Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If CCEL Fails does that Mean More Samples for the Competition! Or could they be bought at an AUCTION PRICE!
I thought a share Repurchasing program was supposed to SPARK Investors to Buy Shares not to run away from Buying them. Don't Worry CCEL is going to Buy, to keep the Share price elavated .Better Hope Choi doesn't Lose his way with Changing Management it could get UGLY!ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Wow that Explains why CCEL Corporate shows up on CBAI pages. ROTFLMFAO ! Come on Poor Brothers We want an explaination ? Is it the same ones you possibly hired for the attacks on Mercedes .
Is it that David Portnoys Possible Hiring of posters to destroy Mercedes Waltons Reputation. This is What Mercedes should have done to thwart her potential threat,
Your client is a public company. You receive a phone call about a message posted to an Internet message board hosted by Yahoo!, Raging Bull, Silicon Investor or some other message-board host concerning your client. Your client may have learned of the message through its own monitoring of message boards or through one of a growing number of companies that monitors Web sites and message boards for a fee.
The message contains confidential, false or defamatory information. Your client wants this stopped — and for a good reason. Once these messages are posted on a message board, the number of like messages inevitably multiplies within days, if not hours.
A quick evaluation of your options reveals that message-board hosts and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are typically not liable for the content of messages posted on a message board. You do not know whom else to sue because the posters on the message boards use aliases to hide their true identities. Although some of the information appears as if it only could have come from a handful of people, such as employees in a certain department, you do not know with certainty who within that group may have posted the message.
You need not throw up your hands in frustration and tell your client that he must stoically suffer while the posters remain protected by their anonymity. Instead, your client does have legal redress — filing a John Doe suit, compelling discovery from the message-board host, identifying the wrongdoers and taking appropriate legal action against the proper parties.
Recently, more and more public companies are resorting to litigation to put an end to these postings. Indeed, companies like Raytheon Co., Stone & Webster, Lilly Industries, Total Renal Care, Callaway Golf Co., ITEX Corp. and Flooring America Inc. have followed this approach to stop this type of tortious conduct. [Grant & Eisenhofer was counsel for Flooring America in its litigation, first against 24 John Doe defendants, and subsequently against certain named competitors, relating to the anonymous posting of disparaging messages on a Yahoo! Finance message board.]
In Callaway Golf, an individual (later discovered to be a competitor), admitted using 27 different aliases to post 163 messages in which he disparaged the company, encouraged shareholders to sell their shares in the company and posed as a store owner to disparage the Callaway Golf Co.’s products. See Ronald Grover, "The perils of teeing off online," Business Week, March 13, 2000.
In Raytheon Co., anonymous posters allegedly disclosed bid proposals, pending contract awards and inside financial information, including projected profits and divestitures. Anonymous posters in Stone & Webster posted many messages criticizing the company and its executives. In one case, a poster described an alleged confidential memorandum regarding problems the company was supposedly experiencing in Asia and hinted that the CEO’s job was on the line.
It is important to understand how Internet transmissions occur. Assigned to each Internet Web site, such as a message board, is an Internet Protocol (IP) address — a numeric address consisting of four sets of numbers separated by periods. All communications between computers on the Internet are through these discrete IP addresses unique to each computer. When a computer user transmits data, the transmission includes the IP address of the computer used in the transmission. These addresses are the individual subscriber’s access address to the Internet.
Individuals get into the Internet in a variety of ways, including through commercial "online services" such as America Online (AOL) and PSINet. These services offer access to their own computer networks and organizational software allowing subscribers to interconnect easily with computer networks other than those proprietary to the "online services." These commercial online services, which typically furnish their customers with e-mail addresses as well, are the ISPs.
The challenge in Internet litigation is to connect the dots from the Internet message board to the IP address to the ISP to the offending message poster. Although IP addresses are unique to each computer, ISPs assign those addresses when a user logs onto the Net. A person who logs on and off five times in one day, for example, will have gained access to the Internet from five different IP addresses, albeit through the same ISP. Although the block of IP addresses assigned to an ISP remains static, the actual address assigned to an individual user changes. The ability to identify an offending poster is essential to obtain relief.
The first step, obviously, is the complaint. Four questions need to be addressed in the filing:
• where to sue;
• when to sue;
• what claims; and
• whom to sue.
Where to sue:
There are several choices. You do not know which jurisdiction the posters live in since you do not know their identities. However, until you identify and locate the posters, possible venues may include your client’s principal place of business, the jurisdiction where the message-board host is located or your client’s state of incorporation.
General jurisdiction may be established over a party, regardless of the connection between the underlying controversy and the forum state if that party’s contacts with the state are sufficiently "significant" or "systematic and continuous." Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984).
Specific jurisdiction allows a court to assert jurisdiction only over claims related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Venues may include the jurisdiction where the poster resides or your client’s principal place of business. Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984)(establishing "effects test" that allows exercise of jurisdiction in the forum where tortious harm directed); Edias Software Int’l LLC v. Basis Int’l Ltd. , 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996)(exercising jurisdiction where the plaintiff’s principal place of business is located on the grounds that the plaintiff felt the economic effects of defendant’s defamatory postings in that forum).
Unless your case is based on a federal question, such as securities fraud, you may have to bring your case in state court. Presumably, because the initial complaint will only name John Doe defendants, you would not have a good-faith basis for asserting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
When to sue:
The answer is: Quickly. The immediate challenge is the process of identifying the proper names behind the posters’ aliases. This process must be started quickly because the information needed to identify the posters is retained by the ISPs a very short period of time — in some cases, just a few days. Your success in identifying anonymous posters will turn on the age of the messages and the sophistication of the poster. Many of these cases are unsuccessful because the ISPs have destroyed the relevant information, consistent with their record-keeping practices, long before they receive your subpoena.
What claims:
Several potential causes of action are possible. These include:
• Defamation — Defamation is an "intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name." Black’s Law Dictionary 417 (6th ed. 1990). Corporations have standing to assert claims for defamation based on false statements of fact that damage the company’s reputation or good name.
• Breach of fiduciary duty — it will typically be a breach of an employee’s fiduciary duty to act in the company’s best interest if the employee discloses confidential information. It may also be a breach if the employee criticizes the company.
• Tortious interference with business and contractual relations — based on the effect the messages have on your client’s relationships with its employees and customers.
• Misappropriation of trade secrets — typically asserted against a current or former employee.
• Misappropriation of identity — arises when a poster uses the proper name of another as an alias. Typically, the misappropriated identity is that of a company executive or senior official.
• Breach of contract — these claims are most commonly found in situations involving current or former employees, franchisees, distributors or dealers. Many companies now require employees to sign and agree to abide by corporate codes of conduct and electronic communications policies, violations of which constitute breach of contract.
• Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) — disparaging a company in the course of one’s own business is impermissible under most state UPTPA’s. The typical UDTPA statute provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs and treble damages.
• Securities fraud — possibly the most difficult and untested theory to prove. Stock message boards are an easy medium through which shareholders, stock promoters and stock manipulators may disseminate materially false and misleading information or material nonpublic information to induce a rise or decline in the price of a stock.
(The Internet message-board complaint filed in Raytheon Co. v. John Does 1-21, a/k/a "AT_THE_EDGE," et al., Mass. Super. Ct. No. 99-816, is available online at http://www.intelico.com/johndoe1.htm.) In each case, plaintiffs should seek injunctive relief in addition to damages.
Whom to sue:
The first issue here is whom you cannot sue. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. ?230(c)(1), ISPs are immune from liability for information originating with a third-party user of the service, unless it developed or created the information.
The courts first interpreted the CDA in Zeran v. America Online, 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998). In Zeran, an unidentified person posted a message on an AOL bulletin board advertising T-shirts featuring offensive and vulgar slogans glorifying the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in which 168 people were killed.
The person who posted this message instructed those interested in purchasing a T-shirt to call the plaintiff, whose phone number appeared in the message, resulting in callers directing a large number of angry messages and several death threats toward the plaintiff. After the plaintiff complained to AOL about the message, AOL agreed to remove the posting, but refused to post a retraction.
Over the next several days, more messages were posted on AOL’s bulletin board, and after the threatening phone calls intensified, the plaintiff repeatedly called AOL to complain and ask for the removal of the posting. The plaintiff sued AOL claiming that it unreasonably delayed the removal of the defamatory messages posted on its bulletin board. The trial court granted AOL’s motion for summary judgment holding that Section 230 of the CDA creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.
The D.C. Circuit again recognized the broad immunity provided by the CDA in Blumenthal v. Drudge , 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.C. 1998). Sidney Blumenthal, a White House lawyer, sued Matt Drudge, a gossip columnist, and AOL after AOL posted an article by Drudge accusing Blumenthal of committing spousal abuse. The plaintiff named AOL as a defendant because it published the article, and had rights under a license agreement between Drudge and AOL to edit Drudge’s articles as it deemed necessary. The plaintiff asserted that AOL’s active role as an editor subjected it to liability.
The court rejected Blumenthal’s argument and granted AOL summary judgment because Drudge wrote the offensive story without any substantive or editorial suggestions from AOL. The court conceded that an ISP may be liable under the CDA if the ISP developed or created the published information, or if it were jointly responsible for the information (such as the relationship between a lyricist and a composer).
The court in Blumenthal noted: "In recognition of the speed with which information may be disseminated and the near impossibility of regulating information content, Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others."
Your claims against the posters must be brought as "John Doe" claims because their identities will not be known. Once you determine the proper names of the posters, you should amend the complaint accordingly. The identity of the poster may reveal other parties who may be named in the amended complaint. For instance, the poster may be a principal or employee of your client’s competitor who makes disparaging comments about your client company in an effort to promote his or her own company. Such conduct may give rise to a claim against that company and the individual poster under a theory of vicarious liability.
Another issue is how you justify suing an unknown John Doe, but still claim that person is an employee of your company. Some may question why you should worry about justifying your actions since the posters, sued only as John Does, will not be moving to dismiss the claim. However, as an officer of the court, you are required to bring and prosecute all claims in good faith. If that is not sufficient motivation to play it straight, remember that you may at some point have to answer these questions from a judge who will not look kindly to your having abused the authority of the court to wrongfully sue someone.
Getting back to the first issue, you must have a good-faith basis that the poster is an employee or an ex-employee disclosing confidential information or possibly a third party disclosing confidential information that the third party could only have obtained from an employee breaching fiduciary duty either because of the message or the information included in the message.
Even if the poster is not an employee, the poster may be aiding and abetting an employee’s breach of fiduciary duty by disclosing the confidential information. Walck v. American Stock Exchange Inc., 687 F.2d 778, 791 (3d Cir. 1982)(citing elements of a claim for common law aiding and abetting as: (1) the existence of an independent wrong; (2) aider or abettor know of that wrong’s existence; and (3) substantial assistance given in effecting that wrong).
Discovery is the heart of the John Doe posting case. The issues that arise at this stage of the litigation are several. First, are there any discovery rules that may impose limitations on your ability to issue subpoenas to the message-board host? Second, is the lawsuit too late — is the information that you need to proceed even available? Third, what objections or resistance will you receive from the ISPs? Finally, how do you protect your client’s interests?
Some states may have discovery rules similar to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) requiring that counsel meet and confer with the opposing party prior to starting any discovery. But how do you confer with counsel for John Doe? Can you issue a subpoena without conferring with unknown opposing counsel? As is always true with discovery, know the rules. If you are in federal court, or in a state with a "meet and confer" requirement, move the court for an exemption from the statutory requirement. As time is of the essence, counsel should seek expedited consideration of the motion.
Once counsel is confident that a subpoena may be issued, counsel should do so expeditiously to the host of the message board. The subpoena should call for production of information sufficient to identify the parties posting as the "John Does," including the ISPs through which each John Doe posted each message, as well as the IP address from which each message posted. In some cases, the message-board host may have the poster’s e-mail address, from which one may determine the poster’s identity. In rarer cases, the host may have the poster’s proper name.
Although lawyers often are reluctant to provide too much information, the opposite is true in "John Doe" message-board discovery. The more information that you provide to the company hosting the message board, the better the chance of obtaining timely and responsive information. Message-board hosts, such as Yahoo!, may require a copy of the complaint before issuing any information. Depending on the complexity of the subpoena, message-board hosts may require up to 20 days to provide a response.
Any information that you obtain, even if it is not detail concerning the poster, may be sufficient to assist with or expedite the identification process (such as date of birth and city of residence may be sufficient for a human resources department to identify a former or current employee). At the least, the message-board host will provide you with enough information to identify which ISP (or in some cases, multiple ISPs) the poster used to access the Internet message board. As you learn their identities, a second round of subpoenas should be issued subsequently to those ISPs.
