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.
I have followed this stock for five plus years and i don't believe Jay had intent to hurt anybody, i am and old telephone man United Telephone Systms so when he talked about wi-fy i understood but was in the dark as to how sensitive it was with any type barrier buildings hills it took nothing to knock the signal down into the dirt. Jay was a head of his time and could have made us all rich, one exception the tec for wi-fy was not and is not here. This is why they are using cel antenna's instead. Wi-fi will come. I know telephone company's fight like organized crime to destroy each other.
My complaint is hiding the money amounts received from courts.
Where is MLOG the gaming company, nothing, no info as if it dropped off the earth. where is our 35 percent.
NO legal paper to prove global took it!
imo, Jay Wright knew MOBL was heading for disaster
when he stopped buying shares in the open market every month. At least he got bagged along with us.
These fools at MOBL can't just walk away from the whole thing without filing or otherwise give some accounting of what's going on. I kind of hope they try walking away without saying something. They might end up in court as defendants and end up with a hefty fine or some jail time. The SEC can't make them do time, but they can turn the case over to the Attorney Generals office and request prosecusorial action.
stockdoc
You don't reckon the people at MOBL don't really want anyone snoopen around so their going to hurry up and close it down do you. Just wondering since it sounds like some of ya'll have been calling and pestering people. A lot of whats went on sure sounds fishy to me, that would be the best way to keep people from finding out anything wouldn't it, get it closed down quick then what happens to the records. Just thinking out loud, I'm probably full of sh_t, I don't have a clue to what happens to stuff after a business is shut down.
harr his first name is Scott, that is Don Sledge's son, he was asked to clean up. I sent a letter to Jay and he sent a note back telling mehe was no longer involved and Scott Sledge the son had taken over to clean up. Jay passed my letter to Scott and Scott sent a note back to me, Scott said he new nothing about mlog. He was very strong mobl was closing trades soon, there was no date he just mentioned he would be finished soon, that was his only job.
I don't want to past these emails but i can if need be.
Reference to "Mr. Sledge" should be clarified.
Don Sledge, a former company Official passed away Nov. 1, 2011.
Scott Sledge, his son, took over afterwards.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71921285&txt2find=sledge
After APCC Services won the Supreme Court decision in 2008 to allow it to represent PPS, MOBL should have broken off and hired its own attorney to represent its claims. It could brought the DAC litigation to the FCC and gotten a decision in about year. MOBL could have gotten an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis. By applying the FCC model/criteria, MOBL would have been awarded upwards of $50 million, including the pre-judgment interest. Even if AT&T and Qwest fought it, FCC decision would be the negotiating basis moving forward.
One important question is why has all monies in there amounts been kept secret, we are stock holders we have some wrights.
Perhaps so. In the DAC litigation case APCC Services (Board) members make the decision to accept or not accept the settlement amounts offered up by AT&T and Qwest. The question is, were the settlement amounts offered to APCC Services similar to what amounts would be received under the FCC model for payment on outstanding DAC monies owed to Pay Phone Providers. FCC model breaks down the amount owed on the DAC based upon length of dropped/undropped calls. If this model/criteria was ignored, and just a low settlement amount was taken to just get rid of the litigation, then there are problems..
Once APCC Services won the Supreme Court decision to allow it to represent pay phone providers, it likely didn't want to continue paying out the legal fees charged by the hour. So, new attorneys were brought in to be paid on a contingency basis. When that happenend, MOBL's changes of getting a trial and high settlement amount diminsihed. These attorneys were out to settle quickly, and receive their share of the settlement monies. A quick settelement means much smaller amount in monies received for the DAC litigation. Final settlement monies paid to MOBL probably did not cover the $11 million in secured debt owed to YA Global. This is what Mr. Sledge is referring to in his email.
The question is, what about the MLOG shares?? Mr. Sledge should have known about these shares or seen where they went.
The email i received mr sledge said he new nothing about mlog. Jay sent me to sledge, so why will jay not give us some insight! The gentlemen from APCC i talked to personaly said Tammy L Martin followed this all the way through the court systems. I don't know who but i believe someone got a lot of cash under the table to allow this to go so stupid as to give away. Yes there is a lot of organized crime operating on wall st.
Judgement will come when they leave this earthly body, no lawyer can help or President or country, hell is wide open and waiting.
