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.
Indy...looks like you're walking a tight rope here. Don't let go of the pole.
We don't want to lose you. :>)
2 bucks? I'd rule the world.
There's always your grand kids. :):)
I'm not an attorney but that order appears to effectively void the agreement that has given the company so much trouble. It's unusual for a judge to void a contract unless the contract is deficient or replaced by another contract. But it seems, if it's the latter, the parties don't need a court order.
Go figure.
For those of you who don't know the terrible position WSGI placed itself in with the LJC agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_financing
Desperation feeds bad decisions.
At the moment, they have very little to tax, if anything.
I'd love to see the day that option becomes important.
So!
Who owns the "Sky Dragon"?
Is that exclusive rights to produce? If not, what's the value in the trade off?
I thought this product belonged to WSGI. Where did I go wrong?
I was stationed at Eglin in 1956-57 and I never saw it, :>):>)
Indy
".....I am not a pure investor IMO in that my goal of buying shares was not to make money but to become a stakeholder in a company and a technology that I wish to see succeed."
I really have a difficult time absorbing the concept behind this statement. You've made it before. You're not interested in making money, yet you've purchased stock. Why? You can still like the company without buying the stock but it does seems to me that, once you introduce money into the soup, you've gone beyond a simple "interest" in the company.
Your declaration makes me wonder how serious you are. Buying the stock of any company, sounds like an investment to me. Buying stock without regard to the direction of the price is totally illogical.
Is trading halted?
You tweaked my memory cells. I was stationed at Eglin in 1956-57. Actually wound up at Hurlburt field. I have fond memories of the white sand and great fishing. My son was 2 at the time....now he's almost 59. Sunrise....sunset.
We had a president by the name of Lincoln who sanctioned the killing of hundreds of thousands of young boys for the good of the Union.
You got a problem with one?
Think about it.
If I were Travis, I wouldn't just use my initial. :>)
Short covering? I don't think so. Shorts don't cover when the price is tanking. Why would they? They'd ride this thing to ground level.
If that were the case, I'd be happy to finance a jail break.
"I am more concerned about building substance into our little struggling company than chasing rumors or even one-time sales opportunities."
This statement intrigues me.....specifically your words, "I am more concerned about building substance......"
Are you implying that you are in a position to personally create greater value for the company?
For all this trouble squabbling, what's your point?
Yeah, but my portfolio will be laughin'
I don't see how this stock can recover after the extremely heavy pump and precipitous drop. It was obviously planned that way and the institutions that pumped it were part of the conspiracy.
Just ask yourself this question. If you were hurt by this scheme, would you buy into it today? If you watched from the sidelines and saw the same thing, would you buy the stock? Who's left to buy it?
Original investors might be able to recoup some of their initial investments IF this company proves to be an ongoing viable business and they are profitable. That's yet to be proven and could take a loooong time.
At 5 cents, that's only $1250. Not exactly a profound vote of confidence.
Noisy little buger, ain't it?
I think WSGI's abilty to compete with Lockheed has less to do with it's technology than Lockheed's influence with those who write the checks for the agencies purchasing this stuff.
Lockheed has such a competitive advantage, having 70 or 80 years to develop and maintain contacts, It makes it tough for the "new kid" to break into the mix. In this case size does matter.
Why wouldn't the government wait till Lockheed gets it right? You'd have to be totally naive to discount the many markers that will be called in. That's just a part of governmental contract life.
Even with that head wind I'm still hopeful, though.
"Whose rule is that?"
Hugo Chavez and WSGI.
We'll just have to trust the "official minutes". Yeah...that's the ticket.
Dunno! Maybe it's being held in reserve or maybe it's just not viable. After all, it's not viewed as the vehicle that will make it to 60,000 feet. Gotta go with the first team.
David and Goliath II.
I hope this turns out like the first one did. :>):>)
Ameritrade's streamer is still screwed up. Shows $2.14 down. It won't display the Level II quotes either. The volume has changed but, given the other false info, you can't trust that either.
I'll call 'em.
Thanks! EOM
Is anyone following this stock on Ameritrade? There are some crazy numbers being quoted and I can't pickup Level II quotes. The volume seems to have come to a halt @ 21K.
It's probably some kind of goof on Ameritrade's part. I'd appreciate a realistic quote from someone who has real time access.
It just comes down to this. Huff never had faith in his own company.
Misappropriation of "fiduciary" funds (funds collected and held in trust)has been one way to pierce the corporate veil.... for ages.
Fraud is another.
Take your pick. :>)
Gotcha.....bottom line.
If it's not obvious why Xferring your shares to another company is advantageous to you, why would you do it? That's the only question which needs answering. The rest is all conjecture.
If everyone stands pat, it's a moot issue. :>)
I'm thinking "boiler room" here.
So far, no one who claims to have received a call from this company has reported an answer to the question, "Why?" Until that happens, I wouldn't touch this thing with the proverbial ten foot pole. Even when/if that happens, I'd be suspicious of the motive regardless what the answer is.
"Alex Gore"?.....that's hilarious.
mide
The bottom line for a creditor is the bottom line. :>):>)
You know, blood from a stone" and all that. Currently, SNSR's assets are nebulous at best.
Sorry run
I gave you more info than needed to answer your question about avoiding paying the judgment. They just simply ignore it. Currently, they're what's erroneously termed "judgment proof". Actually, they're execution proof.
We're all hoping for the day when they have to address their debts.
Acquiring a judgment is not the end-all. If you want to actively pursue the money, you must acquire a "writ of execution", and have the authorities physically take possession of the debtor's assets( thereby placing a "lien" on the property. There's a saying that a judgment and a dollar will get you a dollar's worth of peanuts...or something like that. :>)In practical terms, I doubt SNSR has a sufficient amount of real or personal property to justify the expense of an asset sale. Nobody's going to try it unless it's worth it. If the company becomes successful and acquires significant assets, they'll probably negotiate settlements before someone attacks them..
If you can't find the assets, all you can do is sit there hoping the debtor attempts to sell or somehow discloses the location of the assets. The Sheriff won't do it for you. :>)If it's "real property" being sold, the judgment will show up in the search and must be satisfied before title can change hands. As I indicated before, the settlement $$$ might be significantly reduced.
As to your question about a third party's money being exchanged for SNSR equity, SNSR's judgment creditors have no standing in that transaction. The money belongs to the investor and so do the shares they get.
Here's an idea.....maybe we can get the Treasury Dept to bail out the company. :>):>)
I'm not a lawyer
but, when I eas a kid, I hung around court houses a lot.
Your talkin' apples and oranges here. Nothing precludes you from investing in any company regardless of the number of judgements outstanding against a company.
The problem arises when/if you make a claim on the assets. You might be at the end of a long line of secured creditors unless you get them to subordinate their positions. It's possible to convince the senior creditors to take less than the full amount if you can convince them it would be to their benefit.
I did a lot of this in another life. :>)
Thanks nerd.
I'm quite familiar with " Archi's" principle. :>) In another life, I was involved with screw pumps, many of which were installed in our nuke subs. We built many of them to operate at 3000 PSI. I left the company in 1973. As far as I know, they might still use those same or similar pumps. At that time, there weren't any centrifugal or diaphragm pumps that could handle that pressure.
This might interest you. During one of the tests ( for the diving plane hydraulic system ), a quarter inch tube connector blew. The fluid hit one of my men in the head and knocked him down. He was OK after a bit of "squirrely" behavior. We took him to the hospital for a checkup. They said he didn't have a concussion but they did say, if he had been hit in the temple, things could have been worse. He sported a significant bruise for quite a while.
The "Thresher" had our pumps. I was glad the "fault" was never tied to a failure of our product. The consensus was the boat lost propulsion at a time when it was in negative buoyancy. You need the diving planes and forward propulsion to "fly" upward till you reach a depth where blowing the ballast will be effective.
The company I worked for was DeLaval.
What do you mean by "stiking their neck out"?
The PR says early 2010. That leaves a lot of wiggle room...... too much wiggle room.
You sure know how to wiggle. :>):>)
".....and the propeller having more air to "bite" into."
A prop is a foil.....esentially the same as a 'copter blade.