Each ISP likely will respond differently to the subpoena. At opposite ends of the spectrum are those that will be helpful and those that may require you to file a motion to compel the production of responsive documents. Counsel always should anticipate an objection to the subpoena in the form of a motion for a protective order or a motion to quash. Whatever happens, know that the ISPs are receiving many subpoenas daily, and yours likely will just enter the queue, similar to a subpoena to a telephone company. The most important point is, once you have served the subpoena and begun communicating with a representative of the ISP, ask that they preserve evidence in the event of a dispute concerning the subpoena.
Some ISPs may advise their customers about the subpoena and provide them with enough information to oppose the subpoena. In fact, should you receive a motion to quash, it likely will come from the customer, not the ISP. Because courts are vigilant about protecting the rights of an unrepresented party, counsel should always be able to explain how each message complained of is actionable. In some cases, the ISP also may require a similar explanation before it agrees to release any information.
Yahoo!’s practice of disclosing the identify of anonymous posters without giving the poster advance notice is being challenged in a lawsuit, Doe a/k/a Aquacool 2000 v. Yahoo! Inc. , filed in a California federal court in May of this year. In that case, the plaintiff, who was sued for defamation after making derogatory remarks about managers at the company he worked for on a Yahoo! message board, alleges that the disclosure of his name violated his privacy rights under the state and U.S. constitutions.
Defenses likely to be raised by a poster include relevance, privacy, freedom of speech and notice. If counsel can articulate the basis for asserting claims against a poster, courts are usually reluctant to quash a subpoena. Relevance has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.
Privacy and freedom of speech have become the most heated issues in opposition to a plaintiff’s subpoena of an ISP. Proponents of absolute anonymity on the Internet argue that posters have a right to use aliases when using the Internet and that anonymity promotes free speech.
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995), the Supreme Court called unconstitutional an Ohio ban on anonymous leaflets distributed in political campaigns. Proponents also often cite another Supreme Court opinion touting the potential virtues of the Internet: "From a publisher’s standpoint, it constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience or millions of readers, viewers, researchers and buyers. . . Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. A.C.L.U., 521 U.S. 844, 853 (1997).
Even so, courts have recognized that anonymity is not a license to ignore the law. Under the First Amendment, content-based restrictions on speech are generally prohibited. This does not mean, however, that all content-based restrictions are unconstitutional. There is no First Amendment protection for a poster committing tortious acts like fraud, defamation and misappropriation of trade secrets. Colson v. Groham, 174 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 1999).
However, privacy advocates claim that company lawsuits against posters are retaliatory efforts to quiet critics through intimidation. Some have suggested that there should be a very high threshold before a company is entitled to discovery of poster identities. The ACLU has argued a company should be required to virtually prove its case in order to obtain discovery.
Courts deciding these issues have not been entirely consistent. In February, an Ohio judge reportedly denied an anonymous poster’s motion to quash a subpoena finding the poster had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his agreement with an ISP. A similar ruling was issued in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Yahoo! and AOL were ordered to identify eight John Does who accused J. Erik Hvide, then CEO of Hvide Marine, of securities fraud. Recently, however, a Pittsburgh judge reportedly blocked a subpoena filed by a judge in her defamation suit resulting from the posting of allegedly false statements on a Web site that, in essence, accused the judge of violating state ethics codes.
The mere filing of the John Doe action will probably slow the postings. Some companies have hit home runs through these actions and discovered that the disgruntled posters were actually competitors posing as stockholders or employees. Companies may agree to dismiss litigation in exchange for stipulated cease-and-desist agreements, public retractions and apologies (usually on the same message board the poster used to post the actionable message), the payment of damages or the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. In some cases, the defendant may agree to the entry of a permanent restraining order prohibiting the posting of any message in the future that disparages or discloses confidential information.
Once the posters’ identities have been uncovered, your client can decide on further action. As so often occurs in litigation, the plaintiff must assess the benefit of pursuing the litigation and its inherent costs, against the potential return. How much can a company expect to collect in damages from a disgruntled former employee who has a part-time job? The answer to that question obviously calls for very different action than the situation associated with a business competitor posting disparaging remarks.
Many commentators have asserted that the Internet is equivalent to a business revolution and that it requires the corresponding development of revolutionary new legal theories to govern its use. For now, however, most courts are applying standard common law principles. Using those principles and standard civil-litigation techniques, it is possible to act swiftly to protect a client under Internet attack.
Fearing CBAI ? LMFAO 0.014 after a 1 for 100 RS
So why do you want them to fail ? Is it because they refused the competitions laughable attempted buyout or the failed CMEX deal everyone was told to STAY TUNED for only to find out the competitor never had the money to begin with ? Or could it be that with all CCEL's turmoil it still stays above $2.00 while its competitor with all those revenues and affiliates is at 0.014 after a 1 for 100 RS leaving the Captain to abandon ship ?
It's Fun to see CCEL's Corporate on CBAI's Page. Who's FEARING WHO ! Tracing says it all.
THE POOR BROTHERS HAD NO IDEA WHAT STEMS DID OR CAN DO ! What Fools !Who were they trying to KID.- When David Portnoy went from activist investor to chairman and co-chief executive officer of Cryo-Cell International Inc. , it was like going from the outside to the inside of a fishbowl.
It's very different when you are on the inside looking out than when you are on the outside looking in, he said.
Since winning a proxy fight for control on Aug. 31, Portnoy and his brother, Mark, co-CEO, have revamped the way Cryo-Cell (OTCQB: CCEL), a stem cell preservation company in Oldsmar, connects with customers and business partners, strengthening B2B relationships, as detailed in Friday's story in the Tampa Bay Business Journal.
Their own thinking also has undergone a transformation over the past six months.
"At first, we were just investors," said Mark Portnoy, recalling how he and his brother had watched the stock market from a very early age. But now that they are running Cryo-Cell and have become immersed in the science and medical potential of stem cells, "it feels good to do good," he said.
They've learned that stem cell transplants are known and accepted treatments for more than 80 diseases. They've come to appreciate the value of an initiative Cryo-Cell launched in 2007, to preserve menstrual stem cells which are being studied as potential treatments for diabetes, breast cancer, heart disease, stroke and autoimmune diseases. David Portnoy now sees Cryo-Cell as a company at the forefront of regenerative medicine.
They've still got some convincing to do for other investors. Cryo-Cell's stock price closed at $2.90 a share on Aug. 31, the day the results of the proxy fight were announced, and has since dropped to as low as $1.57 a share. The stock closed Thursday at $2.24.
Margie Manning is Quality and Content Editor of the Tampa Bay Business Journal. She also covers banking, finance and professional services.
OLDSMAR — Less than a year after waging a successful proxy fight at Cryo-Cell International Inc., co-CEOs David Portnoy and Mark Portnoy face a shareholder challenge similar to the one they mounted to win control of the company.
Ki Yong Choi, an entrepreneur and the largest individual owner of Cryo-Cell stock, has notified the company that he intends to nominate a slate of directors to replace the current board of directors.
Choi said he has seen no evidence of a business plan to improve Cryo-Cell (OTCQB: CCEL) in the 10 months since the Portnoys took the reins of the stem ...
Margie Manning is Quality and Content Editor of the Tampa Bay Business Journal. She also covers banking, finance and professional services.
Why do you wish CCEL to fail ?
BURN CCEL BURN ! Keep Burning that green !
So should I STAY TUNED ?
Juices is cash and CHOI SAID CCEL MANAGEMENT IS BLOWING THROUGH IT! ROTFLMFAO
Don't need juices when you have cash .
CCELS RUNNING OUT OF JUICES!
Living off their cash pile is better then living off juice's . CCEL $2.30 the company running on it own juice 0.014 after a 1 for 100 RS , kinda pathetic don't you think ? I mean a 1 for 100 RS and you wind up at 0.014 with the captain jumping ship .
CCEL CAN ONLY LIVE OF THERE CASH PILE FOR SO LONG. BYE BYE CCEL IF CHOI DOESNT GET HIS CHANCE TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT.BYE BYE CCEL
CCEL over $2.00 its competitor the 4th largest parking garage for cords under 2 cents after a 1 for 100 RS
"Based on only two quarters of results, the Company's performance appears to be deteriorating ."
"We take issue with the board's appointment of the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs. During last year's proxy campaign, the Portnoys didn't reveal that, in addition to serving on the board, they also intended to fill the CEO position themselves...We believe the appointment of the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs was a veiled and substantial overreach of power, which we don't think many investors signed up for."
Leading Independent Proxy Advisory Firm Glass, Lewis & Co. Recommends Stockholders Vote to Elect All of Mr. Choi's Director N...
Date :
07/05/2012 @ 8:30AM
Source :
PR Newswire
Stock :
Cryo-Cell Intl (CCEL)
Quote :
2.35 0.1 (4.44%) @ 3:57PM
<a href="http://us-ads.openx.net/w/1.0/rc?cs=4f5941efcdffb&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://us-ads.openx.net/w/1.0/ai?auid=160609&cs=4f5941efcdffb&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>
Leading Independent Proxy Advisory Firm Glass, Lewis & Co. Recommends Stockholders Vote to Elect All of Mr. Choi's Director N...
Print
Alert
Cryo-Cell Intl (OTCBB:CCEL)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Thursday 5 July 2012
Ki Yong Choi, the largest stockholder of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (OTCBB: CCEL) with approximately 19.6% of the company's outstanding shares, today announced that Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC ("Glass Lewis"), a leading proxy advisory firm, issued a report on July 2, 2012 recommending that Cryo-Cell stockholders vote on the GOLD proxy card for ALL six of Mr. Choi's Board nominees.
In response to the Glass Lewis report, Mr. Choi issued the following statement:
"We are extremely pleased that independent proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis, ISS and Egan-Jones support change at Cryo-Cell. We greatly appreciate the support from the independent proxy advisory firms, and from the stockholders who have already voted for my Board nominees on the GOLD proxy card," stated Ki Yong Choi. "If you have not voted yet, it is still not too late to vote or change your vote to make a difference. We are very committed to looking out for the best interests of ALL stockholders."
The independent Glass Lewis report sums up the problems at Cryo-Cell(1):
"In sum, we believe the current board and the Portnoy brothers specifically acted disingenuously by taking over the Company as co-CEOs after winning election to the board in last year's proxy contest. In our view, this has left them in over their heads, unqualified to be managing a life sciences company such as Cryo-Cell. Further, we believe the board has failed to protect shareholder interests by not conducting an adequate search for a qualified CEO, not seeking to nominate an independent chairman or lead director and approving compensation and share buy-back programs that do not appear to be in the best interests of shareholders."
"Under normal circumstances, we would be inclined to grant a new board more than 10 months to attempt to engineer improvements. But given the way in which the Portnoys became co-CEOs, their actions during this year's proxy contest and the manner in which they have managed Cryo-Cell thus far, we don't believe shareholders can afford to wait another year to re-evaluate the situation."
Glass Lewis highlights incorrect allegations made by the current Board and the co-CEOs:
"In a sign that the current board and co-CEOs may be acting disingenuously with shareholders, we note that the Company made a number of allegations in its June 25, 2012, proxy materials that it three days later publicly admitted were incorrect."
Glass Lewis believes the company's performance appears to be deteriorating under the Portnoy brothers' direction:
"Operationally, the new board and management have struggled to produce tangible results based on the two quarters reported thus far. In the first six months of the current board's tenure, revenues declined 5% and net earnings turned negative compared to the year-ago period."
"Based on only two quarters of results, the Company's performance appears to be deteriorating."
Glass Lewis believes the board's appointment of the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs was an overreach of power:
"We take issue with the board's appointment of the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs. During last year's proxy campaign, the Portnoys didn't reveal that, in addition to serving on the board, they also intended to fill the CEO position themselves...We believe the appointment of the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs was a veiled and substantial overreach of power, which we don't think many investors signed up for."
ALL THREE INDEPENDENT PROXY ADVISORY FIRMS SUPPORT CHANGE AT CRYO-CELL
WHO IS SUPPORTING THE PORTNOYS?
While Director nominees put forward by Mr. Choi have now received support from each of the INDEPENDENT proxy advisory firms, it seems the only public support the Portnoy brothers have received has been from the COO of Saneron CCEL. This, however, is an entangled relationship that includes Cryo-Cell holding a 34%(2) ownership interest in Saneron CCEL. It certainly does not seem that the current Board and co-CEOs can muster any independent validation of their actions.
VOTE THE GOLD PROXY CARD TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CRYO-CELL'S FUTURE
Stockholders are reminded that their vote is important, no matter how many shares they own. It is still not too late to vote or change your vote to make a difference.
Ki Yong Choi urges all stockholders to heed Glass Lewis & Co.'s recommendation for change on the Board of Cryo-Cell – it is important that Cryo-Cell stockholders return the GOLD proxy card and vote in favor of change in the boardroom. Cryo-Cell stockholders SHOULD NOT RETURN THE WHITE PROXY CARD or any other proxy card furnished to you on behalf of Cryo-Cell.
If any Cryo-Cell stockholder has already returned a proxy card, you have every right to change your vote by signing and returning a later-dated GOLD proxy card.
Investor Contact: Alliance Advisors LLC. Call Toll Free: (877) 777-2338; Banks and Brokers Call Collect: (973) 873-7700.
(1) Permission to use quotations was neither sought nor obtained.
(2) Cryo-Cell Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2011(page 11) - The Company owns an approximate 34% and 35% interest in Saneron CCEL Therapeutics, Inc. ("Saneron") as of November 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
SOURCE Ki Yong Choi
"Since August 2011, the date the Portnoy-led management team began running the company, aggregate and year-over-year quarterly revenues have declined, SG&A expenses have increased and total operating cash flow and normalized EBIT has decreased…"
Dont SEll Yet Choi the Vote isn't over Yet!
Nothing, is my guess.
So what is CCEL up to ! LMAO
THE MATH IS CORRECT.
(2,186,568/11,853,227) * 100 = 18.45%
(2,186,568/11,180,458) * 100 = 19.56%
HEY CCEL DO THE MATH ! As a result of a reduction in the number of the Issuer’s shares of Common Stock outstanding, the percentage ownership of the Reporting Persons’ Common Stock in the Issuer increased from 18.4% to 19.6%. On April 16, 2012 the Issuer reported 11,853,227 shares outstanding as of April 13, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the Issuer reported 11,180,458 shares outstanding as of June 18, 2012.
HEY CCEL DO THE MATH ! As a result of a reduction in the number of the Issuer’s shares of Common Stock outstanding, the percentage ownership of the Reporting Persons’ Common Stock in the Issuer increased from 18.4% to 19.6%. On April 16, 2012 the Issuer reported 11,853,227 shares outstanding as of April 13, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the Issuer reported 11,180,458 shares outstanding as of June 18, 2012.
PORTNOY LIES IN A FILING NO WAY ! Letter from the Chairman
1)
“Previously ousted Cryo-Cell Board member Ki Yong Choi and his brother-in-law are waging a proxy fight for control of your company. Both were voted out by shareholders in August 2011 as a result of frustration with the Board’s poor performance and a desire for a new business strategy.”
Mr. Choi and his brother-in-law were not voted out by shareholders in August 2011 as a result of frustration with the Board’s poor performance and a desire for a new business strategy. Rather, Mr. Choi and Mr. Cho, each of whom was a member of the Company’s Board of Directors until August 2011, were not re-nominated by the Company to serve as directors for the 2011 annual meeting after Mr. Choi submitted his own slate of nominees. Stockholders did not vote for or against Mr. Choi or his brother-in-law in the 2011 annual meeting election.
What are Choi’s Intentions?
2)
“On August 22, 2011, Mr. Choi submitted a 13D filing that stated his intention to amend the existing Cryo-Cell bylaws to enable any shareholder controlling at least 15% percent of the stock to remove any and all Board members without cause. Mr. Choi was well aware that his proposed change would apply only to him. Had he been successful, the net result would have enabled him to dismiss any Board members who did not support his viewpoint. This is in direct violation of Delaware law.”
On August 22, 2011, Mr. Choi did submit a 13D in which he proposed the following:
“the Board shall vote as directors to amend the bylaws of the Company to allow a stockholder holding fifteen percent (15%) or more of the outstanding capital stock of the Company to call a special election of stockholders for the election of directors and to allow removal of any or all directors without cause.”
The Company did not enact Mr. Choi’s proposed Bylaw amendment.
What are Choi’s Intentions?
3)
“On August 22, 2011, Mr. Choi submitted a 13D filing that stated his intention to amend the existing Cryo-Cell bylaws to enable any shareholder controlling at least 15% percent of the stock to remove any and all Board members without cause. Mr. Choi was well aware that his proposed change would apply only to him. Had he been successful, the net result would have enabled him to dismiss any Board members who did not support his viewpoint. This is in direct violation of Delaware law.”
The proposed bylaw amendment to allow a stockholder holding fifteen percent (15%) or more of the outstanding capital stock of the Company to call a special election of stockholders for the election of directors is not a violation of Delaware law. The proposed bylaw amendment to allow removal of directors without cause is not a violation of Delaware law.
What are Choi’s Intentions
4)
“ In his final days as a Cryo-Cell Board member, Mr. Choi voted to a wire transfer of $2.5 million into a trust for the then-current Board chairman.”
Mr. Choi voted to place $2.5 million in escrow to cover potential claims of Company officers which officers would become entitled to, subject to satisfaction of provisions in their employment agreements, upon the occurrence of a change of control of the Company.
Item 9.01.
Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(a)
Financial Statements of Businesses Acquired.
Not Applicable.
(b)
Pro Forma Financial Information
Not Applicable.
(c)
Shell Company Transactions
Not Applicable.
(d)
Exhibits.
Not Applicable.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.
CRYO-CELL International, Inc.
DATE: June 28, 2012
By:
/s/ David I. Portnoy
David I. Portnoy
Co-Chief Executive Officer
WOW another Proxy! VOTE THE GOLD PROXY TODAY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CRYO-CELL'S FUTURE
Time is short. No matter how many or how few shares you own, it is important that you vote the GOLD proxy card today and vote in favor of electing us to represent you in the board room. Electronic voting is available to you. It’s fast and cost free. Please refer to the enclosed materials on how to vote your shares today. You SHOULD NOT RETURN THE WHITE PROXY CARD or any other proxy card furnished to you on behalf of Cryo-Cell. If you have already returned the WHITE proxy card, it is not too late to change your vote. By voting the enclosed GOLD proxy card, and voting for me and my director nominees and voting against approval Cryo-Cell’s 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, you can still help us change direction for Cryo-Cell and your vote will count.
As the largest stockholder of Cryo-Cell and a person who cares about Cryo-Cell and all of its stockholders, I vow to work tirelessly to get Cryo-Cell back on track. I thank you and look forward to your support.
Sincerely,
Ki Yong Choi Warns The Portnoys To Stop Deceiving Stockholders = Get them Choi. Things are heating up in CCEL land. VIVA LA MEXICO!Management is misrepresenting information about funds set aside for a potential severance payment for the former CEO. The co-CEO states that, when I was a Board member, I "voted to approve a wire transfer of $2.5 million into a trust" for the former CEO. The Board did approve money being set aside for potential severance payments to the former CEO and others resulting from employment terminations that occurred after last year's proxy contest. These funds are included on the company's balance sheet as restricted cash.