Exactly, the MLOG shares should still be on the books. If Mr. Sledge does not know anything about the shares, then shareholders have a problem. These assets were not "secured", so they should not have paid to YA Global to pay down any remaining debt. Maybe Sledge was put in charge to "only" pay DAC settelement fees to YA Global, and nothing more.
MLOG shares today are not worth much, so MOBL's debtors are likely not going to pay all the legal/court fees to obtain these shares. It is just not worth their effort and cost to obtain them. So, the real question is WHO has these shares?
I contacted APCC and they said it was final all monies went to global. nobody knows anything about mlog. Mr sledge said they were closing the doors on mobil soon he was there to clean up.
Get smart people the mlog is falling throught the cracks, unless we do something.
They have got away with it.
Don't know if you know anything about the UCC, particularly Article 9 (secured transactions). In any case, there are issues of perfection and surplus that immediately come to mind. On the issue of surplus, if YA was overpaid, the surplus is to come back to the debtor (MOBL). Also, if the case was settled, was there pressure to accept less than what might otherwise have been achieved just so this debt could be paid off quickly and have done?
Lots of questions here. Who were the lawyers handling this case for MOBL when it was settled?
There are a lot of issues here. More than most would think of.
At this point, shareholders here are trying to find out how much MOBL received from the DAC litigation. APCC Services has said that the DAC litigation concerning MOBL is likely complete, and settlement monies have been paid to MOBL. Nothing more is known.
There are many more questions that need to be answered.
There wasn't any insider trading. None whatsoever. All you posters were painting such a horrible picture of MOBL that it resulted in a few of the 189 followers of this board to sell out. It was only 25 million shares on the worst day, and that's only about $5K at the worst, more likely about $3.5K worth of stock. I don't know of anyone stupid enough to risk investigation and a probable prosecution for, at best, $5K.
stockdoc
A stock I own had it's shares "revoked"
(deregistered) 2 wks. after a trading suspension.
MOBL 2012/02/14 25,530,000 Volume.
Whomever traded these shares knew about the imminent suspension, imo. That's illegal. Wonder if transfer agent can identify the person or persons.
Trading Suspensions 34-66445 Feb. 23, 2012
Jetronic Industries, Inc. (n/k/a New Bastion Development, Inc.), JMAR Technologies, Inc., Kolorfusion International, Inc., Legalopinion.com (n/k/a Drayton Richdale Corp.), Lifestream Technologies, Inc., Lions Petroleum, Inc., (n/k/a China Hongxing Agritech, Inc.), Luna Technologies International, Inc., Litewave Corp., MDI, Inc., and MobilePro Corp.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml
"Order"
Trading is suspended through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 7, 2012.
Administrative Proceedings MOBL
34-66446 Feb. 23, 2012 Jetronic Industries, Inc. (n/k/a New Bastion Development, Inc.), Lions Petroleum, Inc. (n/k/a China Hongxing Agritech, Inc.), MDI, Inc., and MobilePro Corp.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtml
You will see volume but not bid/ask or Level II.
fyi, grey market has no bid/ask. It's a guessing game.
Price usually opens up significantly lower but how much lower can it go with triple zero price?
imo, someone knew about the suspension and dumped their shares.
"All monies from the DAC lawsuit were also considered "secured" assets, so they too had to go off to YA Global."
How much did they get?
I would be looking at the O&D liability policies.
I would be looking to see what has happened to the Davel litigation, did they settle? If so where did that money go? Did they just quit the litigation. Why? And what about Close Call and MLOG?
I'm afraid the only way there will be any recovery is through a court room, and for that you need to find a lawyer who would like the case well enough to take it on contingency. A very hard sell unless you put together a pretty compelling description of the case first.
I think the Statue of Limitations may have run out for MOBL debtors to take any further action. YA Global has used all of its leverage in collecting on the "secured" assets, but if no other filings or actions are taken againt MOBL, then the MLOG shares should be free from the debtors. If that is the case, then shareholders have some options here to consider.
So where do we stand with these mlog shares and what should we do? If we don't stand up they will take them no questions asked.
YA Global was able to force the sale of Close Call America back in 2009 because the assets were "secured" for the debt. MOBL only receieved $2 million in the Auction Sale, which was just terrible for shareholders. I would thought Jay could have found a buyer who would pay more. But, the economy was tanking really bad at the time, so MOBL just got pennies on the dollar for its value.
All monies from the DAC lawsuit were also considered "secured" assets, so they too had to go off to YA Global.
My point made before is that the MLOG shares were not "secured" assets, and therefore YA Global can not just demand them without having to file involuntary bankruptcy.
Excuse me for butting in to you guys thoughts but what about (close call america) they sold it for almost nothing and i asked why it was in part to pay off global. They gave it away now did jay as a friend give it to them or sell at a reduced rate with the difference applied to the loan which should have been much more. My understanding it was worth much more.
I will contact the sec and i will the Lord be willing make it a life long project to see what really happened.
MLOG share are not worth anything today, if they were sold in an attempt to pay down debt. However, they will be worth a lot at some point in the future when MLOG takes off. I wouldn't think YA Global would bother with the MLOG shares knowing its value today. Someone in MOBL would have to voluntarily give them up for payment on the debt. YA Global could not get to it unless it filed in court for involuntary bankruptcy.
Last correspondence with Jay back in 2010 was that MOBL still had the MLOG shares.
8-----I wanted to add one more thing. Even if somehow, the shareholders went after MOBL management and won 100% of their claims (whatever their claims might be) against MOBL, what will they get for their effort: Nothing. MOBL has no assets (well, maybe MLOG)
stockdoc
8-----I agree, we need some accounting for everything that's happened. With our 35% ownership in MLOG, we should have some equity unless it's been sold off and the money turned over to the people/companies that MOBL owes money to.
As far as listing, it doesn't mean much of anything anymore. If some company comes along and wants to buy it as a shell company, it could be relisted. The big problem is that the shareholder equity could turn out to be zero.
I wouldn't invest a penny or a moment of time in trying to pursue MOBL management. MOBL management hasn't done anything wrong. Even if someone found a half dozen violations, the SEC wouldn't do a thing about it. Companies listed on the .OB or .PK are seen as extremely high risk companies and not held to the same standards as NYSE or NASDAQ companies. No one should be crying about MOBL's wild schemes and the resultant failure. If you want accountability, invest in companies under the auspices of the SEC. The SEC will do absolutely nothing about MOBL.
stockdoc
Stock, What are your views on the SEC suspenion? I guess there was a risk to holding onto one's position in MOBL. Now we may get absolutley nothing back.
I would like some accountability for what happened to the ownership in the MLOG shares.
How do we know these sec rullings are from the sec or somebodys pc!
They do not look legit or legal.
I am turning all my info about seven years worth, and let the SEC and the lawyers decide and i shall watch for these names that ran this company in the future and report as merited, i see them as crooks nothing more, shell companies yes let have some more shell companies! Most of us have one chance for our retirement years, thanks.
will it be seen trading on td-ameritrade normal streamer, i have never dealt with a stock on grey sheets.
Cephas: Regretably MOBL will trade on the unquoted Grey Sheets after the SEC Suspension expires.
The best chance for any money recovery is within the first few days of trading after the SEC Suspension expires. Soon thereafter it is nearly impossible to liquidate a position in a Grey Sheet stock.
Can anyone tell me how they feel this will effect the share holders, no trades understood but are they looking into the company to see what has happened. We have been ripped off, so where is mlog the gaming company, never has been mentioned.
thanks ahead of time
its a beautiful thing
MOBL SEC Suspension:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2012/34-66445.pdf
ADMIN Proceeding:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66446.pdf
level 2 blank==has mobl been delisted
I don't know, but it is time to call on the SEC to get started, i personally find myself very tired of waiting and knowing these people think they are the untouchables of wall st but that is coming to and abrupt stop.
I would advise all to get busy making your contacts to your lawyers and the SEC and your congressmen, we shall see.
WISE......sorry, I don't have private e-mail on ihub. I agree totally. It's the perfect time. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
stockdoc
Ayola, "first post", quite a statement.
Should we know more?
At this point, the only real value is the ownership in the MLOG shares. Much can be done if these shares are still on the books. Restructure the shares and then MOBL can moves forward.
I don't really see any point in selling off this stock at this point in time. Even if you need a tax offset, you can hold off until the end of the year (assuming that nothing more has taken place). The company still has some value to offer, even if it's just a shell company. No one can do much worse than getting .0001/share. Who knows, maybe one of these MOBL people will come up with some use for the company.
stockdoc
Historical Prices 02.14.2012
Date Open High Low Close Volume
2012/02/14 0.00010 0.00020 0.00010 0.00020 25,530,000
10M volume spanning 20 min. Time & Sales
Price Size Exch Time
$0.0002 10,000 OTO 10:13:14
$0.0001 1,800,000 OTO 10:08:43
$0.0001 1,200,000 OTO 10:08:22
$0.0001 1,000,000 OTO 10:08:22
$0.0001 1,000,000 OTO 10:08:22
$0.0002 10,000 OTO 10:06:18
$0.0001 5,000,000 OTO 09:48:18
That is all i believe anyone will get at this time, but who and why would anybody want to buy! Unless there is something else going on, i hope but not likely.....
