Rebel
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.
I don't think he'll be using the money to purchase more properties, at least not until he figures out how to hold onto CBAY's current assets, and $4 million is enough to save the Florida property, leaving $1.3 million to spare. And there are plenty of shares left and now authorized for him to play with.
Anyway, at this point, I really don't care what he does to increase the share price--just as long as he does something.
If he raises enough cash to settle with the Nevada people, then that lis pendens would be released. I mean he's got a BOATLOAD of newly authorized shares! New shares, new plan.
Yippee (lol)
duplicate...sorry
And on the bright side, maybe all of those new shares will serve to drive the share price up (on renewed hope?). Now wouldn't that be a hoot?
You could be right, but I'd rather see him try to save CBAY than roll over and play dead. I think he was foolish to count on that $14 million Stonewall money (that he's still fighting for and will probably never see). My general sense is that the nonpayment of that $14 million was the catalyst that started this entire breakdown of CBAY's little house of cards.
That seems obvious now. He's most likely selling shares in an attempt to raise enough money to get this company (and maybe himself) out of trouble, and trouble seems to be looming everywhere. For everyone's sake, I hope he's successful. Has anyone wondered if he's trying to raise enough cash to pay off the debts and save the Florida property that's scheduled to be auctioned off in June? He only needs $2.7 million to take care of that (lol). Plus, he'll need more money to take care of those angry Nevada people to whom he owes money for the Las Vegas properties.
What a flipping mess.
Actually, I think it's unusual for any analyst to even bother with a company/stock like CBMC, so that's interesting in and of itself, don't ya think?
You're quite welcome. I don't know why. Maybe analysts have rules about attaching their names to stocks that are so cheap! Maybe it's an ego thing.
;)
(lol) Yes, he does seem to work rather hard at presenting the negative...maybe it's time for a raise!
;)
William Gregozeski (Capstone Investments) maintains long-term buy as of 4/27/07; he lowered his target price to 0.20. Also, according to my brokerage account, Thomson Financial is recommending CBMC as a "buy."
http://reports.finance.yahoo.com/w0?r=39398856:2
It just doesn't make sense to me that CBAY would be diluting at this price. I mean, 1 million shares will raise a whopping $2,400.00. It would make more sense for them to be buying back shares at these prices...but then again, not much makes sense in pinkland.
There was a Form T trade after hours of 8,721,000 shares yesterday at .0024...would love to know what's up with that, especially since pinks don't normally trade after hours (???)..
That is excellent information, and you have answered my question perfectly. Merci beaucoup, Mimurray. ;)
On IHUB's Level II, I can't find any key or other information that would explain the meaning behind the lower case "t" or "e" (and there could be others) that I often see next to the individual trade transactions. I'm not sure if this is where I should be asking this question, but would appreciate any information.
Thank you.
Last I knew, the lawsuit filed by CBAY on 4/27/07 was seeking $5.2 million, not $14 million, so is this PR talking about still another lawsuit? Also, it's rather sad that the PR refers to CBAY's "council" rather than "counsel."
C'mon Roger, you can do better.
Fun, fun, fun...
And now that I think about it, if CBAY did dilute to 500 million common shares (and we have no idea whether or not they did), then they could buy 'em all back for a paltry $1,275,000...right? .
Only the shadow knows what it all means, but I do see those large blocks. Hey, maybe CBAY is buying back shares at these rock bottom prices and significantly reducing the float. That would make me happy (just a wild and crazy thought).
;)
.005 is still pretty pathetic, and it's probably just a shot in the dark anyway, but of course, that's in keeping with where we are now with CBAY: complete and utter darkness. Roger, it's time to let some light shine through (if there is any).
I'm with you Thorserb2...Pawson has experienced a quick and remarkable recovery, so maybe CBAY will too.
;)
How do you know there aren't enough assets to pay a junkyard lawyer?
This morning, I saw at least 55 properties that CBAY currently owns in Las Vegas alone, and apparently they just took out a loan to develop one of them (at least that's my assumption). We need to hear from the company as to their current portfolio and net value of those assets (and so much more).
That Deed of Trust is secured by CBAY’s property, Block 5, Lot 154, in the subdivision known as College Heights No. 1, for which they paid $250,000. This should take you to the map:
http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/assessor/webimages/default.asp?appID=3&lstMapType=PL&txtMapFil...
The lender is Granite Canyon Investments, LLC, and it’s listed with the Nevada SOS as an active LLC (no familiar names!).
CBAY currently owns 53 +/- properties in Clark County.
Please delete this post...thank you.
Now I know how my dog must feel when I give him a special Scooby snack when he's an extra good boy...he is always SO grateful. I feel grateful for this filing, so I must have been a very good doggy.
(oh brother)
(lol)
Whew! It's not much, but something is better than nothing. Thank you, Roger. I hope you're feeling better; I know I am.
Well, by sitting back and not answering/fighting the foreclosure, Pawson bought a few months of time, which may have been deliberate for who-knows-what reason. I mean, I don't think CBAY even made the first payment, so that has a deliberate "feel" to me (lol), but then again, why would he want such a black mark on himself personally and on CBAY in the credit rating department? Maybe Pawson was counting on the Stonewall note...so many mysteries.
It would have been pure stupidity for Pawson to buy that property without a title search that would have revealed any kind of environmental/flood/wetlands problems...he may be a crook, but I don't think he is stupid. Plus, why would "General Mortgage Associates" even provide the financing if the real estate had such problems? I think the Judgment is interesting, in that CBAY still has a chance to retain the property. State laws vary, but in CT, often title to the property will simply pass to the lender in a "strict foreclosure."
I'm glad Pawson is gone and can only hope that Mercer will come through for us. It's inexcusable that we have yet to hear one word from our new CEO.
They won’t lose it if CBAY comes up with $2.7 million, plus accrued interest and attorneys’ fees on or before June 13, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., when it’s scheduled for auction. Maybe, just maybe, they can do it, or maybe all of this was part of some sort of harebrained plan on the part of Pawson. $2.7 million doesn’t seem all that impossible for these guys to come up with. They do seem to have a lot of tricks up their sleeves.
Fun, fun, fun…
Yes indeed, and I'm sorry to say that it wouldn't surprise me. It appears that Mercer and Pawson have a history (they both may be from the UK?). I just found an RP Capital as a registered LLC at the California Secretary of State's site also, but I just don't have time to research this any further at this point (not ready to quit my day job!)
Bottom line: Who the HECK knows what's going on?
Such fun.
According to the California Secretary of State, that corporation has been suspended. From what I can gather, Commerce Development Group took over operations of The Mercer Group; subsequently Mercer resigned as CEO from Commerce and sold his interests in Commerce Development to to RP Capital, which is based in the UK. That's all I have time for now...
Here’s a SEC document linking Andrew E. Mercer, Roger Pawson, and the Mercer Group together in a company known as Gateway Distributors. That entity is now trading under MHII.OB. The Mercer Group in Georgia to which you’re referring I don’t believe is the correct entity. Andrew E. Mercer is President/CEO of The Mercer Group, Inc., a California corporation, and in one document I read, his address was in Carlsbad.
This is a description of Mercer’s corporation taken from a SEC filing:
"Mercer Group, Inc., a California corporation, has been providing to smaller businesses services similar to those we propose to provide since 1997. Mercer Group specializes in offering consulting for corporate structuring, business plan development, corporate document preparation other similar services. However, the Mercer Group is not accepting new clients for the services we offer. Because the Mercer Group was in the same line of business as us, to avoid any potential conflicts concerning accepting new business, both the Mercer Group and we have adopted a written policy that all candidates for the consulting services to be offered by Commerce Development will retain Commerce Development and not Mercer Group in the future. This policy was adopted by the boards of both companies. We are not aware of any circumstances under which this policy can be changed."
http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingRTF1?SessionID=a1aDCTdF574sT9S...