Management demonstrates a low threshold for achievement. In describing his interactions with Cryo-Cell de Mexico, the co-CEO states that their negotiation with Cryo-Cell's largest affiliate resulted in a loss of more than 60% of the revenue that it was owed. David Portnoy seems to call this a victory for the management team. This does not seem like something management should tout.
Co-CEOs marketing strategies show no evidence of progress. The co-CEOs describe sales and marketing alternatives to grow the business. The co-CEO seems to be touting these as victories in stating they are "Using Marketing Dollars Effectively." While these initiatives are certainly increasing expenses in Sales & Marketing, by a whopping 51%, revenue decreased 7% in the last fiscal quarter compared to the year before[1]. This is a considerable increase in Sales and Marketing spending – how long should stockholders wait for these efforts to bear fruit?
Choi himself said he has no desire to be CEO, but wants to do a search for a qualified individual. Do you know of anyone? Maybe Mercedes will come back!
BK ,are you sure you're looking at the right ticker symbol , this is CCEL not CBAI its used to be competitor that's 0.013 after a 1 for 100 RS ?
So when does CCEL CLOSE THEIR DOORS. WILL CHOI BE THE NEW CEO WHO COULD SAVE CCEL FROM BANKRUPTCY! JUST WONDERING
Yeah the 300 shares today and zero yesterday sure is keeping them alive LMFAO
Glad to see CCEL NEEDS TO DILUTE TO STAY ALIVE!
Really don't care about Richards and according to you he hasn't been paid maybe they're done paying him . I think you're the one whose been saying for the last year that there is NO volume in CCEL trading . We all know the results of excessive dilution as is in evidence in the 90% loss to CCEL's competitor to a point of 0.013 pps all after a 1 for 100 RS, now that's EXCESSIVE DILUTION . What did they use that dilution money for , pay bills ?
So no dilution for two days, look out CCEL MIGHT HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS. LOOKS LIKE MANAGEMENT STOPPED BUYING THEIR OWN STOCK. STAY TUNED, SO DID CCEL PAY DAN RICHARDS FOR SEXUALLY ATTACKING WANDA DEARTH.
300 shares today , zero yesterday . Thats DILUTION , really ?
If CHOI SAYS CCEL IS DILUTING THEN CCEL IS DILUTING. FACTS CANT BE DISPUTED. THANK YOU CHOI !
ALERT , ALERT EXCESSIVE DILUTION TODAY 300 shares traded ,yesterday zero shares , thats dilution ? At least he didn't hire his wife as a consultant or start a frozen Ice Cream Cake company on the side and make CCEL its biggest customer . Should be an interesting contest .
Yes I notice all the dilution , wait a minute how do you have dilution with no volume ?
I'm not surprised by this recent turn of events...
So why is CCEL DILUTING. I READ THAT
Did you hear that or did you read it somewhere ?
KEEP WASTING MONEY CCEL. I heard Dan Richards wasn't Paid his two $200,000 a year salary this year. Is this what he is Worth for Sexually Attacking Wanda Dearth or is he Worth more! STAY TUNED LMAO = Another Proxy OUT =
Additional Proxy Soliciting Materials - Non-Management (definitive) (DFAN14A)
Date :
06/26/2012 @ 11:42AM
Source :
Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock :
Cryo-Cell Intl (CCEL)
Quote :
2.32 0.0 (0.00%) @ 5:01PM
- Additional Proxy Soliciting Materials - Non-Management (definitive) (DFAN14A)
Print
Alert
SCHEDULE 14A
(RULE 14a-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant ¨
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ý
Check the appropriate box:
¨
Preliminary Proxy Statement
¨
Confidential, For Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
¨
Definitive Proxy Statement
¨
Definitive Additional Materials
ý
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
Ki Yong Choi
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
ý No fee required.
¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
1.
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
2.
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
3.
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
4.
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
5.
Total fee paid:
¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials:
¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the form or schedule and the date of its filing.
1.
Amount previously paid:
2.
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
3.
Filing Party:
4.
Date Filed:
Take Action to Save Cryo-Cell from Further Enriching Co-CEOs
VOTE THE GOLD PROXY CARD
STOCK OPTION POOL AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD, IF FULLY ISSUED, WOULD DILUTE CURRENT STOCKHOLDER OWNERSHIP BY APPROXIMATELY 22%
San Francisco, CA. - June 26, 2012 /PRNewswire/-- Ki Yong Choi, who owns 2,186,568 shares of common stock of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (OTCBB: CCEL), or approximately 19.6% of the company's outstanding shares, today issued the following letter to stockholders of Cryo-Cell.
ELECT A BOARD THAT IS COMMITTED TO ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL STOCKHOLDERS
THE CURRENT BOARD APPROVED WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE EGREGIOUSLY COSTLY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, EXCESSIVE STOCKHOLDER DILUTION AND SQUANDERING OF CASH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THESE ACTIONS SHOW REGARD FOR STOCKHOLDER VALUE.
Dear Fellow Cryo-Cell Stockholder:
I have launched a proxy contest to elect a slate of Board members to chart a new direction for the company. I have been involved with Cryo-Cell for over six years and I am the company’s largest stockholder. I have launched this contest because I believe the co-CEOs and the current members of the Board are mismanaging the company by, among other things, granting to the co-CEOs lavish compensation and stock incentives.
Vote the Gold Proxy Card to Change this Pattern
Brothers David Portnoy and Mark Portnoy conducted a proxy contest starting approximately one year ago. After winning the contest and taking control of Cryo-Cell near the end of August 2011, the newly-elected Board gave the Portnoys the co-CEO title, salaries that I believe are exorbitant, 600,000 stock options with no performance related vesting criteria, 600,000 more performance related stock options for next fiscal year and substantial change in control severance packages. The Board also reimbursed the Portnoy Group for litigation costs incurred by David Portnoy, even though a judge had denied his request for reimbursement.
These benefits have been awarded, despite what I believe is mismanagement of the company and deteriorating financial results. Find below a timeline of benefits and compensation awarded to the Portnoys (or Portnoy Group) by the Board.
August 2011 – Portnoy brothers appointed co-CEOs, at combined salaries in excess of the salary of the prior CEO. The Board appointed the Portnoy brothers as co-CEOs and gave them a combined salary that exceeded the previous CEO’s salary by more than $50,000 1 despite the fact their proxy statement stated they would “reduce executive cash compensation”.
