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.
Maybe, but if it is time that the prosecution is asking for just so that they can try to come up with more evidence to get an indictment, I seriously doubt that Plant and his lawyer would have no objections.
And, my reading of the arrest doc, particularly the investigating agents affidavit, shows more than enough evidence to indict a ham sandwich...
Sounds like they're trying to work out a plea agreement. Wonder if Plant will be hanging anyone else out to dry?
The date set at his second appearance in Utah court was tommorow. A bit odd, since it's Good Friday, but that's the date cited in the record avaiable on PACER...
Danno123: Let me see if I've got what's going on here straight:
Some people are claiming that Plant did not default on the Sequiam order because there was no money to pay for it, but because he didn't want to sell the product anymore due to poor quality?
And this makes sense, how?
Wasn't this the second order from Sequiam, didn't he mention in the last update that there had been a large third order made with Sequiam?
Isn't the safe only one of two products now for sale on Sky Mall (or whatever the hell it's called), both Sequiam products?
Wasn't the safe and the lock prominantly displayed on the company's table at FOSE (so he had his people trying to sell faulty products to the federal government)?
Isn't the safe the only product sold on the Military.com mag website?
Bizarre...
virginian: I'm not sure how you came up with the idea that USXP won a 700M judgement against the SEC and naked short sellers. The USXP suit against the SEC, which was for that 700M, was dismissed by the Florida district court, and that dismissal was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The only suits RA has ever won were the two suits against 3 two-bit conmen that were won by default, as previously discussed.
Here's a link to an RB post that provided the docket information for the case through to the entry for the dismissal of the case in the florida district court:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=USXP&read=498250&submit=Go
Here's a link to the PR that RA put out about how he had decided to move the case to the appeals courts, without mentioning anything about the reason was because the case had been dismissed in the Florida courts:
http://www.usxp.com/companies/universal/pr/pr.asp?prtitle=Universal+Express%92+Lawsuit+of+%241%2E4+B...
Here's the entry from the court docket that shows that RA lost the suit when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement/order of the district court.
06/16/2006 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy)affirming judgment/order of the district court [25-1] appeal Mandate Issued Date: 6/13/06; USCA Appeal #: 05-13142-JJ; Copy to Judge. (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
All of the court info given is available on PACER for the docket record for the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) case #: 1:04-cv-20481-AJ.
It probably can't. But that may not be true of any attempts to get restitution with a civil suit.
Doesn't matter much - both the SEC and Justice Departments take their penalties and fees first, then try to see what's left for investors. With both of them going after him, there ain't gonna be too much left to fight over.
The info is on PACER. You have to have an account, and it costs .08 per page to access info, though I believe you have to run up a bill of at least 10.00 per month? quarter? before they'll actually charge you.
It is impossible to provide a link to the info. You can sign up for an account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.
virginian: I believe they have the right to appeal. I haven't read the appeal attachment yet (5 pages).
As for the 5.00, that is a restriction against being involved in having anything to do with being involved in the sale of stock for any company with an eps of under 5.00. He is barred from serving on the board or as an officer of any publicly traded company, is my understanding, but I haven't read the whole 10 page document on the judgement yet.
If you want to PM me with your e-mail address, I can send copies of both to you.
Stolen from cbeemer post on RB:
FINAL JUDGEMENT ENTERED AGAINST USXP, ALTOMARE AND GUNDERSON: Signed by Judge Lynch on March 8, 2007. In addition to fines Altomare barred as officer or director of public company. Appeal denied on March 14, 2007 by Judge Lynch.
FINAL JUDGMENT # 07,0605 in favor of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against Universal Express, Inc. in the amount of $ 21,906,483.00; Richard A. Altomare in the amount of $ 3,121,123; against Chris G. Gunderson in the amount of $ 794,711.00. (Signed by Judge Gerard E. Lynch on 3/8/07) (Attachments: # 1 notice of right to appeal)(ml) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
See Pacer for full 10 page order!!!!!
catty: I'm not sure if its 7 or 10, though I think 10 is correct (7 years may be how long bad credit items can remain on a credit report).
I do believe it is going to be a serious problem for him to try to get out of anything using bk.
sandvet: Just downloaded the pdf (3 pages) for the court order discharging him from bk. Lists about 15 or so companies that were notified of the fact - Looks like he owed all the high-interest loan and credit card companies in existence at that time.
PM me your email address if you'd like a copy.
P.S. There is also a 20+ page doc that apparently lays out his exact financial situation that required bk relief. Probably interesting, but I could buy a lot of shares with the 1.28 or so it would cost me to download that doc...
Thanks. You do know that he declared bankruptcy back in 2001, don't you?
The info is available on PACER.
Danno123: Ahhhh... Very interesting. It looks like Heaton was supporting the company with some of his own money, but wanted out of that situation.
I wonder when he filed suit to get that money back? Usually takes quite awhile to get a judgement for anything.
Danno123: Did I miss something regarding judgements for Heaton? Did he sue these guys sometime in the recent past?
TIA...
Looks to be very new - He was still listed on Investor Relations web page in a copy of that page Google cached on March 30th:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:3_Epm2P-1DIJ:www.cyberkeycorp.com/investor_relations.html+Heaton...
virginian: The relationship between USXP and Universal Jet is quite mysterious. If it were actually owned by USXP, RA would be required to report any revenue/earnings/losses as part of USXP's SEC filings. There is no way he could keep that info off the books. Any money that comes into the company, or leaves it, must be reported. Period.
In this 2/20/2007 PR, RA describes it as a "controlling partnership:"
http://www.usxp.com/companies/universal/pr/pr.asp?prtitle=Universal+Express+Announces+Substantial+Im...
And exactly where does the CEO of Universal Jet say that the company is a subsidiary of USXP? RA identifies him as such in today's PR. That is clearly not even close to the same thing.
The issue is way up in the air still...
virginian: I can't provide a better link, because the link is directly to the Dade county records - It is the only link anyone can provide.
You could try going to http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/ and trying a search yourself.
As for Global Trucking, I believe he did something with them, but I don't believe he has been truthful about exactly what it is he did (if I remember correctly, even by his own PR he didn't buy the company, just some portion of it), nor is he truthful about what Luggage Found actually does (it doesn't find anything - It delivers luggage the airlines find after the fact to the owners).
The links provided by bottomfeederxxx work fine for me.
And there were only two judgements.
virginian: How do I know he hasn't collected anything yet? Because he would have announced doing so, and any money recovered would have to be identified and reported in the SEC filings.
And the two awards were not against naked shorters, or the SEC. They were default judgements against two-bit hustlers who didn't bother to appear for failing to fullfill funding promises. RA did claim in the suits that their failure to do so left USXP open to naked short selling attacks, but as part of his reasons for the penalties sought. Nobody was sued for naked shorting the stock. Is the judgement bogus? No, but the idea that it was won against naked shorters and the SEC, and the idea that any of it is actually collectable, is, IMNSVHO.
As for the recent summary judgement in favor of the SEC, the official penalties have not been proclaimed by the judge. The barring of RA and the fines have yet to be imposed. Why? You actually have me there. I have no idea what is taking the judge so long to do so.
Good luck on this one, I think you are really, really going to need it.
cleverrox: "Are this year's results significantly different from last year's results?"
I would have expected 'yes' based on the acquisition, and the supposed VAT gains.
Does it mean anything for sure? Of course not. But it doesn't bode well, IMNSVHO, when combined with the price action that has been going on.
Virginian: I'm curious - RA has been unable to find a single penny of this money in about 6 years. The two companies he sued are defunct. The three guys have no money.
Who do you believe RA can get any money from? There were no other parties named or found liable. He already tried suing the SEC, and lost that case, and lost the appeal. (Why hasn't he appealed the loss to the Supreme Court as he promised he'd do?)
I really am curious where this money is going to be coming from.
TIA...
NT 10K is out. Not good news:
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0000909012%2D07%2D000629%2Etxt&FilePath...
(3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operation for the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof?
[X] Yes [ ] No
Preliminary results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006, reflect a net loss of approximately $4,860,000 versus a net loss for the year ended December 31, 2005, of $2,840,000. The increase in loss in 2006 is largely attributable to an impairment of goodwill of approximately $2,040,000. Results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006, are subject to further review and adjustment, the results of which could be material.
Can't say that item 3 in the NT 10K makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about good news:
(3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operation for the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof?
[] Yes [X] No
Hopefully they simply chose No rather than try to figure out what to say in the NT 10K if they said yes.
Clearly the article in the on-line rag, U.S. Business - Review, must be the 'blockbuster.'
Look how it has almost all of us bashers silenced...
What's with French? Not only his he late with the 10K, but he's late with the NT 10K filing for an extension.
LoanStew: I agree that your scenario is as likely as mine for why the SEC goes after a company when it goes after a CEO.
Maybe a combination of both; maybe the SEC sending a general message to employees everywhere that they'd better pay attention to what management is doing.
Whatever the reason, any penalties the SEC gets against CyberKey will almost certainly put it out of business. Even bankruptcy can't help - fraud penalties cannot be excused.
It's going to take a long time to play out, though...
Divine Madcat: I also have a problem with how the SEC virtually always goes after the companies as well. Near as I can tell, they do when the company benefits from the officer's fraud. So, if Plant did what he did just to enrich himself, maybe he would be the only target. It is possible that the 1.5M is gone to keeping Cyberkey running.
The really weird thing is that the SEC usually seeks more penalties and fines from the oompanies, than they typically seek against the perps. For USXP, as an example, the SEC was seeking about 2.5M against Altomare, about 1M against Gunderson, and about 18M against USXP, itself...
Thanks, but no thanks. I already know that will be Friday the 13th...
Divine Madcat is in the process of getting it up on the iHub header for CKYS. I'll be happy to send it to you (or have Danno send it), as well.
PM me with your email address.
Danno123: I downloaded the 16 page arrest doc from PACER for Plant. If you want a copy of it, send me your email in a PM.
Most of it reads pretty close to the SEC charges, but there is interesting extra detail provided by the investigating agent in his affidavit.
Wow - I decided to spend the money to download a copy of the arrest document (I was trying to save the 1.28).
It includes the affidavit of the FBI agent in charge of investigating Plant. Some statements included:
"Counsel for DHS contacted Plant several times in an attempt to either have CyberKey substantiate its claim that CyberKey has a business relationship with DHS, or to pull the press releases referencing that relationship. Neither Plant or anyone from CyberKey ever provided DHS with proof of such a relationship."
"When confronted by government officials with the fact that no contract existed between DHS and Cyberkey, Plant claimed that the DHS contracts were with other companies who had contracted with CyberKey. DHS did not enter into a contract with any of the companies named by Plant."
My note on this - Plant told the governement the contract was with multiple 3rd parties, but in his last PR he claimed foul by one 3rd party?
"On September 25, 2006, counsel for DHS issued a cease and desist letter to Plant." (info about what was in that letter is included in the document)
"Despite the issuance of the cease and desist letter, CyberKey failed to remove the false press releases referencing a business relationship between CyberKey and DHS."
Apparently the idea that some people still cling to, that Plant was released without charges, and did not face any judge on the day he was arrested, is totally incorrect.
This is the second entry in the court's docket, as listed for that court on Pacer.
"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert T. Braithwaite :Initial Appearance as to James Edward Plant, III held on 3/13/2007. Defendant present and in custody. Charging document read, rights and penalties explained. The arrest warrant is out of the State of Pennsylvania issued by Judge Jacob Hart. The Court questioned the defendant as to counsel. The defendant stated that he has local counsel, Ryan Christiansen and Salt Lake counsel also. The court further stated that a detention hearing or preliminary hearing may be held here in the State of Utah or the defendant will be transported to the State of Pennyslvania. The matter is continued for status to March 19, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.Attorney for Plaintiff: Paul Graf. Probation Officer: Coby Leavitt/Cordell Wilson. Court Reporter: Electronic.(Tape #: 49, Log #: 2292.) (gss) (Entered: 03/26/2007)"
Entry 1 was the Arrest document which is 16 pages long. I haven't looked at it as yet. Has anyone already commented on what those 16 pages covered?
