HarmedFamily.com A site for over 3.8 Million AMC shareholders who have been robbed of the AMC Entertainment Board they saved and the Justice System. This is the Rape Of Justice
Email Us1. Write to your Congress: Please, download the Congress draft letter and customize it adding your own story and pain you have suffered in the AMC Rape of Justice.
2. Please reach out to us with your suggestions or information on how you can help our AMC community of 3.8 million retail investors seek justice through legal avenues for any laws that may have been violated the AMC retail investors.
3. If you're able to write or edit articles discussing the AMC Retail investors injustice that has impacted families across multiple countries, We'd appreciate it if you could contact us via email.
4. Upon issuance of the final Order by the Delaware Chancery Court, the law firm representing M. Rose Izzo is expected to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
5. We are also exploring additional avenues for redress, such as small groups to file individual lawsuits to recover financial damages. If you have any suggestions in this regard, please feel free to share them with us.
6. To aid in the potential formation of state-based joint cases, kindly send us an email detailing the number of shares you have continuously owned, a long with the dates of ownership whether you have sold them or still hold them. Also, please include your state of residence, as this information could prove beneficial if a group within a particular state wishes to file a joint case.
1. Retail owners of AMC, defined as those who were unaware of Project Popcorn and have held their shares for an extended period, are the legitimate owners of the company. If these retail owners collectively hold 519 million shares by a specified date, they own the entire company. Any additional shares should be proportionally divided among this group for fair ownership representation.
2. Should the Board or those involved in Project Popcorn manipulate financial statements or incur debts under false pretenses to justify bankruptcy, they are solely liable for those debts. Only stakeholders who were not economically antagonistic towards the company are entitled to loan repayment.
3. Investors who bought AMC common shares after most of the Project Popcorn damage should be reimbursed by those responsible for the overselling of shares. This includes the Board, any individuals in the know about Project Popcorn, and those who participated in the overselling.
3. Entities with economic antagonism towards retail investors, who were the legitimate owners of AMC before Project Popcorn, can negotiate settlements. They can buy back shares from retail investors at an agreed-upon price, at least matching the highest value of $72 per share. This applies whether or not the retail investor was forced to sell their shares post-March 2023 or after the controversial 'Mirror Vote'.
Retail investors began acquiring AMC shares in 2020, taking on a percentage of the company's ownership in the form of common stock. They observed that short sellers, as well as debt holders, were breaching their fiduciary duties to AMC by devaluing its shares and overall market value. Instead of divesting their holdings, retail investors doubled down and purchased an even larger share of AMC's common stock.
However, AMC's management seemed to collaborate with parties that had an interest in weakening the stock's value. Consequently, the Board of Directors released all of the company's reserved common stock into the market. Retail investors responded positively and bought all the newly-released shares. Meanwhile, debt holders and short sellers began to flood the market with an excessive amount of shares, without first borrowing or purchasing a single available share for shorting. This led to a significant increase in the daily 'failed-to-deliver' shares. Despite these challenges, retail investors continued to accumulate both the common and additional shares that were sold to them.
On multiple occasions, AMC s CEO stated that retail investors owned 95% of the company. However, many retail investors believe they own far more than that percentage, as they have been legally and in good faith purchasing and continuing to purchase shares. Suspicion arose when the board sold off the company's entire reserve of shares, along with their personal shares, at high prices capitalizing on retail investors' enthusiasm to buy at any cost.
Due to these actions, retail investors started demanding an accurate share count to properly determine the company's ownership structure. They wanted to curtail the activities of predatory short sellers and debt holders who might be selling additional unauthorized shares. Despite these concerns, the board declined to comply, choosing instead to engage in what is known as 'Project Popcorn.'
Retail investors view 'Project Popcorn' as a nefarious scheme that violates multiple ethical and legal standards. They accuse the board of breaching fiduciary duties and allege that the project favors parties with economic antagonism, facilitates insider trading, and plans to defraud the 3.8 million individual investors out of their savings, which, for many, constitute a significant portion of their financial reserves.
The essence of 'Project Popcorn' involves participating entities allegedly selling an unlimited number of company shares over the next two years. They then plan to convert 50 million dividend-issued shares into 5 billion shares, effectively diluting the total number of legally issued common shares by a factor of 10. Various illicit methods would then be used to secure a majority vote, thereby wresting control of the company from retail investors and draining their financial resources. The excess shares sold by debt holders would subsequently be concealed. Evidence for this scheme purportedly exists in internal emails between the board and Citi, which holds the majority of AMC's debt.
Moreover, despite retail investors' efforts to promote and purchase the company's products, as well as propose alternative methods for capital raising, the board is accused of undermining the company's financial strength. They are alleged to have taken on additional debt primarily arranged by Citi. Citi, meanwhile, is alleged to have been short-selling the company's shares and signaling a low target share price of $1.5, even as AMC shares had reached highs of $72.
Imagine a company that owns a high-rise apartment complex with 500 million apartments. Ownership of the complex is determined by dividing these apartments into shares, each with a registered deed. In this scenario, there are over 3.8 million retail investors who, according to a 2021 survey involving a sample size of 71 million votes, collectively own 72 million shares�an average of about 1,014 shares per retail investor. Simple arithmetic suggests that these retail investors could, on average, hold over 4 billion shares in a company that is legally supposed to have only 519 million shares.
In essence, the board and their lenders appear to have sold more shares than the company actually has, essentially selling the same 'apartment' multiple times. Retail investors bought these shares in good faith, but it is alleged that the board colluded with bad actors to implement a scheme called 'Project Popcorn' to essentially rob retail investors of their ownership. Despite having bought shares at all price points offered, retail investors now find themselves in a precarious situation.
Allegedly, the board and other involved parties used financial maneuvers like reverse splits and conversions to obscure the over-issuance of shares. The goal appears to be to reclaim control of the company and leave retail investors holding worthless shares, while those who orchestrated this alleged scheme continue to hold both the debt and the valuable shares. Retail investors, therefore, are left fighting to recover ownership of a company they believe they already own.
1. The Board, in collusion with external actors, failed their fiduciary duties. Lenders and others associated with them were complicit in this deception aimed at company owners.
2. Without the consent of retail owners, the Board unilaterally introduced a so-called "Free Dividend APE", amounting to ten times the entire float (5 Billion APE shares), despite lacking ownership of said float.
3. This "Free Dividend APE" was portrayed as a means to achieve accurate share counts, a promise that went unfulfilled.
4. Funding for the APE dividend came directly from the retail investors, effectively costing them $6.95 per share, leading to a drastic price drop for AMC.
5. Intentionally keeping the APE value lower than AMC common share ensured retail investors didn�t double their Common Sharesvoting power.
6. Instead of retail investors, the Board and their associates continued selling shares, notably to Antara Hedge Fund.
7. The Board then ensured Antara would vote in favor of converting APE to AMC common shares.
8. "Project Popcorn" centralized all APE shares, instituting "Mirror voting", where non-voted shares were automatically considered as a "Yes" vote.
9. Share prices for both AMC and APE were artificially controlled, not driven by traditional market mechanisms.
10. As a strategic move, the Board aimed to depress APE share prices below $1, enhancing Antara's influence over the float.
11. Retail investors suffered massive losses due to the manipulative tactics of "Project Popcorn", witnessing their investments decrease by over 80%.
12. As APE prices plummeted and AMC's value decreased, Antara capitalized by acquiring a vast number of shares.
13. Retail investors bore the brunt of these manipulations. Their investments soared from a modest company valuation to an astonishing $37,440,000,000.
14. "Project Popcorn" drained retail investors of their rightfully-acquired investments. The retail community is the genuine owner of AMC.
15. Two lawsuits, seemingly part of the larger scheme, sought to absolve the Board of any wrongdoing. The details of these suits can be researched further at the Delaware Chancery Court
Delaware Chancery Court - AMC Stockholder Litigation16. Allegations of irregularities surround key players like Alleghany and Franchi, with concerns raised about their motivations and affiliations.
17. Despite claims that the vote for the merger passed, it is evident that this was not supported by the Common Stock.
18. Official documents were rapidly filed, paving the way for the merger to occur, despite legal challenges.
19. Post-merger, the combined value of APE and AMC stocks was heavily diluted, much to the detriment of retail investors. In contrast, when legal actions temporarily stalled proceedings, AMCs stock value had shown improvement.
20. Currently, for retail investors to break even or profit from their initial investments, AMC's stock would need to witness an almost improbable surge.