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.
yup. And since then Jones, Huff (as CEO), Dumas all departed. Hmmmm. I think we can stop reading between those particular lines, don't you?
Risk, please explain your shorts "7 days to cover" comment. TIA
lowtrade,
I know little about MM trading--so may have misunderstood your statement re: odd numbers and "signals." I was referring to the fact that the R/S left most retail with odd lot positions in their acct (i.e. GTEM positions in my two a/c's presently end in 55 shs and 67 shs). So...when you see odd numbers from MM's, could be real shs and not a "signal?"
low, re: "So far I've noticed the odd number signaling from the get go, but little responding."
a lot of retail pos would be "odd number" re: R/S (not a "signal" then?)
cabvineyard,
for me, there's nothing "official" to be positive about. I reached Rocky's point long b4 he (apparently) did and nothing has transpired since to change my mind. My head told me what my heart didn't want to hear...and there were plenty around to help me continue to delude myself.
Mide,
A few observations of my own…………
I find this statement to be totally illogical: “I was going to address past feelings of character regarding Huff and Dumas and why they were not fit for their positions on the marketing and fund raising side IMO, but you know what? Does not matter anymore...it's history.”
Failure to market, failure to obtain a binding contract or monied partner is germane to the whole GTE(M) issue. …how could that possibly “not matter?” I’m really surprised that Rocky did not take issue with this as well, since he posted thus to his own (now defunct) board: “Failure to deliver any contracts of substance in Wireless and Stored Value have me second guessing if the technology is really that great or managements ineptness is the reason they cannot put things together.”
Mide, you were “90% certain” that the RU contract was good. You were so encouraged by the Co’s RHETORIC (as most of us were, esp when Leinwand weighed in) that you bot Mar + Apr calls http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10030203
After the RU debacle, your faith in GTE(M) was renewed in June at the annual SH meeting. You posted: “I left with a smile on my face, and no, I can assure you I was not conned. There was not one instance of insincerety or falsehood expressed or conveyed by anyone I spoke with. I am confident in my people reading skills after all these years to detect it, as I have at other stock holder meetings I have attended. And this one was far far from RAH RAH...btw.
I intend to bolster my position ASAP as a result.”
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11690119
(GTE then @ $1.14 : http://tinyurl.com/yeamsl
Then Dumas fingers did the talking: "And we are this close" as he held up two fingers an inch apart.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11774024
And now? Forget the CEO (not the CEO anymore anyway). Forget the COB (not the COB anymore anyway). NOW we have the voice inflections of the IR to guide us and reassure us that all is well in GTE(M) land. I feel much better. So what does Mr. Rob have to say? He’s “really excited and truly is invigorated over the management change, and the prospects for moving forward and upward.” Put into perspective then, he’s very much NOT in the same category as your now devastated retirement plan or invt portfolio because our Mr. Rob “does not need this job. HE REALLY DOES NOT NEED IT.” Interesting. And “the very last thing he ever wants to be involved with again is a company headed to ZERO. It would crush his career forever in IR and PR.” Well…won’t change the fact that he’s IR director for GTE when it was de-listed from AMEX and under investigation by SEC. This point alludes me: “Therefore, despite understanding that he might be having the wool pulled over his eyes by new management he did exhaustive DD on”…..since it would appear that any wool-pulling would have been at the hands of the old mgmt ....those that have been fully in charge until now. As far as his DD on GTE(M), did you ever ask him at WHAT POINT his DD revealed that he was VP/IR Director (previously) for one of the largest investor scams in history? (GENI).
And WHAT is this all about: “Dumas still has a marker in the international arena that I think can still be played...and with his enthusiastic belief in the end game.” If he tries to play a marker with a monied cohort, wouldn’t the logical response be why isn’t GTEM a good invt for HIS (Dumas) money????? (what happened to your prev expressed anger about insiders not putting there money where their mouth/enthusiasm is)?????????
As far as Khoury goes, we know nothing about him—no reason for any excitement there.
Caterham? Lots of unanswered ques there.
sinful, this post of Vern's was "tongue-in-cheek." (Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way).
I assume the telephone call/enthusiasm ref was related to Mide's prior post re: Mide/Bleckman phone conversation....
is ICS out of business? Website "latest news" is 2004. We know next-to-nothing about our "interim" CEO, so at a loss for your enthusiasm.....
http://www.ics-corp.com/ICS/English/englishNewsLatest1.htm
Lowtrade (and for Mide unable to access Roc's site)--apparently the news wasn't entirely a "non-event" for Rocky:
Subject: Everyone: Posted By: Rocky1
Date/Time: 10/12/2006 10:10 AM CST Message #: 1179 of 1184
This message has 1 reply. View Them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todays PR coupled with the recent de-listing and current SEC investigation have removed what spirit I had left for Globetel. I hope the new management can turn things around but it will not be an easy overnight fix. Failure to deliver any contracts of substance in Wireless and Stored Value have me second guessing if the technology is really that great or managements ineptness is the reason they cannot put things together. IMO, if Huff leaves Globetel entirely, that is not a good sign..
At this time I feel my time here supporting Globetel is limited, I plan on letting the news soak in over the weekend...
wouldn't that have to depend on how advanced they are in the testing of their S2 prototype? If they can prove this "physics experiment" works in the near-term, money problems should cease to be an issue.........
Vern, talking about GTE's ex-NASA personnel, were you aware that Dodson only lasted "about a year" b4 he left on "amicable terms?"
" If this is true, and we are under SEC investigation, what the hell would the board let Kostro take over"
I'd have to say it would be more worrisome if it happened when GTE(M) was NOT under investigation................
thanks much cpmac and bearslayre for info.
I'm presently on s-l-o-w dialup.....so
Anyone find out anything more about Khoury?
On the ICS link the latest news is 2004. defunct now?
http://www.ics-uk.com/ICS/English/englishNewsLatest1.htm
please get me up to speed on "now that Caterham is back" Where do you see that? TIA
Danielle, if readers skimming and fail to read your link, they'll miss the fact that the author is in direct opposition to your statement: "it appears that the systems works much better and more efficiently for issues listed on the OTC:BB and the Pink Sheets, than the major exchanges."
The author finds Wall Strret data highly suspect and sites outside data to oppose:
"To expose this concern of possible games being played, a report out of a visiting scholar to the SEC provides evidence of the disparity in settlements executed on Wall Street. The report, titled “Strategic Delivery Failures in the US Equity Markets” by Professor Leslie Boni provides data that shows that of 3000 OTCBB/Pink Sheet Traded Securities an average across those companies resulted in .91% of their shares outstanding represented in a failed settlement status. This compared to NYSE and NASDAQ having an average of only .15% in a failed status. This is also nearly 2X the limit necessary to fall on to the threshold list and this was the average fail percentage of 3000+ issuers. Worse was the disparity in settlement times between the two as the NYSE/NASDAQ had a mean time of fail of 10.5 days while the OTCBB/pink Sheets was listed as 33 days." http://www.unm.edu/~boni/Fails_paper_Nov2004.doc
The author concludes with "For now we are left with two possible scenarios. We can believe the lists presented and begin funneling our investments into the most efficient trading center in the US Securities Markets, the OTCBB or, we can seek answers on how nearly 500 OTCBB securities suddenly disappeared overnight from their settlement problems. Who is responsible, and why was the fail data fudged?"
griff100, "buy after the ch 11 filing": what are you using to identify these issues for possible purchase? (hope this isn't redundant in fwd posts---I'm just catching up now........). TIA
Cab, Rocky was told the same. Soon can't be soon enough. Welcome back.
by now, wouldn't you think his paid subscribers are sick of his mantra? I mean he warned them off, they didn't buy (or have long got out by now) and yet he just reiterates (mostly)the same info.
Now I ask you: what invt svc is he providing his pd readers at this point?
unreal-thanks for sharing. You can blame our present legal system for the illogic of it all...When everyone else is held accountable for an individuals actions, they go to absurd lengths to protect themselves.
very curious. Assume we're not talking margin buys here. So if they're not letting you buy, is your trading activity contrary to your filed "market objectives" with them? Did you indicate invt objective was high risk when you opened a/c (just wondering if that's why your buys not going through..)
kenw, "Several people on this board":
the SUSPICIONS of ALL this board, if mailed to SEC, wouldn't even BEGIN to compare to the CONCLUSION of a MAJOR EXCHANGE and AFTER they reviewed all the evidence GTE supplied for their vindication.