MOBL volume 10M. All at .0001.
CSTI = 6.7M Size.
NITE = 19M Size.
Followers
|
161
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
17378
|
Created
|
04/23/03
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
MOBILEPRO CORPORATION
COMPANY WEBSITES OFFLINE AND COMPANY BUSINESS OPERATIONS TERMINATED.
MARCH 30, 2012
MobilePro (CIK No. 769592) is a Delaware corporation located in Gaithersburg,
Maryland, with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act
Section 12(g). MobilePro is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not
filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009, which
reported an operating loss of over $10.6 million for the prior twelve months. As of February 14,
2012, the company's stock (symbol "MOBL") was quoted on OTC Link, had ten market makers,
and was eligible for the "piggyback" exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
In addition to repeated failures to file timely periodic reports, Respondents have failed to
heed delinquency letters sent to them by the Division of Corporation Finance requesting
compliance with their periodic filing obligations or, through their failure to maintain a valid
address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules, did not receive such
letters.
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder require issuers
of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to file with the Commission
current and accurate information in periodic reports, even if the registration is voluntary under
Section 12(g). Specifically, Rule 13a-1 requires issuers to file annual reports, and Rule 13a-13
requires domestic issuers to file quarterly reports. 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13a-1, -13.
As a result of the foregoing, Respondents have failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Considering these delinquencies, it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors to revoke the registration of each class of registered securities of Respondents.
http://www.mobileprocorp.com/
Whois Record For MobileProCorp.com
Record last updated on 05-Nov-2010.
Record expires on 20-Mar-2011.
Record created on 20-Mar-2003.
http://whois.domaintools.com/mobileprocorp.com
http://progamesnetwork.com/ProGamesMain.aspx
Internet Archive Wayback Machine: web.archive.org/
Latest snapshot of Mobileprocorp.com website is April 2009.
VS.
Headquartered in Alexandria, VA, the American Public Communications Council is the national trade association representing the owners, suppliers, and manufacturers of public communications products and services. APCC is dedicated to supporting a public communications environment that promotes the widest deployment of payphones for the use of the American public".
www.apcc.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm
1:99-cv-00696-ESH APCC SERVICES INC, et al v. AT&T CORPORATION
Ellen S. Huvelle, presiding
Date filed: 03/19/1999
District of Columbia
| Complaint | ||||
Docket Text: COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff APCC SERVICES INC, plaintiff DATA NET SYSTEMS LLC, plaintiff JAROTH INC, plaintiff NSC TELEMANAGEMENT, plaintiff DAVEL COMMUNICATIONS, plaintiff PEOPLES TELEPHONE CO; jury demand; Exhibits (5) (tth) |
Filed: 05/18/2001
Entered: 05/25/2001
Order
Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle: appointing Honorable Richard A. Levie as Special Master (N) (gdf)
Hon. Richard A. Levie (Ret.)
Special Master/Disc'y Referee
APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. AT&T Corporation, Sprint, and Qwest, (Huvelle, J., D.D.C.) - Special Master for discovery and privilege in a series of telecommunication cases between telephone companies and owners of payphones over the proper amount of compensation due
http://tinyurl.com/3rnqstz
Post #16684 - 03/25/2011 to 04/22/2011 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62475533
Post #16518 - 03/05/2010 to 11/19/2010 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57566225
Post #16167 - 03/19/1999 to 09/29/2009 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45645435
149 |
| Motion to Disqualify Counsel | ||
Docket Text: MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Albert Kramer and Oral Hearing by AT&T CORPORATION (Attachments: # (1) Declaration Declaration of D Stark, # (2) Declaration Declaration of P Phillips, # (3) Declaration Declaration of B Byrd, # (4) Declaration Declaration of K Krom, # (5) Exhibit A, # (6) Exhibit B, # (7) Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Panner, Aaron). Added MOTION for Hearing on 5/11/2011 (jf, ). |
Filed & Entered: | 03/26/2011 |
Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER granting [138] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for admission of attorney Steve W. Berman pro hac vice, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney Steve W. Berman is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing in the above-captioned case. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on March 26, 2011.(AG)
Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER granting [139] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for admission of attorney Jennifer Fountain Connolly pro hac vice, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney Jennifer Fountain Connolly is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing in the above-captioned case. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on March 26, 2011.
Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER granting [140] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for admission of attorney Jeff D. Friedman pro hac vice, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney Jeff D. Friedman is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing in the above-captioned case. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on March 26, 2011.
Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER granting [141] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for admission of attorney Jason A. Zweig pro hac vice, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney Jason A. Zweig is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing in the above-captioned case. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on March 26, 2011.
Filed & Entered: 03/25/2011
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name - Steve W. Berman, :Firm- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, :Address- 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, Washington 98101. Phone No. - 206-623-7292. Fax No. - 206-623-0594 by APCC SERVICES INC (Attachments: # (1) Declaration, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, William)
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jennifer Fountain Connolly, :Firm- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, :Address- 1629 K St., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. Phone No. - (202) 355-6435. Fax No. - (202) 355-6455 by APCC SERVICES INC (Attachments: # (1) Declaration, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, William)
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jeff D. Friedman, :Firm- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, :Address- 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202, Berkeley, CA 94710. Phone No. - (510) 725-3000. Fax No. - (510) 725-3001 by APCC SERVICES INC (Attachments: # (1) Declaration, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, William)
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jason A. Zweig, :Firm- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, :Address- One Penn Plaza, 36th Floor, New York, NY 10119. Phone No. - (212) 752-5455. Fax No. - (917) 210-3980 by APCC SERVICES INC (Attachments: # (1) Declaration, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, William)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP - www.hbsslaw.com/home/
Based in Seattle, Washington, Hagens Berman LLP was founded in 1993 by Carl Hagens and Steve Berman with one purpose - to pursue the type of law that most interested the founders. This involved representing plaintiffs in class actions and multi-party, large-scale complex litigation and becoming engaged in cases that had the potential for having a positive impact on protecting the rights of investors, consumers, workers, innovators and the environment.
Since then, the firm has stayed true to that purpose and become one of the nation's leading firms in these fields, earning an international reputation for excellence and innovation.
Our main focus is to represent plaintiffs in securities, investment fraud, product liability, tort, antitrust, consumer fraud, employment, environmental, intellectual property and ERISA cases. In doing so, our firm has become particularly skilled at managing multi-state and nationwide class actions through an organized, coordinated approach that implements an efficient and aggressive prosecutorial strategy in order to place maximum pressure on the defendant.
A large part of our success is due to the excellent group of attorneys whose expertise and talent set them apart. The firm recognized two of its senior partners, Thomas Sobol and Anthony Shapiro, for their outstanding contributions and leadership. And in February 2005, the firm ushered in a new era by unveiling a new name - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
At Hagens Berman we all work towards the same goal - protecting the rights of our clients, whether they are consumers, investors, workers or stewards of the environment. Over the years, we've expanded our national reach to better serve our clients. Since the firm's founding in 1993, we've developed a successful and far-reaching network of branch offices in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Colorado Springs and Washington, D.C.
Founded in 1995, our Phoenix office has driven important litigation and has a strong legal presence in Arizona and the southwest. Shortly thereafter in 1996, we founded the Los Angeles office, which manages our significant case load in California.
In June 2002, our firm opened an office in Boston. This office leads our drug litigation efforts, challenging the prices of dozens of prescription drugs, and claiming that manufacturers artificially drove up drug prices through numerous anti-competitive practices.
In another step to become the nation's premier law firm in class-action and large-scale litigation, we created a Chicago branch in 2004. The firm first created a presence among the Illinois legal and political scene with the landmark litigation against the tobacco industry, in which Steve Berman served as special assistant attorney general for the state.
We opened our sixth national and second California office in San Francisco in 2007. The second California office is a reflection of our continuing growth in one of the most vibrant parts of the country. Having offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco will help ensure our firm is on the leading edge of important social and governmental change within the legal landscape.
In 2010, we opened offices in Washington D.C. and Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the following year, opened offices in New York and Minneapolis.
www.hbsslaw.com/our-firm/about-us
APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. AT&T Corp. AND APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Qwest Corp.
Levetown & Jenkins, LLP is counsel for APCC Services, Inc., a billing clearinghouse for payphone service providers ("PSPs"), in separate actions against AT&T Corp. and Qwest Corp. for non-payment of fees for so-called "dial-around-calls." The actions allege that the defendants unlawfully failed to pay the PSPs dial-around fees at rates set by the FCC. These companion cases, filed in the District for the District of Columbia, had previously been appealed to the Supreme Court on the issues of standing and a right to a private cause of action against the defendants for failing to adhere to FCC rates. Subsequent to its victories in the Supreme Court, APCC retained Levetown & Jenkins, LLP to represent it to finally resolve these cases after a decade of litigation. Levetown & Jenkins was able to settle Qwest case in April 2011 within weeks of being retained as counsel. Levetown & Jenkins is working in conjunction with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP for this engagement.
http://tinyurl.com/3npcokf
http://levjen.com/index.php/practice/
VS.
Case APCC SERVICES, INC., et al v. QWEST COMM CORP, et al
District of Columbia
Ellen S. Huvelle, presiding
Date filed: 03/23/2001
Date terminated: 03/25/2011
Date of last filing: 04/27/2011
Document 58 Filed 04/27/11
Joint Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kbqfa
Albert H. Kramer
AMERICAN PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL
625 Slaters Lane
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22315
(703) 739-1322 x228
(703) 739-1324 (fax)
kramera@dicksteinshapiro.com
Assigned: 08/09/2007
LEAD ATTORNEY representing APCC SERVICES, INC.
(Plaintiff)
Leslie R. Cohen
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
(202) 420-2225
(202) 420-2201 (fax)
cohenl@dicksteinshapiro.com
Assigned: 09/07/2007
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing APCC SERVICES, INC.
(Plaintiff)
April 1, 2011 - CenturyLink and Qwest Complete Merger
http://www.centurylinkqwestmerger.com/index.php?page=news
Jay Wright, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
On Sept. 20, 2010, it was unofficially reported (see email below) that CEO Jay Wright left MobilePro Corp. and is now working elsewhere.
From Yahoo message board by "crashfree60":
"New Ceo 20-Sep-10 03:24 pm
Here is a message from Jay Wright I got today:
Hi "crashfree"- I am no longer with Mobilepro.
With respect to your questions, I believe MOBL still owns MLOG shares. On the lawsuit, I do not know as I have been gone for 6 1/2 weeks now so I can't reasonably comment.
Regards,
Jay Wright"
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx
Jay Wright President at Bayberry Capital, Inc.
Location
Washington D.C. Metro Area
Industry
Venture Capital & Private Equity
Current
* President at Bayberry Capital, Inc.
* CFO at Blackridge Technology Holdings, Inc.
* Director at Vought Defense Systems, Inc.
* Chairman at Microlog Corporation
* Adjunct Professor of Finance at Georgetown University
Past
* Chairman and CEO at Mobilepro
* Chairman at ProGames Network, Inc.
* President at Bayberry Capital, Inc.
Source: linkedin.com
April 26, 2011 Press Release Excerpt - "The ALAS Board of Directors also accepted the resignation of Jay O. Wright as a Director of ALAS, effective April 9, 2011".
finance.yahoo.com/news/ALAS-Signs-Contract-to-pz-2646466833.html
Tammy L. Martin Tammy Martin joined us in November 2004 as the General Counsel of Davel and was promoted to Chief Executive Officer of Davel in May 2005. In April 2006 Ms. Martin was promoted to Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Vice President of the Company. In November 2006 Ms. Martin was promoted to General Counsel of the Company. Prior to the acquisition of Davel in November 2004, Ms. Martin served in various positions, including General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer. Ms. Martin received a Bachelors of Business Administration degree from Baldwin Wallace College and a JD degree from Cleveland State University.
APCC Board of Directors
Tammy Martin
MobilePro Corp.
Cleveland Heights, OH
http://www.apcc.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=10
MOBILEPRO CORP. | |||
Date: August 6, 2009 | By: | /s/ Jay O. Wright | |
Jay O. Wright Chief Executive Officer Mobilepro Corp. |
July 2, 2009 Form 8-K
Item 8.01. Other Events.
(d) | Exhibits |
10.1 | Note Payable dated June 30, 2009 between Mobilepro Corp. and L. William Fogg, Nationwide Acquisition Corp. and Unified Communication Corporation |
MOBILEPRO CORP. | |||
Date: July 2, 2009 | By: | /s/ Jay O. Wright | |
Jay O. Wright Chief Executive Officer Mobilepro Corp. |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |