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.
Lucky, do you mean something done like requesting shareholder meetings, like demanding that we see the financials, like exercising our shareholder rights and responsibilities. You forget that "due diligence" applies to us as well as them, and an innactive and uninvolved shareholder is not due diligence. I will continue to press forward with requests that require action, or we have nothing to show down the road. So far I have made the requests, contacted Johan B. and set the timetable for responses. That sir, is due diligence.
I am.....but we have to show due diligence. The next steps that will be taken will be the beginning of this. I will let everyone know as soon as the time limit has run out for responses to my emails. Thanks Igor for all the info. Its hard to get people to get together to take action but I am setting the basis for it as carefully as possible.
Yes that is what I was asking. Thank you for the insight. And I think that you are correct.
With interest?
In addition to all that which is great advice, if we proceed forward with the plan then the possibility also exists of an additional liability to the officers of the company for possible illegal activity.
In which case they cannot hide behind bankruptcy or delisting. Some one felt that it was worth going after them for their money. This also can be done after claiming a loss due to the delisting.
The question to the tax professional would be what loss are you eligible for? The price just before the delisting or the purchase price? This may be point of law.
Hi Igor; Havent heard from you in a while and that is missed because your data is so good. LoL....no surprise that they "...failed to file an answer". Another 1/2 million dollar mistake. I see chickens in flight looking for a roost. They cannot hide any fraud behind a bankruptcy or delist.
order Clerks Entry of Default Wed 06/24 4:38 PM
Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc. pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to file an answer in this action. This default is noted on the Court's docket this date. Nunc pro tunc 06/08/2020. (bboy, )
PS----the most reliable information on any Government procurement comes through the COR/COTR. That is so that there is an official POC. I was wondering if the person that gave the information was the procurement officer or COR/COTR?
Hi All;
My experience with the Govt 40+ years) is that the Government can say anything they want, and even in writing. However they can also change their mind, strategy, or timetable at any time. All it would take is one crises or change of administration.
On another note; I will wait another two weeks for any response from the principles and lawyers to the email I sent with our requests and questions.
If no response I intend to send another request informing them that if we do not receive a response we are going to take the next steps. These next steps I will provide in the next emails to them in the next 10 days. So far I intend to show "due diligence" in an appropriate and reasonable time frame for them.
Let me know of anything that you all would like me to include. I apologize for not saying the exact "next steps" but that is to avoid the time wasteful and sarcastic comments on the process I am following.
I hope those of you that can understand the "due diligence" process will continue to help me and us all out.
You are a very wise person with exceptional gravitas......
Hi Bob; Either way it is incumbent on us to work together to involve regulators or take other actions. Sooner or later them chickens come home to roost.
I have seen nothing else on the SEC site........like a complaint filed yesterday by a "concerned" member.
https://sec.report/Document/0000947871-17-000381/
https://sec.report/CIK/0001430969/Insider-Trades
Why so "helpful" now? This does not help my effort one bit, and in fact detracts from it. Does the term cooperation mean anything?
Ah yes....speculation, speculation.....:o). Happy Labor Day.
I have waited the appropriate 2 plus weeks for a response and nothing. I just dont think "hope and waiting" is a good strategy for success with TMPS. We have rights and responsibilities which must be exercised. So, in keeping with "due diligence" I have sent the following.
JBergendorff@tempus-as.com,
johan.eliasch@googlemail.com
megan.smith@bclplaw.com,
camilla.grierson@bclplaw.com,
graham.shear@bclplaw.com,
andrew.street@bclplaw.com,
susan.kovarovics@bclplaw.com
Hi Johan and interested parties;
It has been nearly 2 full weeks since I last requested the following information. After our cordial telephone call (with Johan B.) I would have hoped to receive more definitive answers addressing the questions and requests of the shareholders that were asked and perhaps you are just too busy to respond. Since these questions are so important to us I will ask them again in case the previous requests fell into a crowded inbox and a response is much appreciated.
I am asking that we receive responses in writing or a shareholder meeting for the following questions that have been asked many times before so that there is no confusion or ambiguity about the status of TMPS and its assets. These questions are:
1. Who owns the L-1011 aircraft and assets of the company.
2. Was Johan C. offered anything (or sold) his shares for the L-1011's.
3. Is a Form 10 going to be filed.
4. How many shares are outstanding and what is their value?
5. Did TriStar or TMPS bid on the most recent tanker contracts?
In addition I would like to know the answers and responses for the previous questions that we still have not received responses for. These are from the previous emails:
"The questions and requests to all involved officers and their representatives are:
1. I am requesting that you (lawyers for Mr. Eliasch and Mr. Bergendorff) contact the officers and interested parties of TMPS to include your clients Mr. Eliasch and Mr. Bergendorff and to forward my request to them to provide the shareholders with all requested information to include:
1.1 The current state of the company, its current and future viability,
1.2 The registered agent, and the valid address, telephone numbers and valid contact information,
1.3 Request for a Board meeting to be attended by the current shareholders of the Company at a location that is accessible and timely.
1.4 Identification of all Company assets including the ownership of the L-1011 aircraft as well as their flight status.
1.5 Request access to the Company financials and financial data.
1.6 Full and complete information regarding a possible merger with another Company to include share price and ratio. "
Please forgive the directness and imposition on your time that these questions and requests may require, however they are critical to the investors and the shareholders who believed in this Company and many still do. Our conversation was very open however we still need the documented and verified data that we are entitled to.
Thank you for a prompt response;
Very Sincerely;
They had so many opportunities towork with their investors and that window has not closed. I still continue to wait with trust, but in the event we are not treated fairly, the due diligence on our part will be fulfilled.
No Im not Johan LoL
I guarantee nothing. I just said I will succeed due to diligence and determination. Nothing is guaranteed except if we do nothing. Then we are assured failure.....guaranteed.
It wont fail.
SEC has responsibility in several well defined areas that are well documented. Further, lawyers may not be necessary depending on what unfolds in the next weeks. It is way too premature for that. We continue due diligence and appropriate, measured and well documented steps to assure a proper outcomre.
Today is the 10th day with no further response from Johan B. Tomorrow I will generate and mail the new requests for the data and inputs that we wanted. I will include a copy of the request to the forum.
I suspect some bitterness or self interest in the Dog posts...no idea why. I keep asking him how many shares he has or had.......no answer.
Back to the task though. To date I have not heard back from Johan B. and this leaves me dissappointed. So, if I have not heard from him by Friday, I will send another email to Johan and all the lawyers requesting the answers to the questions that we have not received in months.
This will be another well documented attempt to have the Company Principles provide us with the fiduciary responsibilities that they have to us (even now). We have to complete these steps and I still have hope that they do their best to respond to all the requests we made. We have to be sure that we have documented, pursued, and politely requested all the rights and privileges that we as shareholders have.
We must stay on task exercising due diligence and an outcome that is in everyones interests.
Thats a refreshing view.....
But of course. What Is important to know is that most penny stock investors are smaller lots so it is not in the interest of these people to go after their investments. Its not cost effective and its easier to write of the loss and move on. Thats why very few of these stocks and corporations are ever pursued.
They want us to take the loss and they take the assets. I have lost substantially as a result of the delist and I wont walk away. Even if they declare bankruptcy they may have violated several laws prior to that and the bankruptcy laws will not let you declare it to avoid prosecution. To date I have not received any of the answers to the requests we have made even though I did manage to contact Johan B. I repeat the questions I asked them all (Johans, lawyers, et al) in the first emails. These have not been answered yet. Still waiting.
1. I am requesting that you contact the officers and interested parties of TMPS to include your clients Mr. Eliasch and Mr. Bergendorff and to forward my request to them to provide the shareholders with all requested information to include:
1.1 The current state of the company, its current and future viability,
1.2 The registered agent, and the valid address, telephone numbers and valid contact information,
1.3 Request for a Board meeting to be attended by the current shareholders of the Company at a location that is accessible and timely.
1.4 Identification of all Company assets including the ownership of the L-1011 aircraft as well as their flight status.
1.5 Request access to the Company financials and financial data.
1.6 Full and complete information regarding a possible merger with another Company to include share price and ratio.
You are right as rain. Following the conversation I requested in an email the following which is a direct cut and paste and is based on what you all suggested. I may have missed something though.
1. Who owns the L-1011 aircraft and assets of the company.
2. Was Johan C. offered anything (or sold) his shares for the L-1011's.
3. Is a Form 10 going to be filed.
4. How many shares are outstanding and what is their value?
5. Did TriStar or TMPS bid on the most recent tanker contracts?
To date Aug 21, 2020, I have not received a response. I will wait till next Friday since this might take some work on Johan B's part. After that I will resend the request to Johan B. and all the lawyers and others involved in addition to the previous requests that I made.
Again, this is due diligence as well as courtesy and appropriate time frames for him to respond. Does that make sense?
Sorry but that is not correct. If it is the Wild West then we are the new Sheriff in town.
I asked if they even bid on the contract. He said that he needed to check to see if he could tell us that status. I wouldnt read too much into that as he was very careful about not stating anything that could be mistaken or violate what he could say. He said he would check. Havent heard anything yet though. We shall see.
Update: No response yet from Johan B. yet. My hope is that we get an answer this week for the questions that you presented to me.
I dont think it is that important. Based on our contracts we are required to be registered in the SAM. But recall that the Government can simply require that a registration be done to initiate a contract. They can pretty much do what they feel is in their interests. They can waive a requirement or they can fail you on anything.
In the SAM system it specifies legacy dates. Bythe way the FAR is the bible for Federal acquisitions and it is a massive tome.
From the SAM: Here are some clarifications on using filters:
You may specify a date, date range and action (Inactive Date (legacy archive date), Published Date, Updated Date, Response/Offers Due Date).
There are multiple set-aside categories in beta.SAM.gov. As with many of the filters, you can select multiple set-aside values. If you are searching for Small Business Events, they are found under special notices.
To search for a six-digit NAICs, enter the first two digits to view a drop-down menu of six-digit codes and titles.
To search for a four-digit PSC, enter the first two digits to view a drop-down menu of four-digit codes and titles.
Hi Bob; I just landed from Minnesota so I have had 0 time to devote. Let me get my stuff together and I will try to answer tomorrow. I think the short answer is that they have to be active in the SAM system.
I dont believe that DoD is going to award a contract to a small flaky company to fuel aircraft in a time of crises. Even DoD cant afford that. I think that the only other possible hope in this is that Lockheed bid with TMPS as a subcontractor for the interim solution. This often happens in DoD and lets them meet their small business quota while also keeping the big company resources. It matches perfectly with my own contracting experiences with the Government. Good data Fink!
ANNNNNND that is why the Government opened it to large companies. My guess is that they are selling the L-1011's to lockheed and the another big defense contractor has exercised its weight. I have sent another email to Johan requesting the items that were addressed in this forum so we shall see.
Based on Fink....I suspect the award will go to Lockheed with "our" planes being the interim solution that Lockheed bid.
Fortune smiles on the prepared :o)
I would love to subscribe to that notion.............also like, ".....trust but verify".
Also, the Govt. typically awards Friday at COB so today is the 14th. What should we prepare for? At least its not Friday the 13th :o)
Johan B. seemed very smart and knowledgeable and quite candid I thought. In the end if everyone walks happy no harm no foul. But I for one will pursue if this is not done fairly and equitably. I want to work with Johan B. and will do everything I can to support him and us to get TriStars flying. But if we should get scrod then the whirlwind is reaped.
Unless there was a deal cut outside of the knowledge of the shareholders, which is also illegal.
So if I read this correctly, Eliasch owns 90% and has transferred to Santiago. Is that correct. It appears that there has been some very complex maneuvering here and may be not quite correct. Ideas?
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 88024L100
Page 2 of 11 Pages
1
NAME OF REPORTING PERSONS
Jonah Eliasch
2
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (See Instructions)
(a) ?
(b) ?
3
SEC USE ONLY
4
SOURCE OF FUNDS (See Instructions)
OO
5
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
?
6
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
United Kingdom
NUMBER OF
SHARES
BENEFICIALLY
OWNED BY
EACH
REPORTING
PERSON
WITH
7
SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8
SHARED VOTING POWER
79,532,944 (1)
9
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
79,532,944 (1)
11
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
79,532,944 (1)
12
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES (See Instructions)
?
13
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
89.8% (2)
14
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (See Instructions)
IN
_______________________
(1)
Includes 77,500,000 Shares issuable upon the conversion of the Issuer’s 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note due April 28, 2017 (the “Note”).
(2)
This percentage is calculated based upon 11,064,664 Shares outstanding as of March 28, 2017, as reported in the Issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2017 and takes account of the Shares issuable upon conversion of the Note.
2
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 88024L100
Page 3 of 11 Pages
1
NAME OF REPORTING PERSONS
Santiago Business Co. International Ltd.
2
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (See Instructions)
(a) ?
(b) ?
3
SEC USE ONLY
4
SOURCE OF FUNDS (See Instructions)
OO
5
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
?
6
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
British Virgin Islands
NUMBER OF
SHARES
BENEFICIALLY
OWNED BY
EACH
REPORTING
PERSON
WITH
7
SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8
SHARED VOTING POWER
79,532,944 (1)
9
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
79,532,944 (1)
11
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
79,532,944 (1)
12
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES (See Instructions)
?
13
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
89.8% (2)
14
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (See Instructions)
CO
_______________________
(1)
Includes 77,500,000 Shares issuable upon the conversion of the Issuer’s 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note due April 28, 2017 (the “Note”).
(2)
This percentage is calculated based upon 11,064,664 Shares outstanding as of March 28, 2017, as reported in the Issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2017 and takes account of the Shares issuable upon conversion of the Note.
3
This Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 13D relates to the shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Common Stock”), of Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (the “Issuer”). The Common Stock is quoted on the OTCQB Marketplace under the symbol “TMPS”. The Issuer’s principal offices are located at 471 McLaws Circle, Suite A, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. This is the first amendment to the statement on Schedule 13D filed by Johan Eliasch (“Eliasch”), an individual, and Santiago Business Co. International Ltd., a business company organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (“Santiago” and collectively with Eliasch, the “Reporting Persons”). Except as specifically provided herein, this Amendment No. 1 does not modify any of the information previously reported on the Schedule 13D.
Item 3.
Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration
Item 3 is amended to read in full as set forth below.
On April 28, 2017, Santiago entered into a Note Purchase Agreement (the “Note”) with the Issuer pursuant to which the Issuer issued and sold the Note to Santiago and Santiago caused to be transferred to the Issuer certain shares of capital stock of Bluebell Business Limited, a company limited by shares organized and existing under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (“Bluebell”), and, upon receipt of the Note, to cause to be forgiven approximately $700,000 owed by the Issuer in connection with a certain Aircraft Lease Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2016, and certain related matters. The Issuer’s obligations under the Note are to be secured by the following collateral: (i) a pledge by the Issuer of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Bluebell; (ii) a mortgage and security interest to be granted by N198GS Inc. and Bluebell of their respective interests in a specified Gulfstream G-IV aircraft; and (iii) a security interest to be granted by Bluebell in its rights under the trust agreement between Bluebell and N198GS Inc.
The closing of the Note purchase took place on April 28, 2017.
On May 10, 2017, Santiago acquired 2,032,994 shares of Common Stock in partial satisfaction of a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”) pursuant to which Tempus Jets, Inc., a Kansas corporation, was indebted to an affiliate of Santiago; such shares had been pledged to the affiliate to secure payment of the Promissory Note. The purchase price for such shares was $0.13 per share, and the aggregate purchase price was credited to the outstanding principal and interest balance due under the Promissory Note.
As a result of the transactions described in this Item 3, Santiago and Eliasch may each be deemed to be the beneficial owner of approximately 89.8% of the Issuer’s Common Stock (assuming conversion in full of the Note and further assuming that no warrants to purchase Common Stock or securities convertible into shares of Common Stock held by parties other than the Reporting Persons are exercised or converted).
Item 5.
Interest in Securities of the Issuer
Item 5 is amended to read in full as set forth below.
(a)-(b) The following disclosure assumes that there are 11,064,664 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 28, 2017, as reported in the Issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2017.
As of the date of this filing, Eliasch and Santiago may each be considered the beneficial owner of 2,032,944 outstanding shares of the Issuer’s Common Stock. In addition, Santiago has the right to acquire up to 77,500,000 shares of Common Stock upon conversion of the Note at a conversion price of $0.08 per share. Assuming conversion of the Note in full, and assuming further that no warrants to purchase Common Stock or securities convertible into shares of Common Stock held by parties other than the Reporting Persons are exercised or converted, such outstanding shares and shares issuable upon conversion of the Note would constitute approximately 89.8% of the shares of Common Stock that would be issued and outstanding following conversion in full of the Note. Pursuant to its authority as the controlling person of Santiago, Eliasch may be deemed to indirectly beneficially own any shares of Common Stock attributable to Santiago.
4
(c) Except as disclosed in Item 3, the Reporting Persons have not effected any transactions in the common stock during the past sixty (60) days.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) Not applicable.
Item 7.
Materials to Be Filed as Exhibits
Exhibit
Description
1.
Joint Filing Agreement among Johan Eliasch and Santiago Business Co. International Ltd. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 to the original Schedule 13D, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017).
Yes and that is why I asked about the number of shares outstanding. Those numbers dont jibe with the statements over the years of 29 million undiluted. I will be sending the email today and I will ask those questions.
Check this:
https://fintel.io/i/eliasch-johan