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.
Waiting for new information?
http://www.chapter11cases.com/Asyst-Technologies-Inc_c_24928.html#axzz1NLH1T6by
This represents nothing short of spectacular performance for a combination of a pre-revenue company and a bankrupt entity.
ENTITY...does anybody like this choice of language? very interesting i think but why is it taking so long to get a resolution and answer?
also anyone know if there income of 400 mil +/- is a direct reason for aquiring Asyst? Did they aquire product, clients, IP, or all???? what's causing this income and how can they get so much income when they aquired the least amount of the three sales?
Anybody have an answer?
page 4/5
http://www.crossinginc.com/docs/newsletters/april/Crossing-Automation-April-2010-Newsletter.pdf
The 1.87 years (682 days) on average in bankruptcy compares to a median of 1.57 years (574 days), with a minimum of 37 day and a maximum of 7.98 years.
http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?objectID=1264
No deadline, there is a deadline for proposal of a plan, but that can be extended by the Court for cause. Cases can be withdrawn or dismissed, or, converted to Chapter 7.
Whether the assets outweigh the liabilities is irrelevant.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/how-long-can-a-company-remain-in-chapter-11---is-t-149931.html
Crossing Automation continues to see strong 300 mm Spartan Sorter sales
http://pcsemicon.blogspot.com/2011/04/crossing-automation-continues-to-see.html
Never really thought much about these things...
Did former CEO of Asyst cause the chapter 11 to ensure his new position w/brooks? seems weird that this happened?
Also Brooks Automation vs Crossing Automation?
automation vs automation...
seems crossing is trying to give brooks a run for the title #1 spot?
...Li began his career as an engineer at Intel Corporation 27 years ago. He has held executive roles for the past 15 years at companies including Brooks Automation...
http://www.crossinginc.com/docs/press-releases/081810_CROS_NewVPAsiaOps_PR_Final.pdf
Who bought all the patents?
http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/AsystTechnologiesInc.html
Chapter 11 is very complex?
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=21871
very interesting...
...However, I was talking to an ex-Asyst employee (several years departed) in the Moscone hallways and he was adamant that Crossing Automation had acquired that part of Asyst and change from US$8-10 million.
This would seem to be a smart move from this company as it will inherit a broad OEM customer portfolio as well as direct access to some major IDM’s and foundries that use Spartan’s and such like.
One of the biggest hurdles for equipment start-ups is getting traction as the industry is very conservative. I for one will be watching out for Crossing Automation as they could start to gain market share is certain segments against Brooks Automation.
Fabtech recently did a product review on Crossing Automation and I was impressed with the simplistic yet highly intelligent technological approach. A classic case for pushing 300mm productivity and cost reduction strategies, especially when 450mm is a long way away...
http://www.fabtech.org/editor_s_blog/_a/asyst_taken_apart_one_robotic_arm_at_a_time/
Information on chap 11 and chap 7
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm
Who, what, when, where? Is this guy in the mix too???? wow...lots of powerful players all with merger and acquisition experience?
Peter Cohn, a partner in the Silicon Valley office, is a member of the firm’s Corporate Group. He represents emerging growth technology companies, venture capital firms, and investment banks in a broad range of matters, including initial public offerings, venture capital and other private securities financings, strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions, and executive compensation matters, as well as technology licensing and general corporate matters.
Representative company clients include...Crossing Automation, Inc. ...
Related Practice Areas
Emerging Companies
Venture Capital and Strategic Investments
Mergers and Acquisitions
Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances
Investment Bank Representation
Technology Transactions
http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=108228
Also maybe they brought in the "big guns" to try and finish before this event-huge event where they could be done and announce and move forward as a public company....????
Semicon
July 12-14, 2011
Moscone Center
San Francisco, CA
Anyway to explain what these mean to you? I have a good idea and have studied these but always good to hear from another source?
Thanks edurk for all your work here-
> The Liquidation Trust Agreement has not been signed.
> The Confirmation Plan is still open.
Although the links when searched for crossing automation in google don't work? ... worldwide locations don't come up, etc etc...>????
Crossing Automation | Automated Wafer Transfer Systems May 10, 2011 ... Crossing Automation is a leading designer and manufacturer of fab ... Fremont, CA 94538 USA | +1 510 661 5000 | info@crossinginc.com | Site Map.
www.crossinginc.com/ - Cached
Worldwide Locations
Careers
News/Events Products
300 mm Falcon
300 mm IsoPort
More results from crossinginc.com »
Below listed on the crossing website? makes me wonder what's happening?
