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.
Mighty: I agree totally. Just trying to make sure that virginian understands that the SEC case didn't cover anything beyond March of 2004, so there is nothing that can happen now that gets RA, Gunderson, or USXP off the hook for fraudulent acts committed back then.
Just did a search of RA's deposition for 'oil.' Not one hit.
Searched the summary judgement requrest for oil, arab, middle (for middle east). No hits.
virginian: What summary judgement did you read, because there isn't a single reference to anything about Saudi funding or oil and gas venture PRs.
In fact, there is not a single reference to these in any SEC filing, at all. Nothing in the original 115-paragraph complaint, nothing in the SEC request for summary judgement.
The SEC case is not now, and has never been about anything that happened after March of 2004.
virginian: The SEC case is based on PRs from 3-5 years ago. They've never been true and there is no chance they ever will be true.
Your confusion on this matter appears to be you are unclear about the period of time covered by the SEC case. It is only through the beginning of 2004.
virginian: The SEC case covers issues through the beginning of 2004. It has not been ammended to cover anything that has happened since then because to have ammended the case at any time would have basically set the clock back to zero, with the whole process beginning again.
Besides which, the SEC knew it had an extremely strong case with the existing issues, as evidenced by the judge coming down 100% on their side in their case against RA, Gunderson, and USXP.
If any criminal charges are forthcoming, which IMNSVHO, are 99% possible, particularly since at least one criminal investigation is ongoing regarding one of the codefendant's activities in this case, those charges would probably not be limited to just the issues covered by the SEC charges.
Well all see, eventually...
Yikes... At the rate we've been taking hits the last 2 days, we should be subpenny by end of next week.
I don't expect that, because the rate of selling at any price should decrease dramatically, and there must be some support for the price somewhere down here.
This is ugly, though...
virginian: First, a judge's order does not take affect until it is officially entered into the court record. That didn't happen until April 4th (within a day or two).
Second, I have no idea why he is still CEO, but I personally believe that since he does have the right to appeal, he either has the right to remain as CEO pending the final outcome of the appeals process, or at least he believes that to be true.
Nobody has shown me any evidence that his dismissal as CEO is not affected by the appeals process for civil judgements.
virginian: RA can file an appeal, but that doesn't mean he'll get an appeal.
Janice is correct. An appeal must be based on the potential of overturning a judgement because an error in the application of the law may have occurred.
The appeal's court can reject an appeal based on any other reason out-of-hand. They can also reject an appeal based on what the appelate claims to be a reversable error, which the appeal's court disagrees with that assessment, out-of-hand.
IMNSVHO, it is extremely unlikely that any appeal by RA will be heard by any court.
ToddWHO2: The SEC is bringing civil charges against Plant and the company. The Justice department is bringing criminal charges.
They are two different agencies, pursuing their own cases which are based on the same events.
ToddWHO2: It was the prosecutor in the criminal case, and it is an extension of time limit on getting an indictment. It has nothing to do with the SEC case.
Thanks. Let's hope they don't do this again, particularly anytime within the next 6 quarters.
I don't know how serious the OTC BB is about enforcing the new rules (why implement if you aren't going to?), but I don't think any of us want to find out...
cleverrox: Unfortunately, this is two times in 2 quarters. Did these guys have a filing that exceeded the extension date any other time in the last 24 months? If they did (or do another time for any of the next 6 quarters), there is a serious chance they'll be dropped from the OTC BB for at least a year.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3703/is_200604/ai_n17171346
faster183: What a surprise. French overpaid for TMC, and he paid millions for an acquisition that lost 250K.
Oh, and what was his projection for 2006? 17M?
MikeS97707: I'm never wrong - I don't care what the SEC says is the deadline!!!!
Cool. Thanks for that site.
MikeS97707: The original deadline was 90 calendar days after the 31st of December, which puts that at March 31st. The extension adds 15 calendar days.
At least that is my understanding.
But does it matter? I guess not. Today, tomorow? One more day isn't going to change anything...
cleverrox: Financials are due today. Keeping my fingers crossed...
