New Sec Filing

[Donnyboy]

Well, Looks like my guess of a February IPO is looking good.

I agree it will take longer than the standard NASDAQ timeframe.

 

[Donnyboy]

non refundable and commitment to purchase for $7000 will in my opinion be considered a down payment.

In the fine print it says this:

"This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and does not lock in pricing, a production slot, or an estimated delivery date. You are under no obligation to purchase a vehicle from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a vehicle."

It says that and a lot more. That's why the lawsuit against Elio for not delivering a car was thrown out.

 

[Watashiwah]

I fully agree that the NON refundable commitments (deposits? Investments?) were always speculative, but I wonder where the ‘considerstion’ for them to be contractually ‘kept’ by EM is. Is the ‘consideration’ a ‘place in line?’ If so, it’s then a deposit, no? EM first wanted to say to Louisiana that they weren’t ‘manufacturing’ vehicles, therefore a ‘fine’ for manufacturing isn’t fair, but then what does the ‘deposit’ go towards? Now EM, brilliantly, isn’t taking that tack, but now saying the fine will put them out of business and ‘over punishes’ them.

I think that Small Claims ‘action’ should have failed, as it did, and EM probably will and should prevail on keeping MOST of the early NON refundable deposits, but it remains to be seen, IF Elio Motors is ultimately unsuccessful (let’s hope not!) if there was a period where EM was taking in reservations but could have, and should have, known that success was hopeless. Everyone will have an opinion and of course one cannot ‘prove a negative’ event, but the ‘finder of fact’ will weigh many things (if no damning internal communication pops up) to determine if there was a compelling or known point. Things like ‘where did the money actually go ?’ will certainly be a big factor.

 

[NSTG8R]

I fully agree that the NON refundable commitments (deposits? Investments?) were always speculative, but I wonder where the ‘considerstion’ for them to be contractually ‘kept’ by EM is. Is the ‘consideration’ a ‘place in line?’ If so, it’s then a deposit, no? EM first wanted to say to Louisiana that they weren’t ‘manufacturing’ vehicles, therefore a ‘fine’ for manufacturing isn’t fair, but then what does the ‘deposit’ go towards? Now EM, brilliantly, isn’t taking that tack, but now saying the fine will put them out of business and ‘over punishes’ them.

I think that Small Claims ‘action’ should have failed, as it did, and EM probably will and should prevail on keeping MOST of the early NON refundable deposits, but it remains to be seen, IF Elio Motors is ultimately unsuccessful (let’s hope not!) if there was a period where EM was taking in reservations but could have, and should have, known that success was hopeless. Everyone will have an opinion and of course one cannot ‘prove a negative’ event, but the ‘finder of fact’ will weigh many things (if no damning internal communication pops up) to determine if there was a compelling or known point. Things like ‘where did the money actually go ?’ will certainly be a big factor.

Intentional apostrophe abuse! 10 yards! Automatic first down!

 

[LillyMayPatterson #1685 & #5648]

BAM ! Explanation about yesterday. It is happening.

 

[Samalross]

In the fine print it says this:

"This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and does not lock in pricing, a production slot, or an estimated delivery date. You are under no obligation to purchase a vehicle from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a vehicle."

It says that and a lot more. That's why the lawsuit against Elio for not delivering a car was thrown out.

That does not apply for the reservation holders that committed to lock in at $7000. They gave a spot in line, cost, and gave an estimate of starting production in 2017. The fine print would not apply in that situation seeing that they did not follow their own fine print. Elio's only hope would be to try to throw out the law.

 

[Neal]

BAM ! Explanation about yesterday. It is happening.

My work blocked the attachment. What is it? Sounds like good news.

 

[Travelbuzz1]

In the fine print it says this:

"This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and does not lock in pricing, a production slot, or an estimated delivery date. You are under no obligation to purchase a vehicle from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a vehicle."

It says that and a lot more. That's why the lawsuit against Elio for not delivering a car was thrown out.

I just used my ignore button on a kill joy and it feels great.

 

[Johnny Acree]

It was a town hall meeting about the OTC market working with Reg A and how they can be a stepping stone to the larger exchanges. They mentioned Elio saying they were the first to go through the process. They did not say any thing about Elio's currant application to be listed on NASDAQ

 

[Rickb]

My take on the OTC Markets Group video interview REG A+ comments is that the OTC Market is exactly where EM should be. Elio Motors should not waste time and money (they don't have?) attempting to graduate to another exchange (NASDAQ) that comes with more regulation and higher costs until they have a product to sell providing the revenue required to be on and more importantly STAY ON the NASDAQ exchange.

Elio Motors own words: