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.
Helloyah and Vuletini should have taken the settlement.
Fiber Tower zealots-
The only thing you can do is try to give AT&T bad publicity.
$100k for a full page add in WSJ or NYT will get the attention of all
kinds of people, gov. officials and crazy lawyers.
66 members with multiple aliases x $1,515 = $100,000
Greetings FBBT Ihub Family.. as promised I sought council and council has rendered their opinion.
Below is regurgitation of my councils response to me:
The common shareholders are considered “old Equity”, this equity was wiped free and clear 4yrs ago by the plan to reorganize fibertower presented by the debtors. During this time there were several common shareholders who petitioned the court prior to the activation of the plan, but as we all know that petition failed.
The reorganization plan utilized a “debt for equity” process where in short the bondholders had first opportunity to exchange debt for equity and the equity was in form of new Fibertower shares. The common shareholders received zero equity because it was all consumed by the bondholders. Once all the equity in the new company was consumed all of the remaining debts were considered free and clear including common shareholders.
after the plan to reorganize the company was activated, bondholders controlled the company and petitioned the DC court to appeal the FCC ruling, it appears At&T was active then in regards to discussing a potential purchase of the reorganized company, but was hedging bets against the Fcc in DC court ruling. If the ruling went in favor of the FCC, no deal with ATT and the spectrum would be returned for resale.
Fahey and Levy who were present at the bankruptcy closing case, argued on behalf of the common shareholders but were subsequently denied standing as the judge referenced the enacted debtor’s reorganization plan, which left the common shareholder without standing as entity with zero equity.
-------------------
FatMojo -Personal opinion
So now having this information it is clear to me, the exstingqushing of the share was really the final blow to the common shareholders. Everything up to this point was a hope and prayer that some regulator agency or judge would question the process and dig deep enough to raise alarms. Fahey and Levy did their best (hats off to them), but the weight of the At&T fcc double team was too hard to overcome.. Since the DC courts ruled to allow the FCC and fibertower to come to an agreement (al-la FCC reconsiders your rules for determining build out requirements and proof of substantial service, wink wink find a buyer), At&t came in as mediator between to 2 offering to utilize the spectrum remaining to the fullest by purchasing fibertower for equity and debt..thus why the the 270mil or so purchase price seems low, but actually may be the actual purchase since it was so far before Verizons 2billion purchase.
So it appears from the personal legal route we have no claim, but I’m open to alternative thinking on the matter.
Hi, well it's been 2 and half weeks, I reached out to the lawyer yesterday for an update. He stated he would have his summary of findings to me in a day or 2.
Hear anything back Mojo ?? Im shocked that with the over abundance of lawyers here in the good ole USA there are so few willing to take a good look at this. Guess they all want the easy plea bargain $$$. Thanks for stepping up Mojo.
Try and get a life church mouse.
Pucillo just bought a new yacht. He named it “Vuletini’s Dime”. Must have cost close to $15M.
"Google, Copy, Paste, Post.....years and years and still in the same spot. A monkey would have figured it out by now. 2.4M shares lefts 10-15M dollars on the table ouch. "
Hey, 'Copy, Paste, Post'- that actually works, regardless of overlooking some minor errors. Thanks.
When the Federal Monkeys get their full act together, be ready. See them now taking down the safety nets at the Circus, the Common Monkeys paid for their tickets in the stands, the Fat Gorilla has Chimps swinging high on greased trapeze bars, thinking they can do anything and never fall to hit the ground. Of course, one or more of the Chimps has enough matches to burn the entire tent down, if forced into a corner.
Will the Common Monkeys get some reasonable compensation to leave early or just more bananas? Either way it will be worth their entry tickets when this three ring extravaganza WILL END.
Google, Copy, Paste, Post.....years and years and still in the same spot. A monkey would have figured it out by now. 2.4M shares lefts 10-15M dollars on the table ouch.
