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.
Very nice find.
Dcbass should make it a point to ask hard and specific questions and not be impressed with JP's Star Wars collection etc.. He should get a specific date for when audited financial reports will come out and ask for specifics for what Jim Plant has done filings etc. to ensure we trade on the pink sheets as soon as possible. He should also ask to see evidence (NOBO, DTC, etc.) of a short position.
I any body in contact with him?
This is all BS. They need to show audited financial reports. I could care less about anything else.
No clue I only know what is listed on thier web site. The Nevada secretary of state website only lists the 3 billion authorized shares. It doesn't go into more detail I assume that is all there is.
That remains to be seen but the audited numbers should include share structure.
Thanks and that does make sense. If he can show the money then we should survive this. If not then I have damages.........lol
That isn't the charge though. The thrust of the SEC charge is basically that CKYS made up the contracts and revenues.
If you look at the ihub top 20 boards on the home page it appears that the majority of those companies are less legitimate than Cyberkey. Most of those companies aren't making any money, no products etc.
CKYS is on DOD EMALL, has a MSNBC Media Campaign etc.
There's the SQUM PR verifying orders and so on.
And don't get me wrong I am not saying those companies are scams either. But for whatever reason the SEC has decided to make an example of CKYS, so now that we are suspended Jim Plant will have to produce audited numbers immediately.
Do not give access to your account to anyone. You don't know if at a future date they will try to access it.
I know somebody that owns 17 million that isn't on there yet so it is a safe bet that the purported float is more than owned.
15% of the o/s or the float? and does it have to be owned by one person?
Who smiled your attorney or Jim?
Welcome back....optimism is always welcome....
But it can, correct? And even if it did take a couple weeks it all still comes down to CKYS providing audited financials that are reasonably close to the unaudited numbers correct. If they do we will be fine as you have already conceded..
No kidding.
That's fine I simply posted your post so you would understand why I asked you about it.
I have already said here that this comes down to CKYS needing to provide audited numbers. If they do we will be fine if not then we won't.
This kind of implied that he gave you a reason of sorts for the suspension. The guy I spoke with would not get into any details or imply anything. And quite frankly said he wasn't allowed to. Apparently his boss disclosed a little more according to you.
Posted by: upbeatmofool
In reply to: None Date:2/7/2007 2:48:43 PM
Post #of 56563
John Stark of the SEC just returned my phone call from earlier this morning.Although apologetic and seemingly sympathetic to my complaint of personal ruination and the fact that many such as myself will suffer greatly at the hands of the very Federal Institution which was designed to protect us,he offered no explanation as to the EXTREMELY poor timing of the halt,and would only provide that it was not just a few calls from individuals that initiated the halt,and hinted,rather that there was some sort of egregious irregularity which resulted in the cessation of trading CKYS..I told him that the SEC was simply playing into the hands of the shorts,and that the timing of this complete fiasco was HIGHLY suspicious,and his response was,as I read between the lines,that there is something very,very wrong with our Mr. Plant's numbers and claims.
Are you saying it is 100% impossible for the company to trade on the pinks after the suspension?
Famous in your own mind....lol...Almost Famous.....
Nope my broker didn't mislead me. He may very well have said another supension and not an extension. That is why I said you were haggling over semantics. I condensed a long conversation into a short post. The essense of what was said was important and it is likely that we trade on the pinks.
Yes please clarify Cowboys follow up question.
Good. At this point I will take the word of professionals over anonymous IHUB posters.
Upbeat. Who did you speak to from the SEC? You said he gave you specifics about the complaint and he isn't allowed to do that. They refused to give me specifics. I only got answers to my questions about the procedure and I voiced concerns about where the complaints originated.
Sir, no I went beyond tier one and spoke to a person familiar with this stuff. As long as there is interest we should get a MM to quote us on the pinks in his professional opinion but of course there is no guarantees as to what will happen. He said it is likely we re-open on the pinks based on volume.
Audited numbers and we'll be OK imo.
I think you are haggling over semantics on the extension. He could have been saying issue a new one. No the guy I spoke with was very knowledgeable. I made the regular phone rep get me somebody familiar with it. As long as there isn't a major problem and the interest is there we should trade on the pinks in his professional opinion.
Here was a pros opinion:
Posted by: smartmoney77
In reply to: cyberkeyheist who wrote msg# 56446 Date:2/7/2007 3:45:48 PM
Post #of 56513
I had a very detailed conversation with a Schwab representative. I had to be conferenced to the support guy. I am going to make a long story short here. He said nothing is for certain but he basically said that if there is interest in the stock they should be able to find a MM and trade on the pinks. As long as the MM's can make money they will usually quote them. I read him the wording of the compliant and he said that it was simply a phone call from the MM to the SEC to see if they are OK to trade. Based upon the trading volume that I shared with him he felt that it was likely that we would go back on the pinks provided the SEC doesn't extend the suspension if they found something bad etc.
Again he said there was no guarantee what would happen but that he felt CKYS would be able to find a MM with the share volume that it trades.
Nobody is 'on him'. He's making repetitive bogus claims without evidence, attempting to engage everybody and then crying victim. Not to mention he insults everybody as if he is some guru. Give me a break. You should ask him not to be so rude, repetitive, and obnoxious toward everybody. If he is so smart he should be able to develop suitable social skills and be able to function on the board without dispute or the need for you to defend him.
I understand that he doesn't know any better but you shouldn't be encouraging him like this.
This was a professionals opinion and he felt we'd go on the pinks right away.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16868263
Thanks.
I think we will see audited numbers around the time we start trading and if we do it will fly since that will prove contracts and revenues which is the basis for the complaint. I basically am 99% sure the contracts and revenues are real but you never know. I think the suspension was the result of an organized effort from a group of ihub posters. I think the SEC looked and didn't see a contract because it is through a third party and jumped the gun here. They may have had a problem with the old UAF's but why they would go after CKYS now when they were going to be on Good Morning AMerica etc.? That is suspect to me. I think we'll be fine but most probably don't agree right now. Bottom line is they need tpo produce audited numbers.
No that is not what I was just told. Of course there is no way to tell but he felt as long as CKYS has the trading interest they should be able to find a MM for the pinks. In fact he used the example of Sears a few years ago. He said providing there is no problem like not having the contracts etc they should be able to find a MM. He said if there is trading volume and interest that CKYS would likely find a MM to quote them on pinks. Again, he has no way of knowing but he is a professional.
At what point in time do you think we will know this?
jeanette in case you missed this.
Posted by: smartmoney77
In reply to: cyberkeyheist who wrote msg# 56446 Date:2/7/2007 3:45:48 PM
Post #of 56466
I had a very detailed conversation with a Schwab representative. I had to be conferenced to the support guy. I am going to make a long story short here. He said nothing is for certain but he basically said that if there is interest in the stock they should be able to find a MM. As long as the MM's can make money they will usually quote them. I read him the wording of the compliant and he said that it was simply a phone call from the MM to the SEC to see if they are OK to trade. Based upon the trading volume that I shared with him he felt that it was likely that we would go back on the pinks provided the SEC doesn't extend the suspension if they found something bad etc.
Again he said there was no guarantee what would happen but that he felt CKYS would be able to find a MM with the share volume that it trades.
If enough complaints were initiated by a group of people on the internet and they initially didn't see the contract because of the third party involved they could have jumped the gun. Time will tell.
I had a very detailed conversation with a Schwab representative. I had to be conferenced to the support guy. I am going to make a long story short here. He said nothing is for certain but he basically said that if there is interest in the stock they should be able to find a MM. As long as the MM's can make money they will usually quote them. I read him the wording of the compliant and he said that it was simply a phone call from the MM to the SEC to see if they are OK to trade. Based upon the trading volume that I shared with him he felt that it was likely that we would go back on the pinks provided the SEC doesn't extend the suspension if they found something bad etc.
Again he said there was no guarantee what would happen but that he felt CKYS would be able to find a MM with the share volume that it trades.
If any broker dealer or any other person has any other information that may relate to this matter, they should contact John Reed Stark, in the office of internet enforcement, of the Securities and Exchange Commision, 202-551-4892.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml
When I spoke with them they would not comment on any specifics of the case including who filed the complaints or what triggered the investigation. In fact they said they were not allowed to do that by law. I did offer my suggestion that they investigate who originated the complaint since I think they are ihub posters located in Canada that organized the complaints.
My thought is that they got a lot of complaints organized through the internet and at first glance did not see a govt contract because it is through a third party.
Mordicai, Thanks that was very informative.
That is what the audited numbers would do. The latest video he says they have received 18 million of the 25 million so I would have to guess that is what they used. Other than that we need to wait for the audited numbers. If they stick to the 60 day timeline that they gave in December we should get the audited numbers by Feb 20th.