Entries 3, 4, and 5 have to do with his release on his promist to appear.
Entry 6 has to do with the second appearance before Judge Robert T. Braithwaite on the 22nd at which time he waived extradition and surrendered his passport (note the Pennsylvania court date of April 6th):
"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert T. Braithwaite :Status Conference as to James Edward Plant, III held on 3/22/2007. The Court stated the background of the case. The Defendant waives extradition and stated that he has a court appearance in the State of Pennsylvania on April 6, 2007, in which he promises to appear. The Court executed an Order to transfer the case to the State of Pennsylvania where further proceedings to be held. According to the order of conditions of release, the defendant forfeited his passport. The passport at this time was given to Mr. Graf to forward to the prosecutor in the State of Pennsylvania. Attorney for Plaintiff: Paul Graf, Attorney for Defendant: LaMar Winward for Gary Krupkin, retained. Probation Officer: Coby Leavitt/Cordell Wilson. Court Reporter: Electronic.(Tape #: 50, Log #: 845.) (gss) (Entered: 03/26/2007)"
The last 3 entries have to do with transfer of the case to Pennsylvania, and his promise to appear, with last entry on 3/28.
Anyone read the Arrest doc yet????
Actually, another bizarre claim which has been batted around regarding his claim that he didn't know that no money had ever been received.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was the CEO of a struggling company that was making almost nothing, I'd really want a moment to just hold a 4.2M check in my hand. I don't think I'm strange in believing that almost anyone, except apparently Plant, in that situation would have wanted to hold it.
And, since the company had only 12 emplyees at the time, I think I'd want all of them to see that check as well. Good for morale, and all that jazz. But apparently Plant didn't think of trying to hold it, or let others see it, because if he had he would have been holding air, and passing nothing around.
IMNSVHO...
There is at least one statement in Plant's PR about the problem with the contract that wasn't, that makes no sense at all (well, none of it makes any sense, but this one is particularly strange):
"In November 2006, the Company began to discover information which indicated that this contract was not directly with DHS but instead with a third party distributor that was representing it was having the Cyberkey products delivered directly to DHS facilities in different locations."
That's very bizarre, because according to at least one recent news report (Associated Press), the DHS certainly gave him a hint 2 months earlier:
"In September, the DHS ordered Plant to immediately remove the news releases from the company Web site and stop making any references to contracts with the department."
http://penn.live.advance.net/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-47/117444207341920.xml&storylist=...
How is it took him until November to begin to discover info about the contract not being with the DHS after the DHS said STOP?
It may have even been a part of California before the last big earthquake...
knowlesmsncom: Two things about that 8M:
First, you are forgetting the large add-on DHS contract, which the SEC charges state never existed either. Man, that 3rd party did a really good job on bamboozling Plant. Not only had they cut him out of the 25M contract, but they convinced him that he had an addon contract.
Second, you are again referencing numbers from the AFs that even you know are completely unreliable.
TheAppentice: The bogus DHS contract involved USB flash drives, which all available evidence indicates are supplied by Super Talent, a California company.
If you go back to the PR that announced CyberKey had received it's first payment from the DHS, Plant specifically identifies the source of the product he supposedly sold to the DHS as coming from their "California manufacturing facility."
Now he claims they were going to be coming from the China facility, which if I'm not mistaken didn't show up anywhere in any PRs or conversation until the middle of the year.
Ummm... I don't think so.
janice shell: The information that was on CNBC (or some such site) was actually for U.S. Express. The info cited .08 per share earnings for q1, and a 26.50 price target.
Now, Altomare claimed before that this was a 'real analyst's' opinion for USXP. Right. RA is claiming he believes that some analyst was claiming that USXP was going to come in with over 1 BILLION in net earnings, and was worth over 100 BILLION more than Microsoft.
Bizarre...
keepthfaith: Actually, according to the SEC charges filed, he still hadn't hired anyone to do the auditing as of March 14th.