Thanks for the effort sandpaints . I'm looking forward to the day when chubby Pucillo and dumb dumb sonny are in Orange jumpsuits.
Cellardwellar: AT&T noted something in their last SEC 10Q filing, hiding something right in full view I'd say.
Why? I think they know there is one or more Federal investigation underway. Read the 'Whereas' segments and then come to the seven figure enticement with many conditions attached. See link below: pages 102 to 112.
https://investors.att.com/~/media/Files/A/ATT-IR/documents/ATT%202Q18%20Form%2010Q.pdf
In news releases or news coverage they have been referring to Robert as 'Bob Quinn', but I searched using 'Robert Quinn' and it was, well - so fluffy:
What do you think of this? - Regards the retirement of Robert Quinn, the executive who arranged the payment to Michael Cohen.
Robert Quinn has also been an active of the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA).
Read what Quinn got paid "to retire" (and) keep his mouth shut.
One investigative tool, available to FTC agents, is to offer up an 'Immunity' deal, which outweighs any non-disclosure agreements. Investigators have time to dig materials and testimony, for sure, if the FTC is working on this.
Look up the details on what is involved in offering 'Immunity' in legal matters.
Note that in Michael Cohen's case he cut a deal already pleading guilty to some charges. Paul Manafort earlier also made an arrangement when it came to his situation. Who might be next?
Then what?
Hey sonny! What's it like to work for fat boy Pucillo? He must smell rancid.
Why won't AT&T answer any of my questions about the purchase of fibertower? What's fatboy Pucillo trying to hide?
Credit respect due First Republic Bank for making THREE (3) "Suspicious Activity Reports" (SAR) regarding Michael Cohen, including reference to large payments made by AT&T.
I just found this New Yorker Story published in May 2018.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/missing-files-motivated-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records
The story details information from one SAR, but indicates that two other SAR documents have gone from view on government database, those also being from First Republic Bank.
Remember, First Republic Bank has its headquarters in San Francisco, hometown of Fibertower headquarters also, by coincidence?
Here's some insight into AT&T CEO's public remarks:
Antitrust Judicial Hearing Link, Starts 2:30 P.M. Today. 10/03/2018
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/10/03/2018/oversight-of-the-enforcement-of-the-antitrust-laws
Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
Senate Members list link:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/subcommittee-on-antitrust-competition-policy-and-consumer-rights
They will hold a subcommittee hearing tomorrow (Wednesday) at 2:30 P.M. eastern time in Washington, that will be streamed for online viewing. Will post that link before the hearing, but it can be found now by exploring the Judiciary Committee link above.
Appearing before them to answer questions will be:
Makan Delrahim - Assistant Attorney General
Here is a story featuring Makan Delrahim and some of his comments regarding AT&T merger activities. Unwinding the Merger? Interesting views likely to be examined during the hearing:
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/1/17807096/makan-delrahim-antitrust-att-time-warner-donald-trump-kara-swisher-recode-decode
Also to be questioned and make statements at the hearing is Joseph Simons, new Federal Trade Commission Chairman.
Here's a link to a Wall Street Journal article on his antitrust views:
FTC’s New Chief Pledges Vigorous Antitrust Enforcement
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftcs-new-chief-pledges-vigorous-antitrust-enforcement-1529535871
All the above equal an opportunity to study the Senator's points of view on antitrust issues as well. Do not expect FiberTower to be mentioned yet at this time.
A con job to the very end from three deceitful charlatans
They held and sold shares - Samberg, Pucillo, Sandri, etc
Amounts paid and sold with date information:
Also click on SEE ALL to get more information
https://www.insidermonkey.com/insider-trading/company/fibertower%2Bcorp/1010286/#/ffp=2018-03-31&fot=7&fso=1&sffp=&sfot=7&sfso=1
When is next scheduled meeting of Senators on topic:
"Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws - Senate Subcommittee Hearing" to be streamed live and---
Name the Senators, or some of them, on this Subcommittee?