Not feeling very optimistic, and not liking the price action, is hardly like feeling this thing is a total POS.
It's being pessimistic about the short term.
But thanks for your advice...
I'm not very optimistic about what's coming today. Haven't liked the price action at all.
At least we have the shortest wait for the next SEC filing: 35 days from today, at the latest. In TCLL time, that's like tomorow...
Well, the SEC may not be able to close down trading in this company without court action, but it appears that the NASD can, though one has to wonder how often they'll actually employ their new powers. Stole this from another board:
NASD's Authority to Halt Trading and Quotation Expands to Include All OTC Equity Securities1
New York, NY - April 12, 2007 - On March 16, 2007, the authority of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD") expanded to include all Pink Sheets securities as well as those quoted and traded in the grey market.2 Before this date, the NASD only had authority to halt trading and quotations in securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board ("OTCBB"). That limited authority was found in NASD Rule 6545, which has been expanded and renumbered Rule 6660.3
Specifically, Rule 6660 expands the scope of NASD authority to initiate trading and quotation halts in all OTC Equity Securities, which includes ADRs and foreign ordinaries that trade and are quoted in the OTC market, securities quoted in quotation media other than the OTCBB, e.g., the Pink Sheets, and other OTC Equity Securities. This expansion allows the NASD to impose its trading and quotation halt authority uniformly to all OTC Equity Securities eliminating the disparity between OTCBB securities and other quotation media. Furthermore, Rule 6660 now authorizes the NASD to impose halts for periods of up to 10 business days, which is greater than the five business days permitted by Rule 6545.
For halts of four or more days, quoting will not automatically resume in a quotation medium until compliance is demonstrated with SEC Rule 15c2-11 and NASD Rule 6640. Typically this involves the approval of a Form 211 by the NASD, which has been filed by a member firm intending to make a market in the securities. In filing a Form 211 the sponsoring market maker must review certain specified information about the issuer. From that review the sponsoring market maker must have a reasonable basis under the circumstances to believe that the issuer information is accurate in all material respects and the sources of such information are reliable.
The NASD also adopted IM-6660-1 to identify certain factors that NASD may consider in determining, at its discretion, the appropriateness of halting trading and quotations in an OTC Equity Security under Rule 6660(a)(3). Subparagraph (a)(3) enables the NASD to impose trading and quotation halts under those extraordinary events that have a material effect on the market for the OTC equity security and have the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace and/or significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process. Due to the general nature of trading and quotation in the OTC equity market, and the fact that NASD lacks a direct contractual relationship with OTC equity issuers, the NASD does not favor imposing a trading halt and thus expects to exercise this authority in very limited circumstances.
Publication of trading and quotation halts will continue to be disseminated/published as they currently are for OTCBB securities, including through NASDAQ MarketWatch and OTCBB.com. In time, our broker-dealer customers will find information on trading and quotation halts of OTC Equity Securities on our Today's Notice page of our OTC Dealer product.
Please refer to NASD NTM 07-09 for a more in depth review of the NASD's new expanded authority. To view the SEC's order, please visit http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nasd/2006/34-54952.pdf (PDF)
For further information about Rule 6660 or IM-6660-1, please contact us by email at info@pinksheets.com, or contact Michael T. Dorsey, Esq., Managing Director, Trading Services & Compliance at 212-896-4456.
Ouch... 500K at .005 is one expensive fat-finger trade.
Maybe it will get reversed, which just happened. Changed to 500K at .0005...
Somebody loves selling at .13. Everytime there is any uptick to .13 on the Bid, it gets hammered back down.
By Monday night, we should know just how bad (or good) the situation is.
Teh Sparten: Yep, on all of about 1600.00 in trades.
Woo hoo...
Divine Madcat: Thanks. I haven't searched that way in a long time. Usually search the main db. Why it doesn't come up with anything is puzzling, but I've got to the info now.
Again, thanks...
Divine Madcat: What info are you entering on PACER to get to that info? I do a search for Plant, James and the only entry I get is for the Utah court, which explains why I can't see anything past 3/28.
But I've tried searching for Plant, James for every court of every type and I get nothing for him except a hit for his bk case back in 2001.
Help!
Divine Madcat: That's weird. I check the Docket Report and get nothing past 3/28.
I don't doubt your info, so something else is going on. Maybe I need to clean out my cache?
Bizarre...
For those who are interested, Joel Krautheim filed bankrupty back in 1995.
Bankruptcy Petition #: 95-13543-AJC
Just a piece of history.
Also another piece of history was a civil suit against Heaton back in 1999/2000, and counter-suit agaist Electric Lightwave. In the end both suits were dismissed with prejudice, and Heaton and Lightwave had to pay their own lawyer and court costs.
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-00552-DAK
No cases on PACER regarding Dan Mertlich.
Where did you get the last two updates you gave us from? PACER didn't have any of the three entries you cited in your two posts, so it appears to be running behind your source.
budge: Isn't it interesting that some of these guys are screaming about how we should treat Jim, the only guy who has been charged by the SEC and Justice, as innocent until proven guilty, yet are perfectly willing to smear Ruth with all kinds of innuendo, someone who hasn't been charged by any agency as far as anyone can tell?
So, Jim is innocent, but Ruth isn't? Odd sense of who should be slammed and who shouldn't...
planekeeps: According to the SEC complaint, nobody had been hired to audit any financials as of March 14th.
keepthfaith: That's my understanding, as well. Just would like concrete evidence to cite when people want to jam Cyberkey's problems all down her throat.
Does anyone have evidence of exactly when she was hired? It would be nice to know that date...
knowlesmsncom: I'm curious - where is there evidence that she confessed to anything?
TIA...
janice shell: Actually, the original complaint has 115 numbered paragraphs. Some of the charges used multiple paragraphs to outline.
The original was a 115-paragraph complaint about RA et al, not a document with 115 charges.
virginian: I've tried on a number of occasions to point out to people that there aren't 115 counts. The original charges filed by the SEC had 115 paragraphs documenting the charges, each paragraph individually numbered.
Paragraph numbering allows easy reference to specific parts of a document. Unfortunately, some of my fellow RA haters (I hate scam artists) tend to overstate things by counting all of the paragraphs as individual counts.
I have no idea of how many charges are actually covered by the original filing, but I do know that it isn't anywhere near 115.
Is anyone still following this POS? The 10K has this company looking hopeless.
Unfortunately, I'm a bagholder...
Thanks for the last two updates. Oddly, when I look at the case on PACER I only see entries through 3/28.
So he did show up for the April 6th appearance in Philly, and he's no longer out and about based on his personal promises to show up where he is wanted, when he is wanted.
now invest: You stated: "... and I do believe that JP would have to be certifiable to lie in a PR right now..."
So I guess that means you believe what he said in the PR about the internal investigation on the 15th, two days after he was arrested for criminal fraud?
I'd advise against believing anything this company says that cannot be absolutely verified by an independant source.
echogreen: And it was one of two products prominently displayed at FOSE on the companies table. The other product was Sequiam's biolock.
And it, along with the biolock, are the only company products for sale on Sky Mall.
It's the only product for sale on Military.com.
It's prominently highlighted on the home page.
Hmmmm... Seems like a lot of focus on a product that Plant reportedly believes is defective.
And we know about Plant's belief in the defectiveness how? Based on inside information provided by a poster???
fancybr: Don't think they'd order the company to have one performed, but as part of the SEC case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the SEC will do one and use it as evidence.
knowlesmsncom: I read it correctly. You know that you don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt to get an indictment. The affidavit clearly provides enough information for any grand jury to indict Plant.
So, why would the defendant's lawyer agree to provide the prosecution with 60 more days? Do you really think that allowing the prosecution that much more time to indict is sensible?
The non-trial resolution most likely would be a plea deal. Saves the government time and money. Saves the defendant maxing out on penalties.
Do you believe they need up to 60 more days to find a way to dismiss all charges? They can do that now if their case was so weak. And if their case was so weak, the defense would be stupid to say there's no problem with giving the prosecution another 60 days.
All IMNSVHO, of course...