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.
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.
Conversely, I see Buck's point too. Allowing SOME time to pass is ok with me, however much I hate it.
If they gave any inkling of a buyout or merger, their pps would skyrocket, thereby prejudicing the rights of the buyer. They have plenty of IP that has tremendous value, and we should be paid fairly for it in the end. Prejudicing the rights of a buyer in M/A activity can also lead to litigation as well.
If we don't hear anything for 90 days from the FORM 15 Filing, then by ALL MEANS am I onboard for requesting shares in our individual name. This WILL force their hand according to SEC rules, and they'll have to tell us what's going on.
Like I said before, the walls can cave in on these guys within 9 months. What I mean by this, is that everyone here can call their broker and have the shares transferred to their name. Once that occurs, there should be greater than 300 shareholders, as the number filed on the FORM 15 is only broker dealers, according to my reading.
Once this happens, on 12/31/2012, these guys have to re-verify that there are still under 300 holders. By holding them in your name, and if we are greater than 300, we can force them back into reporting.
This is such total BS that these millionaire/billionaires have acted like this. But F*** em, pay me for my shares.
I know, I had it spelled correctly, but google picked him up in the body of the page.
Actually, some nice articles here...
http://article.wn.com/view/2011/07/07/Atrinsic_Interactive_s_Aaron_Baker_Keynotes_Elite_Retreat_Ho/
Actually, here you go...
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110707005453/en
Look at the lower right hand column, 2 paragraphs. I can't trace this anywhere...maybe you guys can find it. I'm at work.
http://peeepl.com/people/aaron-bakr/
You would think with guys like Dyne, Fong, Goldfarb and Baker, who is obviously well respected in online search, that something is on the horizon.
If we break out and this takes off, you can basically stamp the theory that we have news AH
All JMHO
Poignant message around Easter time.
No...but thanks for offering free negativity.
It's junk news
I'M READY FOR SOME NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every fiscal year they have to recertify their shareholder requirement. So, we'd have to get our shares, hold them through the normal fiscal reporting period, at which time they have to recertify less than 300 shareholders. When they see 301, their reporting obligations are no longer suspended and they must tell us what's going on...
Then we should assign teams to continue posting until they tell us something. j/k
I'm out for night folks. Until tomorrow's torcher in the darkness...
If the filings weren't made, I'd say a possibility.
I can tell you folks this, that if I don't get resolution here soon, I'm going to be divorced. My wife thinks I'm an internet junky, and I just want this dam thing resolved.
Are you insinuating wtf I think you are insinuating?
Problem is that it would only force their hand one year from now. We'd have to hold it, as they've suspended reporting requirements and haven't eliminated them. We get over 300 beneficial owners, and we've kicked their asses back in play to HAVE to begin filing reports.
I called Atrinsic tonight and got an automated system when I called. Zeroed out and it rang and rang.
You know, if this doesn't resolve itself quickly, we could potentially force their hands if there is enough of us...
http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2004-07-08/boyea.shtml
Finally, an issuer should also be aware of what we will refer to as the "broker kickout" problem. When a Form 15 takes effect and there is subsequent cessation of periodic reporting by the issuer, brokers may "kick out" shares of an issuer's stock that were previously held in street name to the actual beneficial owners, thereby increasing the number of holders of record. (See the sidebar.)
The "broker kickout" and the other reactions to deregistration could result in the issuer exceeding the applicable maximum number of holders of record permitted (499 holders of record if the asset test is met and 299 if the asset test is not met) for continued suspension of Section 15(d) reporting obligations. If this happens, the issuer would be obligated to file periodic reports again starting as of the first day of the next fiscal year and continuing at least until the first day of the next fiscal year when the issuer may test again to determine whether such suspension is available, even though the issuer may be under no obligation to re-register its common stock under the Exchange Act.
About those kickouts
It is very difficult to describe the "broker kickout" problem because it is not triggered by any specific rule or regulation but may occur merely as a result of internal procedures and policies of the depositories and brokers that are not made publicly available.
For example, from informal conversations the authors have had with a representative of DTC, it appears that DTC, which provides custodial services to brokers, may require its nominee, Cede & Co., to send deregistered securities back to the DTC participant — typically the broker — if, for example, unlawful trading occurs with respect to such deregistered securities. If the securities are sent by the depository to the broker, the broker then has to make a choice — hold them (through a nominee) for its clients, assuming that it can do so in compliance with NASD rules, or "kick" the stock certificates back to its clients — the beneficial owners.
The authors readily acknowledge the difficulty of providing a client with definitive advice on the risk of a "broker kickout" because of the lack of legal guidance on the matter and the inability to determine exactly how depositories and broker-dealers will react to a deregistration.
Let's have some fun...
Please tell us, what do Enron, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers have to do with Atrinsic?
I could definitely use the Force, if anyone has it!
Well well well...
This article squash the no litigation theory, And that we don't have any rights, Or that directors don't have a fiduciary duty To their shareholders.
Hopefully that's the last time we hear about this nonsense.
Holy crap. What does it take to get through to you. They HAVE SHARES!!!!!! UNLESS MUSCI SOLD AT. 14 OR LESS, AND TOOK A BATH IN THE PROCESS, THEY HAVE SHARES!!!!!
Holy smokes. If that is true that may be the smoking gun imo
What's best for Muski is a buyout price over 1.86
In fact, on that info alone, it should be over that price. Not saying it will be, but probably should be. Transaction revenue increased 100% y o y in the last report. So at that growth rate, next yr reva should be 90-100M at that growth rate, and in this sector, it aint impossible.
Im just sayin, not insinuating a b-o over that price.
Brilliant comment. Are you an Ivy Leaguer, or more of a Union guy?
Fabulous (not really), but what legislation came out of that????
OH YEAH! Sarbanes Oxley
Didn't you say we'll know by Thursday, now its not this week?
No wonder I'm going nuts...
Great, and if they do, you think all of us are going to sit here and take it?
Complete and total rogueness on their fiduciary duty. If they go dark and deregister to screw shareholders, what in the hell do you think that looks like?
Subpeona their financials effective 3/31, make a case on growth and they'll lose, no doubt.
This is one weird discussion.
I'd pay off my mortgage.
Holy smokes this stock is garbage!!!!!!!!!!
Well, in this case, they'll be screwing themselves. Musci couldn't have shorted ATRN, as he would have had to file up until the deregistration date / going dark. Which puts the PPS at about right where it is...
So, if they screw us, he screws himself.
Total BS!! How do you think rich people get rich?
Almost agree with you, with the exception that the directors are holding a BUTT LOAD of stock themselves, at well over the pps it is now. Why would you 'Off yourself' financially in a bogus transaction. Personally, I think they had a buyout idea in mind and pushed their technology/expertise in front of someone with a big bank account.
Musci holds 457k shares at a value greater than $1.50. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. You think Musci agrees to a losing offer?
I like that fact of this transaction. If he's unloading shares now, which I highly doubt, he's incurring heavy losses.
Find one of his posts and reply to it...
I'd like to know too...
ATRN filed Form 15 at 5:21 on Friday, or at least, that's when I received the email...
They gagged the T/A?
This may have already been covered, but did anyone call IR already?
I don't own 1M shares...
Personally, I'd be a fan of having an attorney fire off a letter if we don't hear something by the close of business on Thursday.
They want to play this game and be pigs...see if we could force their hand.
If you look at my history, I'm on top of every one if it comes to me and I'm in front of my PC...
Literally, within seconds.
www.secfilings.com works well for me!
Question for only serious posters...
Since they indicated now that they are going dark and deregistered, it still doesn't skirt their fiduciary duties to report up until that time.
Do they really have to file FORM 4s and release any PRs now, since they deregistered.
Since I've been doing all these mental gymnastics both at work and at home (with ATRN), started to not think clearly. Kinda like being up for 2 days straight with no food!
Me too...