Are all or some of these Senators also on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings that have been taking place last week in Washington D.C.?
Name one of these Senators or more, who has publicly expressed concerns and written letters about what potential antitrust actions of AT&T?
And: why might that be important to understanding delay of 39 GHz auctions, including the Fibertower spectrum among others; spectrum controls recently set by the FCC not to take place until the last part of 2019 instead of this year?
Post internet links that support your answers, if possible.
Go for it Sandpaints. Let me know if I can help in any way.
And Sandpaints is laughing too at some obvious pudsters, but I personally am not laughing at Pucillo. I have been working on a proper response that will stand a stronger chance of being impactful.
If you lack reading comprehension, you may miss the opportunity to put together the facts as I am digging them up. However, in future I will be posting less and less here and I also will not be reporting exactly what I am doing to advance the cause of common shareholders, as that would obviously be the equivalent of posting directly to Pucillo and his Minions.
In summary, the statute of limitations on non competitive and unfair business practices under antitrust law runs as long as 5 years after the event. The plan of achievement of AT&T and Fibertower in transfer of the spectrum licenses to the harm of common shareholders began in 2011 or 2012, then completed it's wrong doing in 2018 with the confounding of the FCC order- as the facts will reveal, thus starting the run of the statute of limitations from 2018 forward.
Damages and disgorgement are allowed in antitrust. When this comes to a court, with no prior or now timely settlement, then emphatically that process will not be settled out of court, once it is scheduled, it will run to the full verdict being provoked.
I attest.
Laugh about the above paragraphs, those that will in the meantime. This is the Mean Time.
You are all hat and no cattle. If I had your writing skills I would have
got in touch with people champion like senator Elizabeth Warren and
maybe even the POTUS.
Send a letter to every congressman & senator in every state.
Collusion between these crooks is a crime.
Posted Just Now: "White House schedules 5G meeting for Friday, but details remain vague"
https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/white-house-schedules-5g-meeting-for-friday-but-details-remain-vague
Vuletini - Your pain may decrease over time, for now thank you.
Was this the lawyer in Arizona you mentioned earlier? He's only one lawyer, of course. Was the discussion about representing you on a contingency basis or would it have been fee based ? - just curious and you don't have to reply to that if you are feeling too upset, I understand how that could seem for you now.
My own interpretation of fraud in this matter would certainly include how many times during the bankruptcy there were persons involved who had previous ties to AT&T, and that the net effect was that AT&T got the spectrum transferred to themselves in the process after having been a customer who walked away in events that triggered the bankruptcy application in the first place. And how many times in the bankruptcy application did management assert that it would be 'too time consuming and burdensome' to establish the value of the spectrum? Wasn't that tantamount to a fraudulent statement? How many times? And common shareholders were NEVER sent any formal notice, if they found out it was only by luck or by a news story, but they were never sent a written notice or informed of actions to be taken involving harms.
If we ultimately can not prove fraud (not convinced yet that is in fact a closed matter), on the other hand it seems likely a case can be made for unfair business practices under antitrust rules.
Here's a quote from the upcoming FCC spectrum auction announcement:
"84. To the extent the Commission becomes aware of specific allegations that suggest that violations of the federal antitrust laws may have occurred, the Commission may refer such allegations to the United States Department of Justice for investigation.186 If an applicant is found to have violated the
antitrust laws or the Commission’s rules in connection with its participation in the competitive bidding process, it may be subject to a forfeiture and may be prohibited from participating further in Auction 101,Auction 102, and in future auctions, among other sanctions."
That's a warning to all, including AT&T. I'm looking around now for a Notice of Public Rule Making (NPRM) mentioned in the auction release, which would be seeking comments from the public on rules to be established for the 39 GHz spectrum future auction too.
The FCC also did seem to endorse the concept of there being 'vouchers' issued to be used in rebanding spectrum - as was suggested to the FCC by AT&T earlier so that 39 GHz spectrum licenses held could be assigned into larger blocks.
There's no detail, my attorney went thru all the filings and nothing else
because there's nothing else to go after.
The $2b figure and the number of shares I held got him exited about
possible fraud but couldn't find any.
We got screwed as simple as that.
Not much details from Vuletini. Is he pulling everyone's leg?
Already did rfarmer thanks for the suggestion!
You should forward over all the Fahy and Levy submissions as they are the ones who scored the $4 - $6 settlement per share. I would ditch Vuletini for obvious reasons.
Thanks for the info Nevada,
Sanpaints provided something similar, but I forgot about the pacer website.
I will forward your info over to the lawyer.
Have a good weekend.
Fatmojo
BMC Group may be of help in your effort. The last Docket activity for FT was 10/2/2015.
Docket Numbers 1044 - 1/13/2014, 1053 & 1054 1/14/2014 indicate Sealed Documents.
Docket 1173 – 9/2/2015 shows “CASE 12-44031 TO REMAIN OPEN AND ACTIVE”,
There may be some other items on PACER.
Perhaps some of this carried over to the new Judge who issued the final closing decree. It was mentioned by others here that the Judge left an opening that would allow a challenge to the final. I, like many question the equitable ownership issue of the licenses frozen for years while piling up value.
Large shareholders including Crown Castle and others who had big positions may still be in the game.
Link to BMC: https://www.bmcgroup.com/restructuring/Docket.aspx?ClientID=303
This site requires a simple acknowledgement of the terms of service to see the Dockets.
The ?? In my last post was suppose to be the fearful emjoi..??
https://emojipedia.org/fearful-face/
Afternoon fbbt ihub family..
Surprisingly none of the lawyers contacted from willitbeton list returned my consultation request..even the guy who asked for more info the first time has yet to return my follow up call.
The local lawyer i contacted however reached out and had time today to hear me out..that was the free part..this is the same lawyer that had info ahead of the consultation as well. This lawyer would like to do some digging formally which i approved and now the hunt is on.. i will say this, lawyers who deals with securities, stock exchange and sec are more expensive than your run of the mill divorce lawyer??..but i estimate he will need 4 to 6hrs to run through all the documentation and give his professional opinion.
As things develop I'll keep you posted but doubt this lawyer will have any fruit to display for 2 weeks, but I'm hopefull..
If anyone wants to contribtue to the lawyers fee...let me know, i have no problem showing you the invoice when it arrives??.
Have a wonderful weekend!
AT&T and Straight Path - No Like This!
Item 12 footnotes to the auction notice reads as follows:
"12. We disagree with commenters who argue that the Commission should add more bands to Auction 102, particularly the 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands, because we find that doing so will inevitably delay the auction of the 24 GHz band.
25 As an initial matter, the current configuration of the 39 GHz band is not conducive to 5G deployment because much of that spectrum is encumbered by legacy licenses that do not conform to our proposed licensing scheme for that band. That makes auctioning the 39 GHz band, as currently configured, incompatible with the generic-block clock auction we are adopting for the 24 GHz band.
26 Next, the 37 GHz band is adjacent to the 39 GHz band, so to maximize the efficiency of deployment in these two bands (and the allocation of spectrum across these bands), we conclude that it is appropriate to auction them off together.
To facilitate the transition and rationalization of the 39 GHz band and to continue to align the regulatory framework for the two bands to be licensed effectively as one contiguous band of spectrum, the Commission is also issuing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes an auction mechanism to realign the existing licenses in the 39 GHz band to achieve contiguity for both incumbents and new licensees in that band.
27 In doing so, we acknowledge that there appear to be alternative auction-based mechanisms that can contribute to an efficient restructuring of the band into a contiguous configuration that would support such deployment. In this regard, the NPRM also proposes to modify the block size for licenses in the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
28 Accordingly, we find that the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands will not be ready to be auctioned in the same timeframe as the 24 GHz band.
OH MY ?
Balancing news Pilgrims. Antitrust laws are still on the hot plate.
For example, here's a 99 page outline of the upcoming 5G auction that as you read it you will see numerous references to antitrust rules and possible enforcement penalties that can and will be applied for any observed violations should they happen.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-establishes-procedures-first-5g-spectrum-auctions-0
Also, the FCC in this document commits to informing the DOJ of any violations of antitrust laws that come to light during the auctions.
No wonder some here continue to want to rush people to do something - so there will be opportunity to organize a legal team to request a 'dismissal' of any lawsuit. Better for us NOT
to be rushed nor allow ourselves to be prodded into haste.
Of course the BK court case was closed and mute, but for myself I have not continued to be interested in re-opening the BK case for the reason that once they close a BK it stays closed, as Richard Fahy himself stated in his FCC documents concerning 'harms'.
That leaves the cause of action open to be based on a history that amounts to unfair business practices that violate antitrust laws. When the FCC granted the transfer of licenses that consummated the final AT&T step in violating the antitrust aspects, IMO.
The FCC said as much in the final order transfer of the spectrum that FCC Commission does not decide such 'harms', but that is the jurisdiction of the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. That it took a long time for AT&T to break the goal open, does not cover up that back in 2011-12 it was already known by AT&T the time it would take to bring on 5G spectrum and to lay the careful plans to take down Fibertower by manipulation.
Even though the operation was slick, it might not be found flawless. AT&T can continue on this contention, thinking they won't be challenged into the auctions, or they could assure themselves an end to objections by making a reasonable, not expensive, settlement with common shareholders to cure any 'harms' without damages - prior to the auctions.
AT&T should recall that they were not allowed to merge with T-Mobile in 2011 by the Federal Trade Commission. AT&T should recall that they have since lost cases involving 'unfair business practices' brought by the Federal Trade Commission and sustained by the higher courts. AT&T should recall that their dealings and payments to Paul Manafort were uncovered and regretted by AT&T's CEO in public.
True, there's breaking news that AT&T is still fighting the DOJ on the Time Warner Case in the most recent reports: https://www.multichannel.com/news/at-t-dojs-fragile-case-against-time-warner-merger-doesnt-hold-up
This is also the same company that once said they were going to conduct their dealings with Fibertower on a 'respectful' basis. Maybe they want to reconsider where we are at today?
There is no rush to 'get off the couch', as some here whine, which would serve the opposition, but it is better to prepare a full record of what has taken place and then bring the matter up perhaps in early November for a legal 'stay' action. Not sure just yet when the 39 GHz re-banding and auction is coming up or will it be delayed.
The first 5G auction starts November 14, and involves 28 and 24 GHz licenses - most of which AT&T had to give up and most of which are in the range that T-Mobile is best prepared to use in line with T-Mobile laboratory tests completed. Although AT&T has also tested in their Air-Gig experiments.
Vuletini - we are interested to know if your lawyer 'deposed' or contacted Fahy and Levy under oath. And at this point in time, if Fahy and Levy got nothing, then what did Fahy or Levy have to say about that?
Vuletini - regarding the $207 million figure - did the lawyers show you any SEC filings or other primary evidence documents concerning the deal's actual price (not press releases)?
Vuletini - What settlements or employment agreements were drawn up with the Fibertower management for those managers who are still working now in the newly created subsidiary? How are they compensated now and during the acquisition merger?
Bad news Pilgrims. There's nothing you could have done or can do
to recover anything, the BK court says so.
As far as the two shareholders go they got nowhere with the court and got
nothing.
$207 million is final and the $2B figure does not exist.
Great Sandpaints but you post all the time with no action. You find a snipet and post it like you discovered the cure for cancer. You have to do something. Get off the couch.
Correction:
I mistakenly entered in recent posts the name of Fahy by spelling it as Fehy. This was noticed as I am reviewing and archiving copies of the pleadings submitted to the FCC. Sorry for the error.
