered with the SEC and its missing financials will prevent it from getting its registration statement processed by the SEC/FINRA because it violates FINRA Rule 6490.
Nice try at twisting information and deceiving investors. It didn't work.
Level up your trading with our powerful tools and real-time insights all in one place.
Market Makers Exist
7 hours ago
FelixOTC
1 day ago
Tomuggly313
1 day ago
JMoneyHoops
1 week ago
Hot Features
Premium