My hope kenw, is Rocky's idea that GTE just didn't have (prior) the proper personnel to navigate regulatory waters.
"why the one sided approach" ..would assume this due to under-staffed, as opined here frequently. However, when a major exchange refers the issuer to SEC, THAT puts fuel to the fire.
SEC may be inefficient (hey, it's gov) but I'd be hard pressed to say they have ulterior motives re: specific issues.
guess it wasn't that "obvious" to SEC
nerd86, hasn't the GTE game plan been jt ventures: you supply the cash and we'll supply the tech/oper? We're given glowing results of hotzone pilots....but no contract ever follows for this superior technology--that's what I meant by cust/partners.
No, I've never been involved in the mgmt of a public start-up. My experience has only been w/ pri co well-funded.
If you mean vendor help re: issuance of shs to pay the bills, I can't imagine that goes too far for too long..
LOL. Your right about Seth being "the least." I can't think of anything he could say that wouldn't continue to be conjecture (unless he was privy to everything the AMEX panel saw and what SEC intends to see). And if he continues to be that interested in a stock w/ a pps of pennies, something is greatly amiss. WHO would he be trying to "save" at THIS point? Pretty obvious he'd still be in damage mode, heh?
As far as your "Just the mere thought of moving to an exchange this 'low' removes any remaining credibility in even the traders mind IMO"...I spoke w/ a couple of brokers over the wknd about this very issue..they entirely disagreed w/ your assertion.
I'll give you credit on your pps predictions...you've been entirely right to this point--don't be like some and gloat over it.
"Spin and BS is what they do that makes them rich."
We COULD make our way to your first opinion.....PROVE the second ...and w/o that, your first opinion falls apart
and perhaps someone should remind Bleckman that his CEO felt such high regard/concern for Vern that he personally jumped on a plane to del his check........
coolhotzone7, re: "naked"
I didn't find us on Reg SHO list today.
Did you share your AMEX concerns w/ mgmt b4 they made their decision (w/ great fanfare about why AMEX listing would be good for us)? Or post your trepidation here--back then?
I entirely agree w/ you re: bargain shs for shorts now. Who was it that used to frequently post they'd have to pry from his fingers? Feeling the same....let's hope mgmt steps to the plate in equal measure to our support.
Excellent proposal.....and when Mide (recently) del'd much of same to mgmt.........we got no reply.
Apparently Dumas friends and assoc. still can't wrap their mind around GTE---since he certainly has been entirely ineffectual about getting any of their $$$ commitments.
good thinking, Design. Pit: thanks MUCH for the updates.
VERY interesting--thanks. Sounds like a good premise for a movie as well as the book. SO glad that one had a happy ending for you...hope your good fortune holds up in GTE as well (for all our sakes):)
sounds like Mirant ran out of cash b4 they turned the corner to profitability (why most good start-ups fail) and creditors tried to take advantage of the situation. Much like our GTE today. And financing will only be that much harder now. However...was Mirant also de-listed from a major exchange (with 7 charges they were unable to disprove of, any or all) and under SEC formal inquiry?
We'd all feel a lot more secure had ANY customer or partner stepped up to the plate with money to affirm the tech we've been assured we have.
Mide, also from Rocky's board (dk what's going on between you two but I assume Rocky won't mind my copy/paste at this critical time):
Subject: To All: Part 2 Posted By: Rocky1
Date/Time: 10/07/2006 7:54 PM CST Message #: 1154 of 1161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More e-mail questions:
Given the latest developments do I think GTE is a scam?
My answer is the same as before, NO...
Will GTE be updating shareholders on their business developments?
Mr. Huff had stated to me Friday it would be "soon"..What does soon mean? No idea.
Will I be moving out of GTE?
I will stick to my plan that I have mentioned several times here, I plan on seeing what GTE can show by year end. If I don't like the progress I will be gone.
Did I get an answer on Lynch possibly being exempt from filing a Form 4
I asked but did not receive a response.
Funding
Not real sure where we are at on cash in hand or future needs or where it is coming from. Rest assured financing does not get easier and it certainly does not indicate good terms.
Do I blame outside sources for our situation?
No I don't. Yes, I realize manipulation etc; goes on, it does with all stocks in some form. Some will blame the Seths, some will blame the shorting, some will blame the Amex and some will blame other conspiracy type scenarios because GTE has the big boys scared. I say bull to all that nonsense, I put the blame squarely on the source and that is GTE, imo.
***********************************************************
Folks, we are at where we are at, nothing can change that right now. I am not happy, you are not happy and no one at GTE is happy about it. GTE needs to buckle down and focus in a big way on their business. Whether we are on the pinks or not, building the Company and executing on their business plan is the only way to crawl out of the pinks and staircase itself back to a large exchange. It will take time and perseverance. PERFORMANCE is the ONLY way we can differentiate ourselves from the rest of the crowd. Without the execution we will stay on the pinks or OTC until we do. I have heard all of the talk I need to hear from management, I need to see them solidify what they have announced as happening. I want the SEC issue resolved and the GTE team working on the business, not spending every waking hour defending themselves. Right now I have a picture of an ant pushing a large boulder up a steep incline, only production and performance can wipe that from my mind..thanks
Subject: Re: To All: Part 1 Posted By: good2be
Date/Time: 10/07/2006 8:39 PM CST Message #: 1156 of 1161
This is a reply to message # 1153 written by Rocky1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky, question re: "GTE thinks the assets of the business units in question are valued fairly, apparently the SEC has reason to question them. If valued incorrectly, GTE will have to restate the balance sheet."
Are HotZone and Sanswire valued at cost? "valued fairly" meaning overpaid vs. actual value received? (meaning what was purchased NOT the ground-breaking technology that been touted)?
Subject: good2be, Posted By: Rocky1
Date/Time: 10/07/2006 9:13 PM CST Message #: 1157 of 1161
This message has 1 reply. View Them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the actual focus is on how GTE is placing the asset value of approx. 10MM on the intangible assets. Below you will see from 10K how GTE arrived at the asset value of the "intangibles"...it will be up to GTE to convince the SEC these values are appropriate..
( everything below is from 10K)
ACCOUNTING FOR PURCHASE PRICE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS
SANSWIRE
The purchase price for the assets acquired was $2,800,000, based on a value of $1.50 ($ .10 pre-split) per share for the 1,866,667 (28 million pre-split) Company shares issued in the transaction. The Company allocated the purchase price based on the estimated fair market value of the asset acquired as follows:
(a) Sanswire equipment - $32,000; and (b) Sanswire and Stratodyne intangible assets - $2,768,000. In addition, the Company recorded an additional $10,000 to the purchase price to account for estimated cost of issuing and registering the shares for public sale in connection with this transaction.
The intangible assets include technology-based, marketing-related, and contract-related assets. The Company determined that the Sanswire intangible assets have an indefinite life, and, accordingly, are not subject to amortization. Instead, the Company tests the asset for impairment at each reporting period, and upon the occurrence of any significant event that may affect the carrying value of the assets. The Company tested the assets for impairment and determined that no impairment existed and no adjustment to the carrying value was required as of December 31, 2005, and through the date of this filing. Sanswire-FL's research, development, testing of, and cooperation with governmental and commercial entities regarding, the Stratellite technology is continuing, and no event occurred or circumstances known to management exist to indicate impairment.
The results of operations of Sanswire Networks, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2005, which are consolidated in the Company's results of operations, included expenses of $4,300,866 with no sales or costs of sales.
The Company has provided amounts to or on behalf of Sanswire Networks, LLC in excess of the above amounts, including approximately $5,027,550 through December 31, 2005, and at total of approximately $5,814,457 through the date of this report.
Hotzone:
Whereas the milestones for the first year were defined, and the Company believed that achievement of such milestones for the first year are probable and the amount payable (with GlobeTel common stock) is measurable, the Company recorded the amounts during the three months ended September 30, 2005. The purchase price for the assets acquired was recorded at $2,280,334 based on the $27,000 paid in cash, plus $2,253,334, which represents the value of 666,667 (post split) shares of common stock payable on the first anniversary date. The shares were valued at $ 3.38 per share, based on the value of the Company's free-trading stock on the agreement date. The Company allocated the purchase price based on the estimated fair market value of the asset acquired as follows: (a) HotZone tangible assets $55,910; and (b) HotZone intangible assets - $2,224,424.
As of December 31, 2005, the HotZone intangible assets were valued at $7,129,550. The Company determined that the HotZone intangible assets have an indefinite life, and, accordingly, are not subject to amortization. (Instead, the Company tests the asset for impairment at each reporting period, and upon the occurrence of any significant event that may affect the carrying value of the assets.) The Company tested the assets for impairment and determined that no impairment existed and no adjustment to the carrying value was required as of December 31, 2005, and through the date of this filing. GlobeTel Wireless, which utilizes the intangible assets acquired, has current and pending contracts and anticipates receiving revenues in the near-term, and no event occurred or circumstances known to management exist to indicate impairment.
INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Intangible assets are recorded under the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No.142 (FAS 142), Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. FAS 142 requires that an intangible asset that is acquired either individually or with a group of other assets (but not those acquired in a business combination) shall be initially recognized and measured based on its fair value. Costs of internally developing, maintaining and restoring intangible assets (including goodwill) that are not specifically identifiable, that have indeterminate lives, or that are inherent in a continuing business and related to an entity as a whole, are recognized as an expense when incurred.
An intangible asset with a definite useful life is amortized; an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life is not amortized until its useful life is determined to be no longer indefinite. The remaining useful lives of intangible assets not being amortized are evaluated every reporting period to determine whether events and circumstance continue to support an indefinite useful life.
An intangible asset that is not subject to amortization shall be tested for impairment annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. The impairment test consists of a comparison of the fair value of the intangible assets with its carrying amount. If the carrying amount of an intangible asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss shall be recognized in an amount equal to that excess.
It is the Company's policy to test for impairment no less than quarterly. The Company's intangible assets, which consist primarily of intellectual property, including technology and know-how, were evaluated by management, initially and as of December 31, 2005, and determined to have an indefinite useful life and are not subject to amortization. The Company also tested the assets for impairment and determined that no adjustment for impairment was necessary as of December 31, 2005, whereas the fair value of the intangible assets exceed its carrying amount.
IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS
The Company follows FASB Statement No. 144 (SFAS 144), "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets." SFAS 144 requires that long-lived assets to be held and used are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the related carrying amount may not be recoverable. When required, impairment losses on assets to be held and used are recognized based on the fair value of the asset. Long-lived assets to be disposed of, if any, are reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell.
Subject: Re: good2be, Posted By: Rocky1
Date/Time: 10/07/2006 9:29 PM CST Message #: 1158 of 1161
This is a reply to message # 1157 written by Rocky1.
This message has 1 reply. View Them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
good2be,
add this section I omitted in the Hotzone section of previous post. It shows how GTE increased the intangible value by almost $5MM..IMO, it has the makings of being questionable based on no shares being issued yet increasing the intangible asset value..
Subsequently and as of December 31, 2005, the Company and HotZone agreed that any and all milestones, previously undefined, were in fact achieved. The Company recorded the additional contingent shares at fair value upon, since the Company has determine that the issuance of the shares is probable. and the value ascribable to the shares is measurable. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2005, the Company recorded the additional 1,333,334 (post-split) shares payable, which were valued at $4,909,665, which represents a based share of 1,333,334 (post-split) shares, value at $3.68 per share, based on the value of the Company's free-trading stock as of December 31, 2005, and increased the HotZone intangible asset value accordingly. As of the date of this report, none of the shares payable to HotZone have been issued. The Company intends to issue the first tranche of 666,667 shares in the near-term and the remaining shares will be issued as scheduled.
Subject: Re: good2be, Posted By: good2be
Date/Time: 10/08/2006 7:51 AM CST Message #: 1159 of 1161
This is a reply to message # 1158 written by Rocky1.
This message has 1 reply. View Them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I don't get a couple of other things about the section you posted either:
1. "milestones, previously undefined, were in fact achieved." If a milestone is "undefined," how can it be "achieved".... and when do you know it's "achieved."
2. If the amt of shs were determined via pps at a point in time, but said shs were not issued, what happens when the pps dramatically declines in the interim? Would more shs be due HotZone if the shs were (hypothetically) issued Mon?
Subject: Re: good2be, Posted By: Rocky1
Date/Time: 10/08/2006 9:40 AM CST Message #: 1160 of 1161
This is a reply to message # 1159 written by good2be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are questions I cannot answer, I will wait and see how the SEC/GTE handles the valuations..
Mide, JustFrank....you've been mighty quiet since the news. Care to share your thoughts with your other long-time longs at this juncture?
rhapsody, I totally agree with you--all I was doing is pointing out the major differences between GTE and PGWC (so basically useless to compare).
So far no one has been able to connect the dots to prove fraud in the case of GTE. Until then, I'll give the Co more time to prove themselves (albeit reluctantly). I'm certainly NOT going to panic and drive the pps down for the benefit of the shorts. And I certainly know that their posting here has not been on behalf of longs they feel so sorry for...........
wouldn't the procedure be the same as when GTE rec'd the AMEX notice? That had to be PR'd....the notification itself, which was prior to the review of evidence (both the preliminary review and the final review re: panel determination)
I think GTE had to notify SH and chose to release all the bad news lump-sum for wknd assimilation
rhapsody, I posted this previously on the TA board regarding GTE comparison to PGWC:
blood brother" to PGWC goes too far because their differences are more striking:
1. (PGWC CEO) “Knabb has invested more than $16.5 million since May 2005, and he currently holds about 4 million shares.” http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060920/pegasus_wireless.html?.v=1
NOT so w/ our GTE insiders.............
2. PGWC “has applied to withdraw its securities from listing on the Nasdaq Global Market by October 26, 2006”
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060925/20060925006223.html?.v=1
vs GTE pending forced AMEX de-listing for:
(i) failure to make timely, accurate and complete disclosure of material corporate developments, as well as engaging in a pattern of issuing materially misleading and overly promotional public disclosures;
(ii) failure to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission reporting obligations by filing incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate information in its public filings;
(iii) failure to provide information to the Exchange;
(iv) providing materially false and misleading information and statements to the Amex staff hindering its investigation of the Company's compliance with Amex listing requirements;
(v) acting to interfere with the operation of a fair and orderly market by issuing public statements not warranted by the Company's affairs that were intended to affect the price of its common stock;
(vi) association with an individual with a history of regulatory misconduct that rises to the level of a public interest concern; and
(vii) serious internal control weaknesses that rise to a level of a public interest concern.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=13805504
OK. The "AMEX old boys club" reviewed all the GTE documentation that clearly proved their allegations false and de-listed anyway. Is that how you see it? And the SEC, understaffed and all, decided to issue a formal investigation...for what? Lack of better things to do?
btw, Rocky doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory either (you may want to point out THAT post of his as well).
What are the other companies that you can evidence as being ambushed by the AMEX "old boys club?"
Siriuslyrob er..richer, you sure know how to put a spin on things.
“GTE…is cooperating fully”………. they HAVE to: SEC served them w/ a formal investigation so they could subpoenas anything not forthcoming (a prob AMEX alleged).
Your comment here totally eludes me: “On a bright note, because GTE worked diligently over months to provide information/documentation to AMEX, I would expect that much of the information has been gathered already and much of hard work has been done.” Dude, GTE LOST the appeal. All the data/doc they furnished to panel (or lack thereof) FAILED to refute what the AMEX alleged. Now tell me where the bright note is on THAT, sir?
"what the SEC probably is looking at".........is anything and everything they want to = wherever the investigation leads them (and let's hope BONY one of the roads they follow too).
From Am. Bar Assoc. (GTE rec'd formal SEC notice):
"An investigation becomes "formal" when the SEC issues a formal order of investigation (formal order). Such an order empowers the enforcement staff to issue subpoenas compelling investigative testimony and the production of documents. The formal order describes the nature of the investigation in very general terms and identifies the provisions of the federal securities laws that might have been violated."
"The scope of the investigation is not necessarily limited by the contents of the formal order. While some defense counsel may raise objections if the investigation stretches beyond the order, the enforcement staff typically ignores such objections. Also, as a practical matter, such objections are rarely effective because the staff can rather easily obtain an amended order."
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2005-09-10/colton.shtml