"Our website has recently undergone major updates. Have you refreshed your browser today?
Refresh this page"
Another situation that I often come across is CEO’s who want to go public and don’t have any money for the audit or the legal fees.
There are certain expenses associated with going public that need to be paid. These CEO’s often want to do a reverse merger because it’s the fastest way to go public, but Public Shells are expensive and could be the costliest avenue use to go public.
When a private company purchases a Public Shell, the purchaser must perform a thorough due diligence of the Public Shell to make sure that it is clean and not bringing any past legal problem to the private company.
The due diligence process often get neglected because the private company is not familiar with the ins and outs of the public arena.
So they often take the advised given by the shell owner and submit to his demands. When companies rush to go public they often live to regret it, short cuts can be very expensive. I always give CEO’s who call me the alternative to reverse merger, such as Direct public offering, Regulation D or IPO but if their minds are already made up or they may have already purchased the Shell without doing proper due diligence.
I will do all I can to try and make it work but the CEO must be warn of the perils ahead and how to prepare for them. For example if he does have a lot of shareholders and a lot of shares outstanding he must reverse split the shares to reduce the number of shares available for sale including those own by the Shell owner.
The Shell owner will often require the private company to sign an agreement not to reverse the share prior to the sale, if they agree to this demand they will be making a big mistake.
http://www.hooverwebdesign.com/business/finance/take-your-company-public.php
So because they brought the attorney in from tx means they may be having trouble with something? Or is this positive? Why couldn't the same people handle going forward? What problems do you see with the merger if any? Would the HP claim still cause problems? Is that still there? Would it be the key bank release or was that issue solved?
Also why does crossing show so much income or the same amount as asyst did before the BK protection. What seems fishy is that crossing bought the least amount from Asyst? The other two companies that purchased larger amounts of the old asyst co should be receiving income from prior asyst clients as well and crossing should not show all prior income amount...no? Something seems weird unless what crossing purchased allowed them to reap better benefits with what they are doing as a buisness? ??? I am trying to figure out?
Can anyone answer this? Edurk?
This looks like it's just documenting that Crossing bought part of Asyst-no? It has info sale date from 2009 which is when they bought but it says aquire...play on words? Anybody else have any idea on this?
Do you know what this means? Any indication as to who this person is?
Press Release
SEC Press Release
SEC Votes To Adopt Securities Act Rule Reform and Shell Company Regulations; Considers Matters Remanded by Court of Appeals FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2005-99
Washington, D.C., July 1, 2005 - On June 29, 2005, the Commission voted to adopt changes to rules regarding various processes regulated under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933; voted to adopt regulations to deter fraud and abuse in the securities markets through the use of shell companies; and considered matters remanded to the Commission by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
1. Rules Regarding Securities Offering Reform
The Commission voted to adopt modifications to the registration, communications, and offering processes under the Securities Act of 1933.
Categories of Issuers
In many cases, the amount of flexibility granted to issuers under the reforms is contingent on the characteristics of the issuer, including the type of issuer, the issuer's reporting history, and the issuer's equity market capitalization or amount of previously registered non-convertible securities, other than common equity. The rules divide issuers into four categories.
A well-known seasoned issuer is a new class of issuer that is current and timely in its Exchange Act reports for at least one year and has either $700 million of worldwide public common equity float or has issued $1 billion of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, in registered offerings for cash, in the preceding three years.
A seasoned issuer is a primary shelf eligible issuer.
An unseasoned issuer is an issuer that is required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, but is not a primary shelf eligible issuer.
A non-reporting issuer is an issuer that is not required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
The most significant revisions to the Commission's communications rules and registration processes apply to well-known seasoned issuers.
Liberalizing Communications Around the Time of Registered Offerings
The rules update and liberalize permitted offering activity and communications to allow more information to reach investors by revising the "gun-jumping" provisions under the Securities Act. The cumulative effects of these rules are:
Well-known seasoned issuers are permitted to engage at any time in oral and written communications, including use at any time of a new type of written communication called a "free writing prospectus," subject to enumerated conditions (including, in some cases, filing with the Commission).
All reporting issuers are, at any time, permitted to continue to publish regularly released factual business information and forward-looking information.
Non-reporting issuers are, at any time, permitted to continue to publish factual business information that is regularly released and intended for use by persons other than in their capacity as investors or potential investors.
Communications by issuers more than 30 days before filing a registration statement will be permitted so long as they do not reference a securities offering that is the subject of a registration statement.
All issuers and other offering participants will be permitted to use a free writing prospectus after the filing of the registration statement, subject to enumerated conditions (including, in some cases, filing with the Commission). Offering participants, other than the issuer, will be liable for a free writing prospectus only if they use, refer to, or participate in the planning and use of the free writing prospectus by another offering participant who uses it. Issuers will have liability for any issuer information contained in any other offering participant's free writing prospectus as well as any free writing prospectus they prepare, use, or refer to.
The exclusions form the definition of prospectus are expanded to allow a broader category of routine communications regarding issuers, offerings, and procedural matters, such as communications about the schedule for an offering or about account-opening procedures.
The exemptions for research reports are expanded.
A number of these new rules include conditions of eligibility. Most of the rules, for example, are not be available to blank check companies, penny stock issuers, or shell companies.
The rules address the treatment under the Securities Act of electronic communications, including electronic road shows and information located on or hyper-linked to an issuer's website. The rules define written communication as any communication that is written, printed, a radio or television broadcast, or a graphic communication. The definition of graphic communication and, thus, electronic road show excludes communications that are carried live and in real-time to a live audience, regardless of the means of transmission. Electronic road shows for initial public offerings of common equity or convertible equity securities will have to make a bona fide electronic road show readily available to an unrestricted audience to avoid filing the electronic road show with the Commission. No other road shows will be subject to filing.
Liability Timing Issues
The Commission addressed the liability provisions under the Securities Act. In this regard, the Commission: Reaffirmed the interpretation and adopted an interpretive rule that, for purposes of disclosure liability under Section 12(a)(2) and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, when assessing whether a statement to an investor prior to or at the time of sale by a seller includes or represents a material misstatement or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statement in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading, information conveyed to the investor only after the time of the contract of sale should not be taken into account.
Approved changes to the Securities Act procedures for shelf registration that will ensure that prospectus supplements filed after the initial effective date of a registration statement will be included in the registration statement for Securities Act Section 11 liability purposes.
Approved rules that will establish a new Section 11 effective date for each takedown off a shelf registration statement for issuers and underwriters, and not for experts, directors, and signing officers. If an expert provides a new report or opinion in an Exchange Act report or in connection with the takedown that would require a consent, however, there would be a new effective date for that expert.
Improvements to Registration Procedures
The rules will make improvements to the shelf registration provisions that will modernize the operation of the shelf registration process under the Securities Act. The changes will:
Codify in a single rule the information that may be omitted from a base prospectus in a shelf registration statement at effectiveness and included later;
Replace the requirement that issuers register only securities they intend to offer within two years with a requirement that the issuer update the registration statement with a new registration statement that is filed every three years;
Eliminate restrictions on "at-the-market" equity offerings by seasoned issuers with a $75 million public float;
Permit immediate takedowns of securities off of shelf registration statements;
Permit issuers to use prospectus supplements (rather than post-effective amendments) to make material changes to the plan of distribution described in the base prospectus;
For seasoned issuers with a $75 million public float, revise the requirement to identify selling security holders by permitting selling security holders to be identified in prospectus supplements (rather than post-effective amendments), where the securities to be sold (or securities convertible into such securities) are outstanding when the registration statement is filed; and
Establish a significantly more flexible version of shelf registration, referred to as "automatic shelf registration" for offerings by well-known seasoned issuers. Automatic shelf registration permits automatic effectiveness, pay-as-you-go registration fees, and the ability to exclude additional information from base prospectuses.
The rules also contain procedural changes that will allow reporting issuers that are current in filing their Exchange Act reports to incorporate by reference previously filed Exchange Act reports and other materials into a Securities Act registration statement on Form S-1 or Form F-1.
Prospectus Delivery Reforms
The rules will change the way in which the final prospectus delivery obligations under the Securities Act are satisfied. The change will create an "access equals delivery" model for final prospectuses. Under this model, filing a final prospectus with the Commission and complying with other conditions will enable offering participants to conduct securities offerings without printing and actually delivering final prospectuses. A cure provision for inadvertent failures to file is included. In addition, the rules include a separate requirement to notify investors that they purchased securities in a registered offering.
Required Disclosure in Exchange Act Reports
The rules require issuers to include the following in their Exchange Act periodic reports: For Form 10-K filers, disclosure of risk factors, where appropriate;
Disclosure regarding the issuer's status as a "voluntary" filer of Exchange Act reports; and
For "accelerated filers" and well-known seasoned issuers, disclosure in their reports of written staff comments that were issued more than 180 days before the end of the fiscal year to which the annual report relates, where those comments remain unresolved at the time of filing the annual report and the issuer believes those comments to be material.
The effective date of the rules will be 120 days following publication in the Federal Register.
2. Use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and Form 20-F by Public Shell Companies
The Commission voted to adopt rules and amendments to assure that investors in shell companies that acquire operations or assets have access on a timely basis to the same kind of information as is available to investors in public companies with continuing operations. The rules are intended to protect investors by deterring fraud and abuse in the securities markets through the use of shell companies.
The new rules and amendments relate to the use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and Form 20-F by public shell companies. Form S-8 is used by public companies to register securities for sale under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with employee benefit plans. Form 8-K is used by public companies to disclose certain corporate events on a current basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Form 20-F is a multi-function form under the Exchange Act for foreign private issuers.
The changes will: define the term "shell company" to mean a registrant, other than an asset-backed issuer, that has no or nominal operations, and either: no or nominal assets;
assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents; or
assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets;
revise the definition of "succession" to include a method of taking a private company public through a shell company that is known as the "back door" Exchange Act registration procedure;
prohibit the use of Form S-8 by shell companies;
permit former shell companies to use Form S-8 once they become operating companies and 60 days have passed since they filed with the Commission the information about the operating company that they will be required to provide if they were filing a registration statement under the Exchange Act;
add new Form 8-K Item 5.06 to require disclosure when companies cease to be shell companies;
revise the existing Form 8-K items relating to acquisition or disposition of assets and changes in control to require companies that cease being shell companies, within four business days of the transaction, to disclose information comparable to the information that they will be required to provide if they were filing an Exchange Act registration statement;
require foreign private issuer shell companies to report transactions that cause them to cease being shell companies on Form 20-F, providing disclosure comparable to that which domestic companies will report on Form 8-K; and
require companies to indicate on the cover page of their Exchange Act periodic reports whether they fall within the definition of "shell company."
The amendments would take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for new Form 8-K Item 5.06, which would take effect Nov. 7, 2005.
3. Further Consideration of Adoption of Amendments to Rules under the Investment Company Act of 1940
The Commission considered further its adoption of amendments to rules under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Acting in response to a decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Chamber of Commerce v. SEC) remanding two issues raised by the rulemaking, the Commission voted not to modify the amendments.
http://www.tcc5.com/SEC-Press-Release.htm
Going Public
There are a variety of ways of going public. One way for a company to go public is an IPO. In an initial public offering a company is doing two things simultaneously. One, it is raising capital; and secondly, it is going through the procedure of going public. We assist companies with the second part which is becoming a public company and having its own stock symbol and public stock which people can buy from their broker or online like any other public company.
Going public in this manner is ideal for companies that may not be large enough to attract an underwriter for an IPO and those that don't need to raise capital immediately. They want to go public because of the many benefits that being a public company offers, such as increased valuation, using public stock as currency to acquire other companies and assets, liquidity, prestige and to reduce the need for expensive venture capital and other financing sources. It also makes it easier to raise capital since once you become public it gives you credibility and a benchmark trading price to raise capital against.
Public companies are typically valued higher than their private counterparts. So, what many sophisticated CEO's and CFO's do is go public without simultaneously raising capital and thus receive a higher valuation and benchmark stock trading price. Then, as a public company, they do a private placement at a deep discount to the market with the provision that the investors hold the stock for 1 year.
Example of How to Use the Power of a Public Company to Raise Capital
As an example, a company goes public without initially raising capital and begins trading on the open market at US $20.00 per share. An individual can go on the internet or into a stock brokerage firm and buy stock at $20.00 per share. Public companies in this situation often sell stock in a private placement at a very substantial discount to the open market price (in this example, perhaps $17.00 per share). The investors agree to hold the stock for a period of time. The issuer can sell the stock themselves or have small broker/dealers assists them. Because investors can buy the stock at a deep discount to the open market price it gives them quite an incentive to invest.
Learn the Truth about Reverse Mergers and Public Shells
Years ago some companies would do a reverse merger with a public shell to go public. When doing a reverse merger with a public shell it can be very costly if you use a trading public shell with a stock symbol. These companies had a previous business in them before and could have undisclosed liabilities. There are also blank check public shells that were never used before and were created only to do a merger. These public shell companies are clean. Blank check public shell corporations can assist in speeding up the process of going public.
There are a couple of different kinds of public shell companies. The ones you want to avoid are the ones that are trading with a stock symbol because they had a previous business in it and they are very expensive and are usually filled with many liabilities. If you reverse merge into a trading public shell with a stock symbol (which usually has shareholders and shares that are freely tradable in the float) and then when the stock price goes up, these shareholders sell the stock and the price decreases rapidly. This can be very detrimental to a company trying to grow through acquisition. This is far more costly than the price paid to do a reverse merger with a public shell. This is important to comprehend. If you do not understand the importance of a small public float your going public experience may be less then ideal. You avoid this situation with a non trading virgin public shell company.
Blank check public shell companies are SEC reporting public companies with minimal shareholders. The blank check public shell company is set up only to do a merger with an acquisition target (private corporation). Many lawyers and investment bankers use these. When they find a company they like, they will merge them into a blank check public shell. This can make them a public company right away.
Most small companies prefer to begin trading on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board. A company can also go public on the Over the Counter Pink Sheets and progress from there to NASDAQ as they grow. A company may also choose to start trading on the NASD FINRA OTCBB from inception.
Experts recommend when going public to have an attorney who specializes in Securities Law assist you if you are considering becoming a publicly traded company. We are not recommending nor suggesting that you do a reverse merger or that you buy a public shell. We can take you public by directly registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, if you have found a shell that you like we are happy to assist you with analyzing the shell you have identified. The president of our company is a securities attorney with many years experience. He has assisted many companies in going public. We will discuss with you your options and discuss the least costly way to go public. We are not advocating blank check public shells or a reverse merger. Just providing educational information.
http://www.tcc5.com/gopublicconsultation.php
Edurk,
Still trying to determine how the current shareholders would fare under each scenario if an R/M or RTO might happen?
Do shareholders fare better under an R/M or RTO? Does it determine on an individual basis? Do you agree that a majority of the time, current shareholders shares are diluted during a R/M or RTO? Or because they have less than 50 mil outstanding it benefits past shareholders?
seems difficult to figure out is all and I appreciate all your help. keepin our fingers crossed that all works out!
Thanks
Search Fidelity.com: Press up or down arrows for suggestions. Press Escape to return to the Search field. Customer ServiceOpen an AccountLog In Friday, May 13, 2011Main Navigation:
Most Main navigation links display sub menus. The Guidance and Retirement link takes you to the Guidance and Retirement Overview.Accounts & Trade Portfolio Account Positions Trade Transfer Money/Shares BillPay Update Accounts/Features Statements Full View Employer Benefits News & Insights News Insights Fidelity Investor's Publications Research Overview Watch List Alerts Quotes Markets & Sectors Stocks Options ETFs Mutual Funds Fixed Income IPOs Annuities Guidance & Retirement Investment Products Overview Mutual Funds ETFs Trading Fixed Income & Bonds Cash Management 529s Annuities Insurance Retirement & IRA Managed Accounts
Content and data provided by various third parties and Fidelity - Terms of Use
Research > Stocks >
Stock Details
Enter Company or Symbol. Press down arrow for suggestions, or Escape to return to entry field.
View this information for the company or symbol Snapshot Detailed Quote Advanced Chart News & Events Compare Analyst Opinions Key Statistics Earnings & Dividends Ownership & Insiders Financial Statements Technical Analysis SEC Filings View this information for the company or symbol Snapshot Detailed Quote Advanced Chart News Analyst Reports
Find Symbol. Opens in new window.Snapshot
Detailed Quote
Advanced Chart
News & Events
Compare
Analyst Opinions
Key Statistics
Earnings & Dividends
Ownership & Insiders
Financial Statements
Technical Analysis
SEC Filings
OTHER STOCK RESEARCH
Stock Research Overview
Stock Screeners
Explore Research Firms
Watch Lists
DJIA: 12,695.92 +65.89 (0.52%) | NASDAQ: 2,863.04 +17.98 (0.63%) | S&P 500: 1,348.65 +6.57 (0.49%) —Markets closed
Print Format Print SEC Filings:ASYTQASYST TECHNOL INC
0.0100 0.0000 (0.00 %)as of 2:48:05pm ET 05/12/2011
Quotes delayed at least 15 min. Log in for real time quote.
Add to Watch List Hypothetical Trade
rssf_stock_secfillings
rssf_stock_secfillings_common
SEC Filings 1–15 of 280 Show: All Forms Forms–10-KForms–10-K/AForms–10-QForms–15-12GForms–25-NSEForms–3Forms–4Forms–4/AForms–5Forms–5/AForms–8-A12GForms–8-KForms–8-K/AForms–DEF 14AForms–DEFA14AForms–DEFC14AForms–DFAN14AForms–NT 10-KForms–NT 10-QForms–POS AMForms–PREC14AForms–PRER14AForms–S-8Forms–SC 13GForms–SC 13G/A Year Type Date Received Period End Date
2010 Form 15-12G Notice of Termination 03/12/2010 N/A
Form 8-K* Current Report* 03/12/2010 03/10/2010
Form 8-K* Current Report* 02/22/2010 02/19/2010
Form 8-K* Current Report* 01/22/2010 01/20/2010
2009 Form 8-K* Current Report* 12/22/2009 12/21/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 11/24/2009 11/23/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 10/26/2009 10/20/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 09/23/2009 09/21/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 08/28/2009 08/20/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 07/24/2009 07/20/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 07/06/2009 07/06/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 06/25/2009 06/19/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 06/10/2009 06/04/2009
Form NT 10-K Notice under Rule 12b25 06/10/2009 03/31/2009
Form 8-K* Current Report* 05/27/2009 05/20/2009
http://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/evaluate/fundamentals/secFilings.jhtml?stockspage=secFilings&symbols=ASYTQ&output=print
what would be better for the stock price and past stock investors/holders...a R/M or RTO?
Is one more favorable or better for share holders?
In which scenario does the stock holders share get diluted?
Just trying to get an idea which option is better or if it even matters?
Edurk or?
If R/M information is announced soon will that announcement immediately dictate how our stock will be handled-stock remain whole, split 1/2, 1/10 or 1/30 etc no? For example, say they announce R/M and stock surges to .67 won’t we have much less stock making the sell of stock not very favorable? Are we hoping for a low reverse stock split making it more favorable-especially if a person has owned and purchased this stock for many years? What’s your thought?
Thanks,
Just wondering...they only need Asyst if they plan to go public otherwise they don't need them right? So they've already aquired the assets just we hope crossing wants to use asyst to go public correct?
Board member with venture capital firm? They must have a plan to take the company and make profitable? Venture capital does not want to retain investment forever the idea is to ready a business so that they can stand alone? Is this done thru IPO or R/M-time will tell?
Mr. George Pavlov is a General Partner at Tallwood Venture Capital. Mr. Pavlov provides guidance and support to portfolio companies and serves as the operational focal point for the firm. His ability to take a high-level business perspective helps him guide portfolio companies through complex decisions. Mr. Pavlov spends a portion of his time thinking about how the firm can expand beyond its early stage venture practice, which helps the firm plan for the future. He ... has broad experience in venture capital, private equity, operations, and technology. Previously, he was the Chief Executive Officer at eTime Capital, that he restructured to achieve optimal liquidation. Prior to this, Mr. Pavlov was a General Partner and the Chief Financial Officer at Mayfield Fund, where he also served on the Board of Directors of two portfolio companies: SingleSourceIT and FolioFN. Before this, he served as the Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director at Richard Blum and Associates and Blum Capital Partners. Prior to this, Mr. Pavlov held various financial and sales management positions at NeXT Computer, where he prepared industry and company strategic overviews, developed an expanded distribution strategy, and managed the implementation of customer satisfaction surveys and programs. He was a Member of the company's Malcolm Baldridge Committee. Mr. Pavlov serves on the Board of Directors of Alphion Corp., Amulaire Thermal Technology, Ikanos Communications, Inc., Astute Networks, Audience Inc., Calypto Design Systems, Crossing Automation Inc., Ozmo Devices, Quintic Corporation, and SVTC. He was a Director at Abound Logic. He holds a B.S. in Accounting from Boston College.
Crossing Automation pursues new strategy
March 10, 2010 - Crossing Automation appears to be riding the crest of a wave generated in part by last year's acquisition of Asyst Technologies, which added front-end atmospheric components to its business. Robert MacKnight, president/CEO, told SST that the company's strong growth in orders was spurred mainly by multiple new design wins for its Spartan, Falcon and IsoPort technologies, as well as strong repeat business for these products as well as 200mm products and RFID systems.
MacKnight believes that the keen interest on the part of end-users is due in part to the company's new approach to the OEM and IDM community, which he claims has put the company "a year ahead of schedule in terms of revenue and realized earnings."
http://www.electroiq.com/index/display/semiconductors-article-display/3901506158/articles/solid-state-technology/semiconductors/facilities/automation/2010/march/crossing-automation.html
“As the new Global VP of Operations for Crossing Automation the Pearl methodology was the first business tool I used to accelerate my understanding of the staff, their strengths and the organizational gaps to achieve critical business objectives. This tool provided the visibility on where to focus my attention to improve key business outcomes in a fast paced environment. Looking back, I can say it is the best investment in time I have made upon joining the organization.”
Frank Kohoutek , Global VP of Operations, Crossing Automation
http://www.pearlhps.com/
C.J. Muse - Barclays Capital
Then one last follow up for me, I promise. In terms of the competitive landscape, I guess recently Crossing Automation bought the assets from Asyst. So, I’m curious, what your thoughts are on that? How you view that as a competitive threat, if at all?
Bob Lepofsky
Obviously, Asyst was in three businesses. They’re most important and largest business was the AMHS business, the fab wide material handling business. That was a business that Brooks exited from a number of years ago. A very tough, very difficult business and that’s the business that was bought by one of their Japanese competitors, and really was the heart of Asyst.
The second piece was a software business and that was bought by another party. There was a small residual in areas that crossover in areas of interest to Brooks. We looked at all of the pieces. We did not believe that those pieces offered returns to our shareholders. We think that Crossing is a fine young start-up, oriented in a segment of the market with products that we’re not particularly focused on.
We think that, the Asyst acquisition will certainly bring a set of challenges and opportunities to them, given the history of that business as part of Asyst. So, we look at those as potential future collaborators with us. Some of our products go into the Asyst product line and on the other side we actually buy some of the pieces of that in support of our activities.
So there’s actually cross commerce. So, we didn’t view that as an opportunity nor a threat and we wish the guys at Crossing good luck as they try to take that and really make it into a viable business, because it certainly has struggled within the assist environment over the past years, given their focus on AMHS.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/154550-brooks-automation-inc-f3q09-august-6-2009-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda
Share Fundamentals
Market Cap 253.34K
Shares Outstanding 50.67M
Float N/A
Short Interest N/A
Exchange Traded OP
ISIN Number US04648X1072
CIK Number
NAICS Code
The law firm that assisted in the sale of all assets? This was completed almost one year ago so then it's likely that R/M is in the works otherwise it's a finished transaction as the judge agreed? Does anyone see it differently after reading this?
http://www.bakermckenzie.com/news/CourtApprovesAsystTechnologiesChapter11PlanRepresentedbyBakerMcKenzie/
Trying to read all these. Posting them so others can read and if I miss something we can all benefit
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1339942/000133994209000003/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
Just SEC info about crossing?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1339942/000133994209000004/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
DD?
http://www.williamjholstein.com/blogs/big-companies-look-small-innovation
At least one of Intel’s ecosystem investments played a critical role in safeguarding its network of suppliers. In 2005, it took a stake in Crossing Automation Inc., a small firm in Fremont, Calif., that makes specialized tools for the semiconductor industry, among others. When Intel supplier Asyst Technologies Inc. ran into financial difficulties and faced bankruptcy in 2009, Intel Capital guided Crossing Automation into buying Asyst, ensuring that Intel’s domestic supply chain would not be disrupted.
Intel was able to dramatically increase the clout of its ecosystem investment strategy recently when it teamed up with 24 other venture capital (VC) firms as part of the company’s “Invest in America” alliance, Intel’s commitment to promote U.S. competitiveness by supporting technology development and creating jobs for college graduates. Intel put up a mere $200 million of its own money, but the VC firms pledged to match that investment, for a total of $3.5 billion over several years.