WAG = 6/7/07 @ 3:57 p.m.
Yes! There's some comfort in the fact that they actually accomplished something that Pawson told us about, so that's one small point for the good side.
It seems to me that CBAY must have some sort of legal basis behind their claim that would give them a good shot at prevailing; otherwise, why would they even bother with the hassle and expense of a lawsuit?
That court ruled against CBAY in January, and it looks like CBAY has filed a NEW action in a California court seeking $5.2 million, which action was just entered on 4/27/07.
By the way--thank you nennwert! Nice find.
Pawson said they were going to take the matter to another court and it looks like this is it; filed just on 4/27/07. I mean, why would they keep pursuing it if they didn't think they could win, especially when you consider the costs associated with any legal action?
Looks like CBAY was pretty busy that last week in April...
EBAY, if CBAY did, in fact, decrease the number of authorized shares from 500 million to 200 million, then yes, that would be a very (very) good thing! According to the filing, it looks like that's what they did. Also, remember that in order to legitimately float off into pinkland, they needed less than 350 shareholders; they reported ONLY 169 in that filing.
If Belinda's equity/asset figure is accurate, then current book value based on the assumption that ALL 200 million shares are issued and outstanding, would be around $.045. Sure, it would be wonderful to see this move to $.50! It's all up to Mercer.
Maybe the delay in hearing from Mercer is simply (or not so simply) a matter of getting all of his ducks in a row. In the meantime, we just have to wait and hope for some good news and validation. The launching of their new website would be a good start.
Yes indeed, and if that 200 million authorized capital figure pursuant to the 4/27/07 filing is, in fact, correct, then the outstanding can't be 245 million; would have to be under 200 million.
Would be a very good thing...
I just based those figures on the estimated net equity divided by the number of outstanding shares (all classes) at the time. As a ball-park, I'm thinkin' the net equity would have to be at least $20-$25 million. It appears they're current on their taxes, which is about the only happy thought I have about CBAY right now!
Yes, you'd think Mercer would have PR'd something by now, but who knows...Maybe CBAY is HAPPY about this shameful share price...it's hard to have faith in anything they do.
EBAY, just speaking for myself, it seems stupid to sell here, especially since we haven't even heard anything from Mercer yet. Hopefully, he's working HARD to get things on track and hopefully we'll hear from him soon. The last time I tried to figure out the actual BV per share, I came up with $.04; the time before that, about $.08; the time before that $.11-.12, and before that $.50, so who knows now. (lol)
I have written to the Nevada SOS and asked them to explain the disparity between the corporate page reporting 500,000,000 authorized shares, while the last amendment dated 4/27/07 states there are only 200,000,000 authorized. I'm not holding my breath, but if I DO hear back from them, I'll post it here.
When a stock gets too painful and seems hopeless, you can either sell and take your loss, or just hang in there and DON'T EVEN LOOK for a while (take a stock vacation!). It's risky business, especially now that we're in the pinks (and not my first trip down this ugly road)
I saw that 500 million on the link you provided, but if you compare the new amendment with previous ones, then the 200,000,000 figure would be the correct one. It clearly says NEW STOCK VALUE/200,000,000/authorized capital $200,000.00, and it's dated 4/27/07. Hey if Pawson can increaseth without a PR, he can decreaseth without a PR. (lol)
It still seems messed up somewhere to me.
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/corpActions.aspx?lx8nvq=9cot3v%252bVjk2YD8rebTuo%252bQ%253d%253d&CorpName=CAL-BAY+INTERNATIONAL%2c+INC.
Mordicai, I am confused. We know that Pawson increased the AS count behind our backs, bringing it to 500,000,000 a while ago; however, if you look at the actual amendment filed on 4/27/07, it's showing a DECREASE to 200,000,000 (a very good thing).
Maybe it's lack of sleep, but am I missing something here? Maybe the Nevada SOS has made a clerical error?