August 2011 – 200,000 options granted immediately to the co-CEOs. The Board granted to each of the brother co-CEOs 100,000 options 2 . There were no vesting related performance criteria associated with these grants and they vest over two years with one third of the options vesting on the date of grant.
August 2011 – Cryo-Cell repaid to the Portnoy Group costs related to the litigation filed by David Portnoy in 2007 . The Board approved payment to the Portnoy Group for expenses related to David Portnoy’s proxy contest litigation in 2007, even though a judge had denied his request for reimbursement. 3
December 2011 - New stock option pool of 1,500,000 shares . Fresh off a large stock option grant the brother co-CEOs and the Board created the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan to reserve 1,500,000 shares for additional grants. 4
December 2011 - 3 months on the job = 400,000 more options unrelated to performance . The Board granted the brother co-CEOs a total of 400,000 additional options priced at $1.72 per share that vest over two years 5 . There were no performance related vesting criteria associated with these grants.
December 2011 - 600,000 performance-related options for the brother co-CEOs . The Board approved an additional 600,000 options for next fiscal year for the brother co-CEOs 6 . I believe the performance related vesting criteria of these grants are easily achievable and not necessarily related to the company’s operating performance.
December 2011 – Liberal change in control provision. Not only do I believe that the severance benefits are exorbitant, but the brother co-CEOs can collect them not only if there is a change in control due to a new Board, but also if someone simply submits a competing proxy solicitation. Should there be a change in control prior to December 1, 2012, 600,000 options automatically vest and the brother co-CEOs get a severance package of $850,000. If the change in control happens after October 31, 2013, the 600,000 performance-related options are granted and automatically vest.
December 2011 –Performance criteria for co-CEO bonuses I believe are easily achievable . The Board set three criteria that would allow the brother co-CEOs to collect 100% of their $425,000 cash salary bonus 7 . With 2.3 million shares remaining in the company’s share repurchase plan, I believe that further share repurchases will help the brother co-CEOs achieve at least two of their performance goals; the third performance goal remains a mystery. Unfortunately for Cryo-Cell stockholders, repurchasing shares drains the company’s cash reserves and does not improve the operating performance of the company.
A summary of the vesting criteria is as follows:
·
Criteria 1 - Diluted revenue per share of $1.75 . I believe the management team can reach this goal by keeping revenue flat and repurchasing shares 8 .
·
Criteria 2 - Stock price of $3.75 – Cryo-Cell stock currently trades about 5,000 shares per day – if the company repurchases up to 2.3 million shares, the stock price will likely increase.
·
Criteria 3 – Unstated . In the company’s SEC filing, the Board stated the third criteria “consists of subjective performance, as determined in the sole discretion of the Committee after consultation with the Executive .” Based on the Board’s generosity to the brother co-CEOs to this point, I believe this criterion will only favor the brother co-CEOs, as all of the other activities stated above do.
May 2012 - All options in the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan have been granted so Board reserves one million more. Having granted all of the 1,500,000 shares included in the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan within in six months, the Board added 1,000,000 more shares to the Plan, which now totals 2,500,000 shares 9 . This can result in more than 22% dilution to the stockholder base if fully issued . This option pool expansion comes directly after the company reported significant losses in its February 2012 fiscal quarter.
I BELIEVE THE SHARE BUY BACK PROGRAM IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ACTIONS OF THIS BOARD SHOW THEY ARE LOOKING OUT FOR ALL STOCKHOLDERS.
To recap: in six months the Board gave the Portnoys the co-CEO title, what I believe are exorbitant salaries, 600,000 options with no performance related vesting criteria, 600,000 more performance-related options for next fiscal year, and substantial change in control severance packages. The Board also reimbursed the Portnoy Group for litigation costs that had been denied to David Portnoy in his 2007 legal action. I cannot think of one way these actions benefit stockholders.
I have carefully chosen what I believe to be a well-rounded group of independent Director nominees with whom I have no existing business relationship. I believe that each Director brings important industry expertise, contacts and the kind of specialized experience that I believe is required to drive stockholder value for Cryo-Cell. As a team, we are completely dedicated to turning around Cryo-Cell.
VOTE THE GOLD PROXY CARD TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CRYO-CELL’S FUTURE
Time is short. No matter how many or how few shares you own, it is important that you return the GOLD proxy card and vote in favor of electing us to represent you in the boardroom. You should WAIT TO RECIEVE the definitive proxy materials and the GOLD proxy card that will be mailed to you. You SHOULD NOT RETURN THE WHITE PROXY CARD or any other proxy card furnished to you on behalf of Cryo-Cell.
What should you do now? Once you receive a GOLD proxy card, vote to elect directors who will work for all of Cryo-Cell’s stockholders by signing and returning the GOLD proxy card .
If you have already returned a proxy card, you have every right to change your vote by signing and returning a later-dated GOLD proxy card once it is provided to you.
As the largest stockholder and a person who cares about Cryo-Cell, I vow to work tirelessly to get the company back on track. I thank you and look forward to your support.
Ki Yong Choi
Investor Contact:
Alliance Advisors LLC.
Call Toll Free: (877) 777-2338;
Banks and Brokers Call Collect: (973) 873-7700.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SEC form 10-K filed 2-28-12 and SEC form 8-K filed 12-7-2011.
2 SEC form 10-Q filed 10-17-2011, p. 15. Options granted August 31, 2011.
3 SEC form 10-Q filed 10-17-2011, p. 20. Payment approved August 31, 2011. Also see Portnoy v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc. decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2008.
4 SEC form 8K filed 12-7-2011. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan approved by Board 12-1-2011.
5 SEC form 8K filed 12-7-2011. Employment agreement that granted options approved by Board 12-1-2011.
6 SEC form 8K filed 12-7-2011. Employment agreement that granted options approved by Board 12-1-2011.
7 SEC form 8K filed 12-7-2011. Employment agreements for David and Mark Portnoy, Section 3.b. approved by Board 12-1-2011.
8 Per SEC form 10-Q filed 4-16-2012 the company had 11,488,980 diluted shares as of February 29, 2012. With revenue of $17.9 million in the last fiscal year and 11.2 million shares outstanding, if management directs the company to repurchase 1.26 million shares and holds revenue flat, the company will achieve the diluted revenue per share target of $1.75.