You can refresh your memory of what was written concerning the value of spectrum and what common shareholders of record should be compensated, and by whom, here:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdminPleadings.jsp;JSESSIONID_APPSEARCH=Jr91bj8FKTGVxqTT5yM2X54yvCMsKcpvvBtgnvzRpmxTn3MXCpvd!-2019351399!-84967774?applID=10729917
What is a legal 'DEPOSITION'?
Think how this might apply to Levy and/or Fehy in legal questioning, how it might influence AT&T, Fibertower, etc. ?
How might information obtainable in a deposition compare to information and assertions made to the FCC regarding the value of the spectrum and other statements regarding the bankruptcy?
https://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-a-deposition.html
Deposition is a legitimate means of getting to factual truth.
Sonny - double check with rfarmer, but this is what you posted Monday as Sonny Crockett _
"Levy and Fahy aren’t talking. I hit them with some emails, calls, and texts but have yet to get a response. Who knows maybe they got $10 per share to keep silent. The first to sign up always can cut the sweetest deals. Vuletini really missed the boat on this one. Anyone ever get a response? I think I will follow up with John Annon."
However, the topic (not to be distracted by anyone's boats or couches) is that Fehy and/or Levy can be brought to testify for a court. Discovery of exact details of any existing non disclosure agreement or financial settlement is a mighty leverage.
Why would they? This board is full of misfits and nut jobs. One but even claims 2.4M shares that he scalped off Pucillo. 2.4M shares and didn’t lift a finger. Made it easy for Pucillo.
Fehy and Levy have established that they do not reply to email or other attempts at contact by members of this message board - however, in a lawsuit they could be court ordered or 'deposed' (interviewed) by a plaintiff's lawyer regarding any non disclosure agreements or paid settlements, IMO.
Here's a snippet from a website (reference only, not legal advice):
"It is not uncommon to find that witnesses otherwise willing to provide valuable information may believe they are unable to do so because they are parties to confidentiality agreements. Such agreements come in many forms, including non-disclosure agreements aimed primarily at protecting trade secrets and business information; termination agreements; or settlements of pending claims or litigations. These agreements may provide for forfeiture of economic benefits and forbid disclosure of their terms or, in extreme cases, even of their existence.
As a general rule, courts have not permitted such agreements to bar discovery or interviews, holding that they are against public policy.(2)
In Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. App.1997), Dr. Duke Scott had settled a prior litigation.The settlement agreement contained a confidentiality provision and Dr. Scott sought to bar the taking of the deposition of the settling party as witness in a subsequent action against him. The Court rejected the claim, noting that it was "improper to buy the silence of witnesses with a settlement agreement when the facts of one controversy may be relevant to another." Id. at 1301. In Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Titanium Metals Corp., 91 F.R.D. 84, 87-88 (E.D.N.Y. 1981), the Court denied a motion to bar production of a report held by a witness, finding that parties cannot "contract privately for the confidentiality of documents, and foreclose others from obtaining, in the course of litigation, materials that are relevant to their efforts to vindicate a legal position." Accord Barger v. Garden Way, Inc., 231 Ga. App. 723, 499 S.E.2d 737 (1998).
End of quote.
The above has nothing to do with getting off couches or missing boats, it is a way to get to the facts, without attempts to distract or discourage anyone.
I didn't make the statement that they got paid, you did. I want YOU to back up your claim. Prove it.
You didnt get one cellardwear but Levy and Fahy did. You and Vuletini need to get off the couch.
Can you please show me where I can find information pertaining the 4-6 dollar settlement. Thanks
Sandpaints are you in contact with Vuletini? Vuletini has the most incentive since he didn't get his name in the hat for the $4-$6 settlement.
Sandpaints, somehow I have called things far more accurately than those clinging to false hope and twiddling their thumbs on the couch or in their bunker. Let us know when you are off the couch.
Followers
|
61
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
4715
|
Created
|
11/19/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |