Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Steinhoff


  • Please log in to reply
5908 replies to this topic

#1 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:55 PM

Haha TOM thinks we stupid and blind!!!!!
  • 0

#2 JK001

JK001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:09 PM

 

From:
 
join@steinhoffclassaction.org
 
 
"What is the Class Action Period?"
June 26, 2013 to February 28, 2018.
 
Who can join the class action?
Any institutional investors who purchased stock of Steinhoff International Holdings Limited (South Africa) and/or Steinhoff International Holdings N.V. or any of their affiliates/subsidiaries during the Class Period, on either the Johannesburg or Frankfurt Stock Exchanges.
 
 

 

yawn yawn Tom, please use CNTRL + for disability reading assistance.


  • 0

#3 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:36 PM

join@steinhoffclassaction.org
 
Steinhoff Litigation Update – April 2019
 
To investors represented by the International Steinhoff Litigation Group (ISLG):
Substantial developments have occurred in the collective, multi-jurisdictional litigation efforts against Steinhoff
and other defendants in the various jurisdictions. Further, the recently published summary of the PWC report
and confidential information available to us, validate important allegations in our complaints relating to
company fraud and negligence. As such, we believe that our approach of pursuing certain directors for gross
negligence, the board and Steinhoff itself, for violation of corporate governance obligations, as well as Deloitte
for violation of accounting and auditing standards, all have strong chances of success. The forthcoming
releases of the corrected financial statements for 2015 and 2016, as well as the yet unreleased 2017 and 2018
statements will likely further strengthen our case.
Timeline of cases around the world:
 
South Africa
In the opt-out class action in South Africa, which seeks to represent all shareholders of the old (pre-December
5, 2015) and new Steinhoff, all domestic defendants have been served. Court documents for defendants based
in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have been sent via international diplomatic channels for
final local service and will be completed imminently. Importantly, the South African class action represents the
most comprehensive proceeding against wrongdoers, with over 30 named parties which we seek
compensation from, including Steinhoff, over 20 past and present directors, and Deloitte.
Various South African authorities are investigating Steinhoff and related parties, and they are constantly
uncovering new pieces of useful information. Presently, the South African Parliament, the South African
Financial Prosecutors (Hawks), the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), the Financial
Sector Conduct Authority’s (FSCA) and the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) are conducting
investigations into Steinhoff and other defendants. The products of these investigations will prove critical to
litigation efforts in all jurisdictions given that the majority of witnesses and evidence against Steinhoff is to be
found in South Africa.
Timeline of the South African Class Action
• July 29, 2019: Deadline to file supplementary papers (including expert reports regarding accountancy
and corporate governance issues with Steinhoff) for class certification purposes; and
• August 20, 2019: Meeting set to determine hearing schedule for the certification process of the South
African class action between all parties included in the class action. Given the importance of this case,
it is being personally managed by a highly experienced and respected commercial Judge of the
Johannesburg High Court, who, given the cases’ significance, has indicated that he will expedite the
matter through the court system.
 
The Netherlands
Two active cases are currently pending in the Netherlands, while other cases have just been announced or
filed but not served, or also stayed. Our case is currently the only active civil litigation claim against Steinhoff
(SIHNV) and Jooste on behalf of members of the Foundation, i.e. all shareholders, and is proceeding towards
its first hearing in November 2019, which will deal with interim motions.
The second active case is an inquiry proceeding before the Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber, which was
initiated by another group of shareholder representatives. The Enterprise Chamber may investigate potential
mismanagement; this does not determine liability of Steinhoff, but determines facts underlying mismanagement
which can be used in civil cases by all parties to the inquiry proceeding. The ISLG, through its Foundation, has
intervened as an interested party in this proceeding to ensure it can use facts from the investigation for its
benefit.
Timeline of Foundation Class Action
• March 13, 2019: Parties agreed on a case management schedule covering all phases of the
proceedings.
• April 10, 2019: SIHNV has filed ancillary objections (jurisdiction, competence, etc.) concerning
jurisdiction / admissibility of Foundation. Jooste has submitted framework/table of contents of ancillary
objections to SIHNV and Foundation;
• May 8, 2019: Jooste to file ancillary objections concerning jurisdiction and, possibly, inadmissibility of
Foundation;
• June 5, 2019: Foundation to file a statement of defence regarding the ancillary objections (and,
possibly, ancillary claim for the purpose of compulsory disclosure of evidence (exhibitieplicht);
• July 17, 2019: SIHNV to file a statement of defence in ancillary objections (if relevant); SIHNV and
Jooste (possibly) to file ancillary claims concerning permission to serve a third-party notice on other
parties (vrijwaring) / forced intervention of a third party (gedwongen tussenkomst);
• November 11, 2019: Oral hearings;
• Subject to the court calendar (early 2020): Decision on ancillary objections.
 
Germany
Since December 2017, approximately 50 lawsuits before 17 different chambers, have been filed against
Steinhoff in the Lower Regional Court of Frankfurt. Several chambers have already publicly declared
applications for a model case under the German Capital Markets Model Case Act (KapMuG) admissible,
hence, it is expected that the Lower Regional Court of Frankfurt will order the matter referred to the Higher
Regional Court of Frankfurt for the establishment of the model case in May/June 2019, followed by a
subsequent appointment of a model case plaintiff. We expect the model case plaintiff to come from our group,
which is the largest and most numerous in Germany. After the public announcement of the model case plaintiff
and within a period of 6 months after this, claims of aggrieved investors may be registered with the Higher
Regional Court of Frankfurt.
Timeline of the Model Case
• May/June 2019: Order to refer the matter to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt;
• September 2019: Selection of model case plaintiff/beginning of 6-month deadline for claim registration;
• January2020: Start of the model case proceeding and oral hearings before the Higher Regional Court
of Frankfurt.
 
As our cases against Steinhoff proceed in the different jurisdictions, the pressure on the company, and
implicated third parties such as the directors and auditors, increases substantially. We believe the combined
efforts of the Foundation and ISLG put the Group in the best position to demand negotiation and a speedy
resolution of the matter, as well as offering a multi-jurisdictional platform to resolve all outstanding litigation with
final, binding effect. In effect, we believe the Group is the only vehicle by which all risk in the different
jurisdictions can be wiped off the table for the defendants – a critical factor for any defendant thinking of
settling. Joining the ISLG’s effort is still important as size matters for purposes of negotiation leverage. You can
register your support for the ISLG efforts at www.steinhoffclassactions.com. Please contact
investorclaimsagainststeinhoff@drrt.com with any inquiries.

Edited by Tom, Yesterday, 06:41 PM.

  • 0

#4 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:28 PM

CVA LONG-STOP DATE AND LOCK-UP AGREEMENT LONG-STOP DATE
RECONCILIATION OF ENTITLEMENTS OF CVA CREDITORS TO LOCK-UP FEES, LOCK-UP EARLY BIRD
FEES AND SUPPORT LETTER CONSENT FEES


"CVA Long-Stop Date and Lock-Up Agreement Long-Stop Date
Pursuant to the announcement made on 29 March 2019, the Company and LSW agreed that
the Application be dismissed on consensual terms. The parties accordingly filed with the Court,
and the Court has sealed, a Consent Order giving effect to that agreement. Accordingly, the
CVA Long-Stop Date under the SEAG CVA and the SFHG CVA and the Long-Stop Date as
defined in and applicable to the Lock-Up Agreement has been extended to 31 May 2019."
  • 0

#5 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:28 PM

From:
 
join@steinhoffclassaction.org
 
 
"What is the Class Action Period?"
June 26, 2013 to February 28, 2018.
 
Who can join the class action?
Any institutional investors who purchased stock of Steinhoff International Holdings Limited (South Africa) and/or Steinhoff International Holdings N.V. or any of their affiliates/subsidiaries during the Class Period, on either the Johannesburg or Frankfurt Stock Exchanges.
 
 

Edited by Tom, Yesterday, 06:30 PM.

  • 0

#6 Investment novice

Investment novice

    Little Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 625 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:22 PM

would be considered slapstick fiction.


I would go with more of a mills and boons romantic novel set on a similar scene as thorn birds with you know who and who as love struck tormentors...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app
  • 0

#7 JK001

JK001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:06 PM

Sharechat could write a novel on steinhoff from these threads

would be considered slapstick fiction.


  • 0

#8 Lionelza1

Lionelza1

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:02 PM

Sharechat could write a novel on steinhoff from these threads
  • 0

#9 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:40 PM

Thanks Captain for the great explanation.
  • 0

#10 JK001

JK001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:20 PM

Hi JK001,

 

I think that maybe we are missing each other here.  Lets try again.

 

For 1H18 Pepkor reported R2708m Operating Profit Before Capital Items (OPBCI) which is the statutory.  Already included in this figure was the "expense" of R500m as a once-off provision for the loan impairment.  Therefore if this once off was not included, the OPBCI would actually be R3298m (the balance of R90m was a share incentive scheme).

 

For 1H19, we should not see a repeat of this "expense" which had already reduced Pepkor's regulatory numbers.  Thus by comparison, the 1H19 numbers are positively impacted.

 

You can do the sums and calculate the impact of this per share (R500m / WANOS 3460 = 14.5 cents).  Since this 14.5 cents is greater than 20% of the previously reported HEPS and EPS (36.2 cents * 20% = 7.2 cents) , this is the reason for the SENS.

 

The need to retain key staff is a debatable issue as you point out. Personally, I agree with the position of Pepkor.  You need to keep the best people at your business and incentive them accordingly.  If this involves a once off cost, I can live with that.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

Got it, thanks Captain.


  • 0

#11 Captainfrom82

Captainfrom82

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:00 PM

Hi Captain,

Do you think its possible that Steinhoff could claim to be a victim of fraud by the famous 8 and as such just as badly affected as the shareholders?

What do your lawyer friend say about that??

Regards,
DTD

 

Hi DTD,

 

Below are my opinions.  I could be wrong or right!!  Lawyers will debate this to the ends of the earth.  But my short answer is NO.

 

Directors are not just seen to be acting as agents of a company, but are seen to be acting as the company. 

 

Company Law generally speaking, may be mostly similar across various jurisdictions internationally,  there is enough of a difference across countries to make conclusions whether an  action taken by a director is ultra-vires, very difficult.

 

My guess is that Steinhoff has a far better route to pursue for reparations by going after the various auditors as well as German law firm FGS who found nothing wrong after they were commissioned in 2017 to investigate the claims of fraud. 

 

Also, why did Deloitte not pick up on the fraud that had perpetuated over 9 years prior to the 2017 financial statements that they stopped because they suspected fraud.

 

My legal buddies tell me that in South Africa the CIPC oversees companies and directors.  The Head of the CIPC appeared in Parliament and stated that are listed but not registered in South Africa are not subject to the South African Act.  In particular Section 214 (Duties of a Director) has no consequences for a director of a foreign registered company. 

 

MJ will probably only have to face the Dutch and  German authorities (although I understand that there is very keen interest for prosecution from Switzerland and Austria as well).

 

Did you know that MJ asked for immunity against prosecution in order for him to meet PwC's investigators and field their questions?  Needless to say this was quickly rebuffed.  Todate, I understand that he is the only one of the eight who has not met PwC.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82


  • 0

#12 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:00 PM

Haha Polly go and play with Kangaroos you might feel better!!!
  • 0

#13 Polly

Polly

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:45 PM

All right then…if a fight is what you are looking for buddy, here goes.

 

Polly, you are a snake and a sneak.  You change the matter, words, phrases meaning and to suit your own agenda.  You want to lead someone to your devious and diabolical conclusions.  It does not work with me.

 

This is what you said in your post:

 

This is the perfect Pyramid scheme / Ponzi scheme on operation if you understand how that works.

A quick summary is that a PS will pay a return to shareholders in a form of a divi or interest withstanding it has no free cash flow or profits. This PS has been doing it for years. Even in the crash of 2007 if you go and see , one of the few companies to maintain dividends. I was actually supriised then too.. but never took the bait!”

 

These are your exact words.  This is couched in the preemptory language.  You have not stated that “Steinhoff resembles a Ponzi/pyramid scheme” or even that “Steinhoff is like a Ponzi/pyramid scheme.

 

By stating that Steinhoff is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme in a preemptory statement, you are claiming this as if it were a matter of fact or is indeed the truth.

 

This is a blatant lie and a falsehood that if you were not hiding behind the anonymity of this platform, I would have sued you on behalf of Steinhoff.

 

If you believe that Steinhoff is a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, please go and report it to the police and FSB and advise us of the case reference number.  It is your duty to report such matters to the authorities. 

 

But you won’t would you.  Because you are a farce, a very small fish who is filled with a sense of self-importance and bristles when someone calls you bluff.

 

Don’t make the mistake of taking on an opponent who is infinitely more qualified than you are about Steinhoff.  Read into this statement whatever you will.

 

all talk...still evading what i asked and posted about your comment...typical...

 

see what i wrote :

 

it was a PS until captain jumped ship... ( but i will continue to refer to it as a PS)

 

You are a real joke.....Get lost!! you post incorrect opinion as fact..when i correct you change the whole argument...

 

 

3rd time  :

 

So the harvard failure is saying :

 

1.PS cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity?

2. A listed entity cannot be a pyramid scheme?

3.Precondition of a Ps is that it must be non existent?

 

 

Forget SNH for a moment..thats a separate debate..

 

Im questioning the above 3 points posted as fact by the Guru...and im saying  its not a fact but an incorrect opinion...

 

 

 

open em blinkers please......


Edited by Polly, Yesterday, 02:47 PM.

  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#14 Captainfrom82

Captainfrom82

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:36 PM

The only stupid people r the pumpers who dont even know or understand what the argument is about...

 

 

Here let me post the gurus post again..

 

 

 

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes by the fact that they are illegal, cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity or a Special Purpose Vehicle.  Steinhoff on the other hand is a listed company, and is therefore a legal entity.  A Ponzi scheme even has a special condition in that it must be non-existent.  

 

So the harvard failure is saying :

 

1.PS cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity?

2. A listed entity cannot be a pyramid scheme?

3.Precondition of a Ps is that it must be non existent?

 

 

Forget SNH for a moment..thats a separate debate..

 

Im questioning the above 3 points posted as fact by the Guru...and im saying  its not a fact but an incorrect opinion...

 

Many a listed company including snh got listed like any other public company....everything clean..and over time they became PS.. Annals of history proves this...

 

Now whos stupid huh????

 

 

SNH qualifies as PS in my opinion..... Its not a fact but an opinion and will still call it a PS!!!! and there is enough proof out there to say it was a PS until captain jumped ship...

 

All right then…if a fight is what you are looking for buddy, here goes.

 

Polly, you are a snake and a sneak.  You change the matter, words, phrases meaning and to suit your own agenda.  You want to lead someone to your devious and diabolical conclusions.  It does not work with me.

 

This is what you said in your post:

 

This is the perfect Pyramid scheme / Ponzi scheme on operation if you understand how that works.

A quick summary is that a PS will pay a return to shareholders in a form of a divi or interest withstanding it has no free cash flow or profits. This PS has been doing it for years. Even in the crash of 2007 if you go and see , one of the few companies to maintain dividends. I was actually supriised then too.. but never took the bait!”

 

These are your exact words.  This is couched in the preemptory language.  You have not stated that “Steinhoff resembles a Ponzi/pyramid scheme” or even that “Steinhoff is like a Ponzi/pyramid scheme.

 

By stating that Steinhoff is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme in a preemptory statement, you are claiming this as if it were a matter of fact or is indeed the truth.

 

This is a blatant lie and a falsehood that if you were not hiding behind the anonymity of this platform, I would have sued you on behalf of Steinhoff.

 

If you believe that Steinhoff is a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, please go and report it to the police and FSB and advise us of the case reference number.  It is your duty to report such matters to the authorities. 

 

But you won’t would you.  Because you are a farce, a very small fish who is filled with a sense of self-importance and bristles when someone calls you bluff.

 

Don’t make the mistake of taking on an opponent who is infinitely more qualified than you are about Steinhoff.  Read into this statement whatever you will.


  • 0

#15 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:33 PM

"

...

PwC and EY told a panel of British lawmakers they would mirror a change already underway at another Big Four firm, KPMG, in a bid to end a “perception” of conflict between selling audit and consulting work to the same customer.

Consulting is better paid than audit work, raising concerns that an accountant won’t challenge a company’s management properly regarding an audit for fear of losing more lucrative advisory work.

...

“We will do a ban on anything for audit clients other than audit related services,” Kevin Ellis, chairman and senior partner of PwC UK told parliament’s business committee.

...

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has proposed measures to inject more choice in the audit market where the Big Four check the books of most big listed companies.

...

Lawmakers are looking at how it could ensure that reforms being proposed by the CMA and plans to replace the sector’s regulator will be implemented.

...

"

 


  • 0

#16 Polly

Polly

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:53 PM

 

I get the technical analysis(true definition) on Ponzi/Pyramid, but tend to agree with Polly on the principle.

 

MJ and Co continued to attract capital from all over the place(CW/banks/ECB/etc.), kept on paying dividends to keep everyone happy and attract more capital. Buying overvalued assets and crooking the books to keep everyone fooled. Simple as that

 

 

simple explanation..... can go into much detail but not worth the effort!!  still in OZZ and its nealry 11pm here....


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#17 Polly

Polly

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:50 PM

Polly you like a dog holding on to a bone with the need to be always right.

The Captain is correct please go and do a research on the definition of PS.

I know you very well know he is correct you just trying to make a point that fraud is the same in which case it is not.

This PS or what you want to call was the biggest accounting heist to date in SA corporate and not a PS and the
saddest it is actually legal that's why no one was arrested for it.

The reality it was the frenzy of the Mr. Market that pumped up MJ and even though there were warning signs the smartest
analyst/investors ignored the signs and simply piled in the frenzy of more profits tomorrow.

The buying of MF was confirmation of this look and see if you find the hot shot fund managers complaining the price was
too high?

So as much you trying to insinuate a PS the reality greed was the main driver which made experts ignore true fundamentals.

Lets face it I recall hearing time and time again SNH financials are very complicated to understand. So how on earth could
these hot shot experts simply invest blindly.

 

 

So you persist with your belief that this is a ponzi or pyramid scheme?  That is amazing.  Stupidity really has no bounds.

 

 

The only stupid people r the pumpers who dont even know or understand what the argument is about...

 

 

Here let me post the gurus post again..

 

 

 

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes by the fact that they are illegal, cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity or a Special Purpose Vehicle.  Steinhoff on the other hand is a listed company, and is therefore a legal entity.  A Ponzi scheme even has a special condition in that it must be non-existent.  

 

So the harvard failure is saying :

 

1.PS cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity?

2. A listed entity cannot be a pyramid scheme?

3.Precondition of a Ps is that it must be non existent?

 

 

Forget SNH for a moment..thats a separate debate..

 

Im questioning the above 3 points posted as fact by the Guru...and im saying  its not a fact but an incorrect opinion...

 

Many a listed company including snh got listed like any other public company....everything clean..and over time they became PS.. Annals of history proves this...

 

Now whos stupid huh????

 

 

SNH qualifies as PS in my opinion..... Its not a fact but an opinion and will still call it a PS!!!! and there is enough proof out there to say it was a PS until captain jumped ship...


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#18 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:12 PM

Polly you like a dog holding on to a bone with the need to be always right.

The Captain is correct please go and do a research on the definition of PS.

I know you very well know he is correct you just trying to make a point that fraud is the same in which case it is not.

This PS or what you want to call was the biggest accounting heist to date in SA corporate and not a PS and the
saddest it is actually legal that's why no one was arrested for it.

The reality it was the frenzy of the Mr. Market that pumped up MJ and even though there were warning signs the smartest
analyst/investors ignored the signs and simply piled in the frenzy of more profits tomorrow.

The buying of MF was confirmation of this look and see if you find the hot shot fund managers complaining the price was
too high?

So as much you trying to insinuate a PS the reality greed was the main driver which made experts ignore true fundamentals.

Lets face it I recall hearing time and time again SNH financials are very complicated to understand. So how on earth could
these hot shot experts simply invest blindly.


Not to mention the greed to get cash out of SA!!!
  • 0

#19 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:10 PM

Polly you like a dog holding on to a bone with the need to be always right.

The Captain is correct please go and do a research on the definition of PS.

I know you very well know he is correct you just trying to make a point that fraud is the same in which case it is not.

This PS or what you want to call was the biggest accounting heist to date in SA corporate and not a PS and the
saddest it is actually legal that's why no one was arrested for it.

The reality it was the frenzy of the Mr. Market that pumped up MJ and even though there were warning signs the smartest
analyst/investors ignored the signs and simply piled in the frenzy of more profits tomorrow.

The buying of MF was confirmation of this look and see if you find the hot shot fund managers complaining the price was
too high?

So as much you trying to insinuate a PS the reality greed was the main driver which made experts ignore true fundamentals.

Lets face it I recall hearing time and time again SNH financials are very complicated to understand. So how on earth could
these hot shot experts simply invest blindly.
  • 0

#20 Captainfrom82

Captainfrom82

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:53 PM

See how you backed off cos you know you are wrong. 

 

 Im referring to your post as follows:

 

 

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes by the fact that they are illegal, cannot be incorporated into a juristic entity or a Special Purpose Vehicle.  Steinhoff on the other hand is a listed company, and is therefore a legal entity.  A Ponzi scheme even has a special condition in that it must be non-existent.  

 

New time dont post Opinions as Facts...You continue like a policeman of this thread saying that.... so pure hypocritical of you to post above as fact.

 

And your opinion is clearly incorrect. Go do some research of your own. I am not here to spoon feed any so called Guru!!

 

 

BTW im Chinese... so what does this have to do with this argument? 

 

So you persist with your belief that this is a ponzi or pyramid scheme?  That is amazing.  Stupidity really has no bounds.


  • 0





Sponsored by Sharenet and VPSNine Linux VPS Hosting