9 SEC form DEFC14A filed June 21, 2012, p. 26.
In connection with his intended proxy solicitation, on June 25, 2012 Ki Yong Choi filed a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to solicit stockholders of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. MR. CHOI STRONGLY ADVISES ALL STOCKHOLDERS OF CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT BECAUSE IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION, INCLUDING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN SUCH PROXY SOLICITATION. THE PROXY STATEMENT AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE AT NO CHARGE ON THE SEC’S WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.SEC.GOV.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
In accordance with Rule 14a-12(a)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the following persons are anticipated to be, or may be deemed to be, participants in any such proxy solicitation: Ki Yong Choi, Gary Weinhouse, Michael W. Cho, Warren Hoeffler, Michael D. Coffee and Ajay Badlani. Certain of these persons hold direct or indirect interests in Cryo-Cell International, Inc. as follows: Mr. Choi holds of record or beneficially a total of 2,186,568 shares of Cryo-Cell International, Inc.’s common stock and Dr. Michael W. Cho is the record holder of 14,166 shares of Cryo-Cell International, Inc.’s common stock. Messrs. Choi, Weinhouse, Cho, Hoeffler, Coffee and Badlani each have an interest in being nominated and elected as a director of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. Information about the participants has been set forth in the definitive proxy statement filed by Mr. Choi with the SEC on June 25, 2012.
Yup everyone is running for the exit , not .
EXCESSIVE STOCKHOLDER DILUTION ELECT A BOARD THAT IS COMMITTED TO ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL STOCKHOLDERS
THE CURRENT BOARD APPROVED WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE EGREGIOUSLY COSTLY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, EXCESSIVE STOCKHOLDER DILUTION AND SQUANDERING OF CASH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THESE ACTIONS SHOW REGARD FOR STOCKHOLDER VALUE.
Typical CCEL CRAP!
Followers
|
28
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
5497
|
Created
|
05/26/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Cryo-Cell International, Inc.(CCEL)
Company Information:
700 Brooker Creek Blvd.
Suite 1800
Oldsmar, FL 34677
Phone: 813-749-2100
Toll Free: 800-786-7235
Fax: 813-855-4745
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. was established in 1989 with a primary focus on the cryopreservation of umbilical cord (U-Cord®) stem cells for family use. Since our inception, we have been committed to the development and adoption of industry best practices and technologies.
Cord blood stem cell transplants have already changed-and saved-thousands of lives around the world. What's more, science is honing in on other miraculous uses for these precious cells, potentially impacting countless numbers of lives in the future.
Ever-committed to the highest quality, we treat every specimen of umbilical cord blood as if it were our own. Every sample we receive, process and preserve represents a potentially life-saving treatment for a child. This concept fuels our resolve to only hire the most talented candidates, develop and implement the most effective training and continuously fine-tune our processes. From the design and specifications of our collection kit, to the choice of each supplier, our dedication to quality remains unwavering.
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. ("the Company" or "Cryo-Cell") operates in one reportable segment and is principally engaged in cellular processing and cryogenic storage, with a current focus on the collection and preservation of umbilical cord (U-Cord®) blood stem cells for family use. The Company, in combination with its global affiliates currently stores over 200,000 cord blood specimens worldwide for the exclusive benefit of newborn babies and possibly other members of their families. The Company is one of the world's largest and most established private family cord blood stem cell banks in terms of the number of specimens preserved. Its headquarters facility in Oldsmar, Florida handles all aspects of its U.S.-based business operations, including the processing and storage of specimens. The specimens are stored in commercially available cryogenic storage units at the Company's technologically and operationally advanced facility in Oldsmar, Florida.
In recent years, the Company has expanded its research and development ("R&D") activities to develop technologies related to stem cells other than umbilical cord blood stem cells such as fetal and maternal stem cells harvested from the placenta. During 2006, the Company discovered novel technology related to menstrual stem cells. In November 2007, the Company announced the launch of its C'elleSM service related to this patent-pending technology, and the Company continues to focus its current research and development activities principally on the C'elle service and related new menstrual stem cell technologies. The Company is actively marketing the C'elle service which is available both through a bundled offer with the Company's U-Cord service and on a stand-alone basis.
Employees: At November 30, 2009, there are 48 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee on the staff of the Company. Additional employees and staff will be hired on an "as needed" basis. The Company believes its relationship with its employees is good. None of our employees are members of any labor union, and we are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement.
Here's a video which shows the importance of saving cord blood: http://video.foxnews.com/11461523/cord-blood-miracle/?category_id=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. holds an equity position in Saneron CCEL Therapeutics (Saneron), a University of South Florida spin-out biotechnology company. Saneron is committed to advancing research using readily available, non-controversial cord blood stem cells. Saneron's research focus is to actively seek new cellular therapy discoveries for treatment of and intervention in devastating, life-threatening illness and conditions such as heart attack, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and spinal cord injury.
For more information, visit Saneron's Web site: www.saneron-ccel.com
Cryo-Cell is International
In order to provide the Cryo-Cell U-Cord® Stem Cell Preservation Service abroad, we are establishing affiliates in countries around the world. Currently, we have affiliates in the following areas:
See page 15 of SEC filing for further details: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/862692/000119312511189394/d10q.htm
C'elle distributor opportunity for doctors that specialize in female issues. See video:
http://www.celle.com/distributorVideo.aspx#
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. has been a publicly traded company since 1991. Governed by the Securities & Exchange Commission, our common stock trades under the OTC Bulletin Board symbol CCEL. We specialize in U-Cord® stem cell preservation for family use.
Investor Relations: http://www.cryo-cell.com/investor_relations/
Investor Information: To request Cryo-Cell's Investor's Information Kit, or to receive Cryo-Cell's press releases via email, please fill out this form: http://www.cryo-cell.com/investor_relations/investor_info.asp
Section 16 Filings: All Insiders Annual Reports Quarterly & Other Reports Stock Quote Fundamentals News Chart Real-Time Filings
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Recent News:
http://www.cryo-cell.com/investor_relations/
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=CCEL.OB+Headlines
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/newsheadlines.aspx?symbol=CCEL&selected=CCEL&SourceCode=PMZ
Filings:
Transfer Agent:
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company
17 Battery Place, 8th Floor
New York 10004
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Share Structure:
See SEC filing link for latest share structure info.
______________________________________
All messages, including iBox content, are the opinion of the posters, are no substitute for your own research, and should not be relied upon for stock trading or any other purpose.
Also, keep in mind that moderators may or may not have a position in said stock. Being a moderator isn't a sign of endorsement.
Please keep your posts on topic because your message(s) will probably be deleted when:
* Posting content that's off-topic to the subject of this board;
* Posting statements that don't add value to the discussion; or
* When you violate any other posting term of the iHub User Agreement: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/complex_terms.asp
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |