|
In 2013, Saleen Automotive merged with W270, a publicly traded shell company majority owned by W-Net Fund which is owned by David Weiner. David Weiner is known for financing pennystock companies involved in the marijuana business. During Saleen's first public offering (which is the goal of going public), Saleen (the company) didn't get one penny of the offering. The only sellers were people involved in W270 who were now allowed to sell millions of Saleen shares. The two biggest sellers were David Weiner through his W-Net Fund and his friend Fred Knoll through his Europa international fund. All of this is relevant to Saleen and especially Saleen going public and it can all be verified through the following articles and fillings:
Bloomberg article about Weiner the pot financier: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy.html
NY Post article mentioning Weiner as a "backer" of Saleen Automotive: http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/sec-weed-wackers-sparked-growlife-fears/
S1 filling confirming he was a major holder of W270 (which brought Saleen public) and he was a seller during the first Saleen offering: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/company/saleen-automotive-inc-862316-67967?tab=financials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.37.187 (207.253.37.187 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC))Reply
- This is not a good analogy. The initial offering is the reason for a company to go public. In this case, the whole Saleen offering was done, owned and sold by David Weiner. Saleen(the company) did not raise a penny from it. It was an important part of Saleen's history and it is still relevant today as Saleen is still a public company who still suffers the consequences of this offering. (207.253.37.187 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC))Reply
- Shareholders of the shell company and other stocks that may they hold in an unrelated business are irrelevant to the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.233.97 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 December 2014
- This last comment couldn't be more wrong and show a great lack of understanding of what constitute a reverse-merger. By definition, the shell company absorbed Saleen Automotive, not the other way around. Saleen became a part of W270 which in turn changed it names to Saleen Automotive. Then the only shareholders allowed to sell shares in the first offering were all directly involved with each others through Weiner and W270. These people received millions of shares and somehow they were the only ones allowed to sell some (~20% of theirs). Normally the goal of the first offering is to raise money for the company and god knows Saleen needed it, but somehow all the money went to them. These people were the architects of the offering. The offering or Saleen going public is an important part of Saleen's history and the circonstance should be included without a doubt. One thing is sure, W270 is not an "unrelated business", W270 is Saleen. Here's a comment explaining the offering: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108597426 207.253.37.187 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Let me ask you this, why are you only mentioning David Weiner here? Why not the rest of the people who are involved with W270 and since you are mentioning him being a marijuana financier, why not mention his other endeavors or other companies that he has invested in? It seems that your only goal here is to badmouth Saleen for your own benefit. As stated before, the need to list who owned the shell company that Saleen merged with is irrelevant and unnecessary. Just listing the fact that Saleen went public and listing their OTC trading symbol is enough to let anyone who wants more information do research themselves. Again, this page is for an overview of the company, not to delve into certain aspects of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C536:9289:B039:BDD9:9BF:A201 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Unfortunately the references that User:207.253.37.187 has provided do not provide any clear basis for attributing information about David Weiner and/or his unrelated business(es) on the Wikipedia about Saleen.
- (1) User:207.253.37.187 cited a Bloomberg article about David Weiner. This article does not mention the word Saleen in it at all.
- (2) User:207.253.37.187 cited a NY Post article about David Weiner. This article does mention that David Wiener was planning to attend a Saleen party. There is no reference to corroborate User:207.253.37.187's claims that the W270 is/was owned by David Weiner.
- (3) User:207.253.37.187 cited a link to a list of Saleen Automotive Inc Company Filings. It seems that an overall list of filings is not a good reference, as there is no mention of David Weiner or W270 on this webpage. When viewing the filings themselves, however, there is information about W270. Research here show that W270 was Founded by a Mr. Wesley E Fry, who was also the president and Chief Executive Officer. [1] This is actually contradictory to the edit that User:207.253.37.187 is requesting to add to the Saleen Wikipedia page.
- Based on the S-1 filing source [2] the edit "transaction with a publicly traded shell company owned by David Weiner, a marijuana pennystock financer." is not relevant to the Saleen Wikipedia page as it is inaccurate information and not substantiated by any cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdock7 (talk •
- This couldn’t be more wrong. User:Murdock7 acts in bad faith again. (1) the first citation is to give a reference to Weiner being a “marijuana pennystock financier”. (2) The second is where User:Murdock7 is acting in bad faith. No “reference to corroborate”? Only a reference to a party huh? You omitted to say that the article clearly states “Saleen Automotive, another penny stock backed by Weiner.” (3) Obviously this is a link to a directory since the documents are not “linkable”. The important document is the S1 filling which detail Saleen’s first public stock offering (you know… GOING PUBLIC) in which it clearly shows that Saleen (the company) didn’t made any money from going public, but instead every penny went to W270 people led by the W-Net fund which is owned by Weiner. User:Murdock7 implies Wesley E Fry was in control of W270, but this is completely false as this SEC 8K form will confirm, W-Net (David Weiner) owned a majority of the shares at the time of the merger: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841112000170/form8k121130.htm 207.253.37.187 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Acts in Bad_faith? Either your sources are factual or they're not. (1) Just because you have a citation does not deem it relevant to the topic or article. I have a citation that says the sky is blue, it doesn't make it ok to state this on the Saleen article. (2) Backed how? The article does not state anything beyond that he was planning to attend a Saleen party. I assume the NY Post editor meant to support or 'back' the brand through his attendance. Apart from attending a Saleen event, there is nothing in this article to support your claim. (3) After clicking on the link that you provided from the 'unlinkable' 8k filing (or form if 207.253.37.187 is the one making it up as they go along) I noted that this is dated 11/30/12, which is pre-merger, and still doesn't mention Saleen anywhere. It is also noted that all parties disclaim beneficial ownership of all their shares, although this all still irrelevant to the Saleen Article. Are we supposed to update the Saleen Wikipedia everytime a share changes control? The answer is no, the only information that matters is where the current majority control lies, which is already noted and cited on the Saleen article. Murdock7 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Bad faith indeed. You are not fooling anyone. "Backed by attending the party"? Please. Everyone knows what backing a company means. Saying something like this is acting in bad faith. Every single edit you made as to do directly or indirectly with Saleen. You clearly work for the company or you are too much of a fanboy to be impartial here. 207.253.37.187 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
contribs) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I'm going to add my opinion here as an external editor who has had no prior involvement in the dispute. Firstly, "marijuana pennystock financier" is a nonsensical statement, and is also an inaccurate statement about Weiner; Weiner has financed many companies, most of which had nothing to do with marijuana. Secondly, this content is inappropriate for the lead anyway; the lead should merely mention what the company that underwent the reverse merger is, and not the guy who owns it. That information should be located in the article further down. Thirdly, I agree with Murdock7's analysis of the references used; none of those three proved that Weiner has anything to do with Saleen whatsoever. Nor do they mention W270 being linked - somewhere that I'm not seeing anywhere in here. In fact, if you actually do some digging, you will see that W-Net Fund are not even the biggest shareholder outside of Steve Saleen; this verifies that Europa International, who are not even being mentioned in the text, have a bigger share. As such, I have to agree with everyone who was trying to keep this out of the article; I am failing to see any real explanation for including this other than to try and slander Saleen via innuendo, and strongly object to it being retained. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- And another completely misrepresentation of the situation. Here’s a chronological order:
- (1) November 2012: W270 is bought by W-Net, David Weiner and Eric Stoppenhaggen. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841112000170/form8k121130.htm this clearly state that David Weiner has full control over W-Net and that with his own shares and W-Net’s, he has a majority of the shares.
- (2) May 2013: Merger agreement between W270 and Saleen. Who signed this agreement with Saleen because he was the majority shareholder? David Weiner: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841113000175/exhibit2_1.htm
- (3) October 2013: SLNN makes its first public offering (see the following S1 filing) which was lead by the W-Net fund and yes Weiner’s friend’s fund Europa International owned by Fred Knoll: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841113000282/slnnform_s1131015.htm
- (4) June 2014: Weiner is outed by Bloomberg and the NY Post as a prominent marijuana pennytock financier and as being under investation by the SEC for numerous pump-and-dump schemes: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy.html
As for my edits, the same could be said of [User:Murdock7]] and [User:Solo12gauge]] who both have been editing Saleen's and Saleen related pages like it's their job. 207.253.37.187 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- User:Murdock7 changed the headline of the discussion in bad faith and should be banned from this discussion. “Should the Saleen page contain in-depth information about the unrelated company that it [reverse] merged with in 2013?” First of, the name and occupation of the person responsible for the offering and the company is not “in-depth information”.That’s all I was trying to include. It’s a name and occupation. It’s hardly qualifies as “in-depth”. Clearly we don’t have the same definition of “in-depth”. Secondly, the company is not “unrelated”. Saleen Automotive is W270. W270 absorbed Saleen through a reverse-merger which bring me to my third point; no need for brackets around “reverse” since the merger is clearly a reverse-merger, there’s no ambiguity about that. I would settle for the headline: “Should the Saleen page contain information about who brought the company public through a reverse-merger?” To which the answer is obviously yes! 207.253.37.187 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The 5k of writing you just dumped here doesn't remotely back you up. The only thing that should've been kept in the lead was the company who merged with Saleen's name; the person who owns them is irrelevant. The company who owned that company IS relevant, but not one of the people who does. Also, there is absolutely no excuse for your insistence that Weiner is a "marijuana pennystock financier", which is a totally nonsensical statement that also happens to be verifiably false (since he isn't just a financier of marijuana). At least you've finally provided a reference for the W270 bit. Thanks for further reinforcing the fact you're pushing any negative angle against Weiner you can, though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- You are wrong. When talking about a shell company, obviously the person who owns the company is more relevant than the company itself since by definition the company only exist to the benefit of its owner. The W270 was a shell. And if you want, I could settle for "David Weiner, an investor mostly known for financing marijuana pennystock companies". Most things you can find about him online are related to his investments in Growlife and other marijuana pennystocks. unsurprisingly, most of these companies are currently under SEC investigation according to the NY Post which also had access to Weiner's message text which his lawyer didn't denied. 207.253.37.187 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Still using weasel words to push your POV in there. He is known as a penny-stock financier or an investor, NOT a marijuana pennystock financier as you frequently proclaim - look at how NYPost, Bloomberg and Live Trading News describe him. Doesn't matter if it is a shell company or not, and it doesn't matter one flying fig whether the other companies are under investigation or not. If W270 is a shell as you so loudly proclaim, and that it therefore cannot possibly be mentioned in an article, then it simply defaults back to talking about W-Net, not Weiner. There are many more people involved than just Weiner. If you are incapable of following WP:NPOV, then please go away elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- User:207.253.37.187, is it not clear at this point that there is no source, basis, or relevance for the edit you are trying to make on the Saleen page? You can settle for anything you like on your personal blog. Wikipedia is not that. Agree with Lukeno94: If you are incapable of following WP:NPOV, then please go away elsewhere. Murdock7 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Don't act all high and mighty like you have no bias. You are not fooling anyone. Everyone is biased about everything. That's why we have to stick to the facts and the facts are that David Weiner brought Saleen Automotive public through a reverse-merger with his shell company. I'm not violating any rules by editing this into Saleen's page since this is Saleen history. All the citations are here:
- (1) November 2012: W270 is bought by W-Net, David Weiner and Eric Stoppenhaggen. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841112000170/form8k121130.htm this clearly state that David Weiner has full control over W-Net and that with his own shares and W-Net’s, he has a majority of the shares.
- (2) May 2013: Merger agreement between W270 and Saleen. Who signed this agreement with Saleen because he was the majority shareholder? David Weiner: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841113000175/exhibit2_1.htm
- (3) October 2013: SLNN makes its first public offering (see the following S1 filing) which was lead by the W-Net fund and yes Weiner’s friend’s fund Europa International owned by Fred Knoll: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528098/000130841113000282/slnnform_s1131015.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.37.187 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- How did he bring a company public that without Steve_Saleen (you know, the founder, President, CEO, and majority shareholder of Saleen)? Or the countless other persons that were involved? Additionally, he (himself, personally) was not the majority shareholder at any time as outlined by the citations you have provided. In fact the percentage shows Steve Saleen at 71.6% ownership.[3] Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for unfounded claims and biases, you have still yet to state a case as to why your edit should be included on the Saleen page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdock7 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Neither are correct. David Weiner (himself/personally) was never a majority shareholder in either W270 nor Saleen Automotive Inc. Regardless, the inverse statement could be made as "Without Steve Saleen's approval, there is no merger." or definitively could be made as "Without the Securities and Exchange Commission's approval, there is no merger." Murdock7 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Stating that you are lying when you are indeed lying, hardly constitute a personal attack. You said and I quote: "David Weiner (himself/personally) was never a majority shareholder in either W270 nor Saleen Automotive Inc. ". I already said that I've never imply that he was of Saleen Automotive, but as the 2 documents I provided in my las post shows, he was a majority shareholder of W270. On the very document, it's states that he is the owner of W-Net fund, so yes he was PERSONALLY a majority shareholder of W270. 207.253.37.187 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- "Everyone is biased about everything" - what a load of baloney. If wanting a neutral article that doesn't contain your original research slurs against a living person and a company who have done nothing wrong is biased, then perhaps yes, I am. Weiner is not a majority shareholder of Saleen. Not even close. Europa International have a bigger stake than W-Net do, and both are still minor stakes. Heck, the source you present for W270 only confirms the fact that you don't give a damn about neutrality, and want to push your POV; Eric Stoppenhagen owns just as much of W270 as Weiner does. Yet, did you ever try to mention him in the article? No, you just wanted to show everyone "Saleen's bad side". Go away, Wikipedia does not need any more trolls. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The Bloomberg article and the NY Posts articles clearly shows David Weiner as the ring leader. Stoppenhaggen is as guilty, but I thought it would be too much to name everyone so I stuck to the ring leader. 207.253.37.187 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
|
Done The claim made in the article wasn't made directly in any of the sources cited, so including it violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. I've removed it, lowered the protection to semi-protection, and extended the expiry to 3 January so that you can take a break from this over Christmas. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
