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 put the same order in and got it filled at.....can't find the time stamp now, but it was in mid-afternoon, like around 1 p.m......I think it went down to .018, up to .02, then down again to the close. GLTA
Anyone have an idea who, or why, someone would dumpt shares AFTER the bell? Here is what I saw on L2:
0.0288 104000 OTO 16:20:00
What would be the motivation? Shorts?
Anyone have a reasonable idea why a shareholder would dump 310,001 shares at .0276 right before closing yesterday, when the bid and ask were above that?
504s?
Call me stupid, but I thought I'd buy a few more shares while the $$ has dropped. I put in a limit order at .028.....nothing. I raised it to .03....and saw a buy of 55k at .029.
All the while, the lowest ask, from UBSS, has stayed at .04.
I guess I'm missing something fundamental here, dealing with the MM''s and the bid/ask. I use Bank of America Investments.
Could someone explain why my buy has been left alone so far?
Tjak: for JB.
Thanks.
Pick
hahahahaha haha!
Jeez, it must really be slow for us to sink to this......;)
Tjak: ==> for JB
"All the stock is restricted and subject to certain conditions. "
JB, my questions are 1)HOW is the stock restricted, and 2) what are the conditions?
As far as financing the deal, as you well know, the grant, on the heels of the R/S did not set well at all with shareholders, including me. But, without knowing the financials of the acquisition target, it is really difficult to make intelligent suggestions re: that transaction. But since MDFY is cash poor, and the acquisition target has cash and revenues, I would think that MDFY would be best off making an all stock offer, but Ian's take on all of this is missing....
One of my questions is are you willing to use some of the 33 mil shares to fund this transaction, since it would appear to be MDFY giving the target company X number of shares of MDFY. Your 33 mil shares could be used pursuant to something like a) a gift from you to MDFY of the # of shares needed for this deal, or b) you loaning the shares to MDFY to use to acquire the company, or c) MDFY buying back from you, through a stock subscription agreement, the # of shares needed.
...just a few thoughts...
Tjak:
My questions for JB:
What are the restrictions on the 33 million shares granted by MDFY to you?
Would you be willing to utilize these shares (or some portion) for the acquisition being currently discussed (see post #19944), such as by way of a loan, gift, promise of future grant from already authorized MDFY stock?
Maybe he can....maybe he can't.
The question then becomes "what are the restrictions on his stock?"
I would think the shareholder services or corp. secretary would have to divulge that upon proper request.
Tjak, will JB tell us what the restrictions are that attach to his 33 milllion shares?
...........vesting?
...........voting rights?
...........re-sale to MDFY?
Any merger HAS to be submitted to the shareholders for approval; that is Delaware corporate law.
Can you say......33 million RESTRICTED shares?
We never have learned what the restrictions are on JB's stock.....he wants this thing to work.....maybe it's just wishful thinking that the stock for this acquisition is coming from JB's 33 million. Oh, that that were true......
Tjak, what do you think? No one has ever told us the nature of the restrictions, and I would think the shareholders are entitled to find out.....but, if this is the source of the shares to buy out the other company, I can deal with that.
Thanks, JB. What a GREAT way to start off a Monday....robins chirping, sunny skies, warm weather, the top down on the convertible, and MDFY HAS $$$$$$$!!
Yes, but there is a difference. Dec actions, as my old partner and I call them, are cases where you ask the court to determine the respective rights of the parties involved to a dispute, such as a disagreement over how a contract is to be interpreted or, as it seems here, valid ownership of BCIT shares. (I'm guessing on this one, folks, because 1) I don't own shares of BCIT, and 2) I haven't seen the lawsuit.)
Each side gets to go through all discovery allowed by court rules and statutes, including depositions, production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admission to get information from the other parties to the case, and each party can get documents from non-parties by way of a document subpoena. Creativity makes that fun, if you are one of the lawyers involved!
Various pre-trial motions are filed, and then, if it gets that far, the case goes to trial. By the way, is there a jury demand at the end of the lawsuit?
From my experience, most civil cases settle, some during the course of the trial.
But, be forewarned....this whole process takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time, so be patient.
First, I'm a lawyer. Second, I'm not involved here, but I am part of the BHUB mess. That said....
A judge will not start hearing anything until after the time for a defendant to respond has expired. When a defendant is served with a lawsuit, the person/entity has a certain number of days to file a response, either in the form of an answer or some pleading saying the complaint doesn't state a cause of action. The time limits vary from state to state. In Virginia, the time is 21 days; in federal court, it is 20 days.
So, the deadline for each person is different, depending upon when they are served. Also, how to respond is different for each case and how the complaint is written and the claims made in each count.
These are general guidelines. I am licensed in and practice in Virginia, so if the case was filed in a state court, those rules and time deadlines are probably different. For an accurate answer, consult a lawyer in the state where the lawsuit was filed.
Oh, and by the way...after 22+ years of practice, most "slam-dunks" are anything but. And even if the judge has a big caseload, other cases can be shifted to other judges, and more clerks hired, so that the cases can all be dealt with eually and with due deliberation.
Pick
I have some cousins in Westminster....never realized how close to Gettysburg until I visited a few years back.
Since '84, I haven't really rooted for a particular NFL team, and prefer college hoops to the pros. Even though I grew up in the shadows of Hokie Heaven, watched the Highty Tighties march at Tech games, (we had season tickets when Jimmy Sharp and Jerry Claiborne were coaching there), at heart I'm a Virginia Wahoo. Mr bro-in-law is a VT grad, and my wife went there, too, so lots of sadness. Fortunately, none of my neighbors' kids who go there were hurt.
Actually, I live in Virginia - grew up in West Virginia (used to party in Blacksburg), but I have a lot of family in Baltimore (Ballmer), on both sides of the family. Different families were in jewelry,liquor, fabrics, some manufacturing.....one aunt got me tickets to the World Series when I was a kid, either '68 or '69, plus, I used to watch the Orioles rookie league farm team all the time in Bluefield, WV.
Used to be a Colt fan, too, until one cold night in March 1984.......
After I got home from work, after changing clothes, saying hello to the kids and petting my dog, after making sure the market is closed but BEFORE the scotch and water, I mustered the courage to read it.
What a waste of bandwidth. I was going to post it here for grins, but thought, why waste your time, too!
Go MDFY!
I just got a Bellwether email.......jeez, should I even bother to read it?
I've learned about averaging down....did it here, after first getting in at around $3.18, I think it was, back before the R/S and the "special dividend announcement".....so I'm good with almost any upward movement.....now, what about averaging UP?
That's good news.......now, my question for JB.
Perhaps I missed it....when were the last (most recent) quarterly reports released? I missed them - are they available online?
Thanks tjak.
Go Birds!!! (well, except for Angelos!)
Well, I just got a smile on my face....due to more share acquisition to bring my pps down, I have a small profit!! Not enough to even think about selling to have "free" shares, but it has made my day!!
Lem:
You asked me about the N3 certification. I sent some emails regarding verification, and here is the verification communication I received this morning.
Pick
_____________________________
Hi <pick>.
I can confirm that Medify have passed all requirements to gain an N3 connection and currently have a number of connections to N3.
I cannot confirm what 'Remote' Access they have as this will be designed on their own infrastructure, not the N3 core.
I hope this answers yours question.
Regards
John Hemsley | N3 Self Funding Customer Business Leader | BT Health | BT Global Services | Tel:+44 (0)121 230 2904
E: john.hemsley@bt.com | www.bt.com/globalservices
This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc, which may be privileged
or confidential. The information is intended for use only by the individual(s) or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify
me by telephone or email (to the number or email address above) immediately.
Activity and use of the British Telecommunications plc e-mail system is monitored to secure its effective
operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored
and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
British Telecommunications plc. Registered office: 81 Newgate Street, London, EC1A 7AJ. Registered in England no: 1800000
From: <pick> [mailto:<pick>@comcast.net]
Sent: 13 April 2007 23:33
To: Hemsley,J,John,JDHG1X R
Subject: Re: FW: N3 certification?
Hi, John.
I am looking for information about Medify Solutions, Limited. They are partnering with TPP (The Phoenix Partnership) to launch SystemOne Remote, utilizing the Medify NHS N3 link.
I am looking for verification that Medify is NHS N3 certified for secure remote access.
Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.
XXXXX XXXXXXX
.john.hemsley@bt.com wrote:
> <> Hi there <pick>
> I can't send you a list of all companies with N3 connections but can answer if a named company has an N3 connection.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Regards
>
>
> John Hemsley | N3 Self Funding Customer Business Leader | BT Health | BT Global Services | Tel:+44 (0)121 230 2904
> E: john.hemsley@bt.com | www.bt.com/globalservices
>
> This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc, which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended for use only by the individual(s) or entity named above. If you
> are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify
> me by telephone or email (to the number or email address above) immediately.
>
> Activity and use of the British Telecommunications plc e-mail system is monitored to secure its effective
> operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored
> and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
>
> British Telecommunications plc. Registered office: 81 Newgate Street, London, EC1A 7AJ. Registered in England no: 1800000
>
>
> From: <pick> [mailto:<pick>@comcast.net]
> Sent: 13 April 2007 13:31
> To: BT N3 BESPOKE ORDERS G
> Subject: N3 certification?
>
> How can I find out if aa service provider is certified to link with the N3 network......a list of N3 certified companies?
>
> Thanks.
> --
>
Actually, no. I have relatives and friends in several different parts of the state. What I was illustrating was that the economic result of hurricanes striking, or even THREATENING to strike, will create an economic benefit to TELA.
Investing is a business transaction. Look at it in an economic sense. Florida gets hit by a bunch og hurricanes, just like the North Carolina Outer Banks. Hatteras Island frequently gets split into two, three, sometimes four islands due to the ravages of nature. But. Houses and stores get rebuiolt. New ones spring up. Where do you think tha materials for building, rebuilding and repair come from?
TELA is positioned to benefit from the economic effects. Somebody is going top do it. Why not be a part of the economic benefit?
...unless you don't want to make money, in which case, why are you here? Idiot!
Oh?
So you watched the interview?
Did you understand it?
Couldn't resist the shot. I'm out....gonna have some dinner, with margueritas in a hurricane glass!
TELA will absorb the illegal BHUB shares, which you and I most likely have, and issue us genuine, legit shares of TELA on a one for one basis.
TELA closed at .35; they will split, so that for every share of TELA you own before the split, after the split, you will have 100 shares.
The pps will be similarly adjusted, and then every BHUB share will get exchanged for a TELA share.
The real benefit is, IMO, twofold. 1) TELA actively trades, whereas BHUB does not. 2) TELA has a real business, with real stores and products and revenues, so when Florida gets nailed by 5 Class 2 hurricanes next year, TELA stock will fly, as one of its businesses is hurricane supplies.
As an added bonus, any $$ that TELA gets from SA for the fraud, will be booked as revenues, again increasing the value of the company.
Halted for news....remember Nikki, the halt was T1. "T" is a different letter of the alphabet from "H", and "1" is different from "10".
Okay, class, who wants to explain to Nikki a T1 halt for news?
Then, DTC halted under Rule, what was it, 6600?.
The SEC is too busy with other things. DTC (remember the Cede and Co. list of distributees of shares from SA - isn't DTC the same as Cede and Co.? Yeah, I thought so. DTC is the clearinghouse, not the SEC. Different duties, different authority, different responsibilities.
Jeez, Nikki, after reading your posts for the last several days, I think that you might REALLY know the same, or less, than me.
But I will say this for you, Nikki - your posts are amusing....
Nikki:
The SEC won't do didly-squat. If so, they would have already stepped in on LSMJ...that is, to me, a far worse hijacking than BHUB.
The SEC, like most government agencies, won't get involved unless the adults involved can't settle it amongst themselves. Seeing how D.P. has aggressively handled this, their view is, I'm sure, that the marketplace has taken care of themselves. They would rather go after Martha Stewart again than deal with Captain Jack Sparrow (any ideas where the non de plume of Jason Wong derives from?).
Here, the market and players have dealt with the issues themselves, like adults. And, since we're talking about pinkies, the SEC would presume that everyone playing here knows the risks.
Lem:
I think I'm getting lucky w/ BHUB. You probably are more aware of the goings on today than I, but when I got back to my office from court, I saw that TELA is doing a 1:100 forward split and taking the BHUB shares 1:1.
TELA closed at .35 today, (after opening at .18), and that, split adjusted, is a bit above what I paid. Not a huge gain (my pps is .0032) but it's not the loss it could have been. Not a bad way to begin the weekend, especially for a Friday the 13th!!
(At least, for now, that's my understanding!!)
Here is a link to an article from Feb. '07 re: EMIS and N3:
http://www.n3.nhs.uk/news/displaystory.cfml?story=118
EMIS & N3 working well together (February 2007)
N3SP and EMIS have worked together to investigate reported performance issues of the EMIS LV application when operating over the N3 ‘Main to Branch’ Network.
N3SP and EMIS can confirm that an issue has been identified and are pleased to announce that a resolution has been developed during extensive on-site trialling at several sites.
Working closely together, EMIS and N3 have developed a solution and undertaken proving trials.
The results from the trials have been very encouraging with the joint team witnessing significant improvements to how the application is now running over N3.
Deployment of the solution to approximately 800 affected N3 Main and Branch sites is free of charge and commenced mid January and is scheduled to complete end of February. This will deliver a considerable improvement in EMIS LV application performance over N3 to most sites.
If problems still persist however with EMIS LV on your N3 Network please contact the N3SP Service Desk on 0800 085 0503 Option Three.
Here is the ip for the N3 website....http://213.121.210.7/
I haven't had time to fully explore everything there, but what I'm looking for is a list of N3 certified ussers.
Lem:
You know, I think that is an excellent question. I'll be in court this morning (defending the guilty, convicting the guilty - lol), and TJAK will be reading this....so let's throw it to the sleuths on the Olde World side of the pond....
Is there somw UK site where the N3 certification can be verified?
I'll do a little searching this a.m.
I'm not sure I buy this comparison. No reverse mergers, PR's put out by verifiable third parties, governmental involvement w/ NHS N3 certification.......c'mon guys, THINK!
I just googled one of the russian-sounding names, Murad Mirazakhanov....the first hit was for someone in Toronto.
Toronto / Location
Mirzakhanov, Murad, © Woodbine. Mirzazade, Aysel, © Aykush. Mirzoeva, Nigyar, © Kenanika. Mixailovij, Amar, © JURAVEL. MM, Leyla, © leylaca ...
www.bakupages.com/usr-lct-list.php?id=377&cmm_id=7 - 92k - Apr 11, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The DTC would want to make sure that legal, valid shares are distributed. How do you tell the good ones from the bad ones, unless SA gave an accurate list of the previous shareholders and NONE of them traded recently. If that is the case, then could ALL shares could be called in for exchange w/ new shares under a new symbol?
Maybe that is a way to weed out the fake shares. JMO.
BUT, if some of the shareholders from 2004 traded recently, then I think all bets are off and DTC/MM have to buy out all shares.
Possible?
very sexy!!
I think the MDFY management could learn a valuable lesson in proactive behavior by reviewing Peterson's approach. The EMIS crap would certainly have me riled up, although it seems like there are a lot of other irons in the fire w/ TPP, CSC, eSource et al.
Lem:
No. I perhaps should have, but my price of admission is low, and even if it tanks, the education I have received has truly been well worth the ticket price. If I lose it all, there's not much to lose. I'm not going to cry about it. It's a stock. I'm not emotionally involved/attached to it. I have more invested w/ MDFY, both financially and emotionally. (That is probably a bad thing - emotionally!) But, WOW, stuff was flying yesterday, and I learned an incredible amount of info and DD. Cheapest tuition bill I've ever paid!
As for the halts; yesterday, there were some brokers, namely Penson, that halted - they called a "global halt", but they don't have authority to do so, only the SEC can do that, is my understanding. The DTC issued an advisory that fake shares were being traded, so that made the notice official to all clearinghouses and brokers. Even after Penson announced its halt, millions of shares were still trading through the time the market closed. Many brokers were accepting sells only, not buys. (Think there has been some shorting going on?)
The halt this morning was a "T1" halt, much like what happened right before DNDN made its preliminary FDA approval announcement. Now, the halt is for BHUB to sort things out in its pissing match w/ Select American, the old T/A.
The BHUB chief, Darrell Peterson, was interviewed on TraderNation this morning; he said there was a meeting later today w/ DTC and NASD re: the shares and trading, and also stated that a Reverse Merger candidate was being vetted.
So. Maybe I would have been better off to get out yesterday. Perhaps I'll make a little cash. (I'm definitely staying out of LSMJ) But. I want to thank you for taking the time, though I chose to not follow your advice. I do appreciate it.
Nikki:
What happens in Sparrow and Wong presented documents asserting that THEY were the authorized corporate officers?
How was the halt done when DNDN announce preliminary approval by the FDA committee? Trading was halted pending the announcement, and the pps zoomed from $5 to about $18.
Roger's PR words are VERY carefully chosen.
Notice the omission of dates for the performance of specific acts. Such as - WHEN did they resign as T/A? No date, only the vague "many months ago".
"1. Select American Transfer Co. never gave a CERTIFIED shareholder list to the interim management of The BigHub.com Inc. It was a preliminary list that required review but was sent as a courtesy to the interim management of The BigHub.com Inc. clearly demonstrating no attempt to block Mr. Peterson from obtaining any records or information on a Company that is no longer a client." They were afraid to give a certified list....kind of like pleading guilty to robbing a bank when you are caught with the bank money and an exploded dye pack on you. You know you are nailed, but you insist on arguing that you only syole $75,000, not $76,000. Either way, you are still guilty. And I would imagine that SA was obligated to give that info to BHUB, and did so as per their contract, rather than wait to be ordered to do so by a judge or the SEC.
SA said that they "only issues shares after receiving DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS from company officers and or directors and the The BigHub.com Inc. was no exception. All shares have been issued after receipt of written instructions from previous management." WHO is the previous management, how many shares were directed to be issued, and what steps did SA take to become informed of the A/S of BHUB? Curiously, the PR doesn't include that info. That last part, verification of A/S and O/S is elementary and simple to do, but no word that SA did that.
"4. According to Select American Transfer Co., no shares were issued EXCLUSIVELY to certain individuals and or entities who may or may not reside in Canada." I LOVE the use of the word "exclusively". That means that Petersn nailed it on the head, only there werre OTHERS that were issued shares as well!!
I think that Nathan Rogers knows he's caught red-handed, and is trying to sling as much BS against the wall in hopes that some of it sticks.
GO DARRELL PETERSON!!
I can wait....having too much fun watching lsmj and bhub!
Btw, there were a few trades today, but very light. I think all were at the .045 level.