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.
gabeh: Sorry - I've become so used to people citing that ad as belonging to CyberKey. That was my only point.
gabeh: One problem - That ad is for the BioVault available directly from SQUM, not the KeepSafe available from Cyberkey.
ralphkaz: The point is that with this issue you're trying to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a mole hill. That diminishes the affect of anything else you have to say about this company.
This company has some serious issues, but the fact that you have to phone in to buy one of their products isn't one of them.
ralphkaz: I understand your serious reservations about CKYS. However, on this one issue you are way off base.
The descriptions of the KeepSafe clearly state the current price is a limited time offer and that you have to call the company to order the product. So trying to order something online that is clearly cited as available by phone only, obviously isn't going to work.
I believe they took it off of online order because they also state that no other discounts apply. Their online ordering allows for applying the military discount of 15% which apparently is not available at the 399.99 price.
I wonder how long the temperary offer is going to be available, because at this price they are competitive (if someone wants the bracket), but not at the 499.99 it was listed at.
PennyBenny: You do realize he was responding to ralphkaz in that post, not you?
matrix: If the SEC files suit, it files that suit in the court responsible for cases in the location where a corporation's headquarters is located.
linkclicks: Ahhh... Sometimes facetious is difficult to ascertain from just written words.
linkclicks: As far as CyberKey's inclusion in that list, it is meaningless - It is a list of all publicly-traded companies as of 12/31/2005.
What the whole document is trying to say, that's a bit more dense, but it has nothing specific to do with CyberKey.
linkclicks: The trades are probably executed electronically, but there are no MMs down here, just brokers trying to find other brokers with matching offers.
Sometimes they may miss a broker sitting there at .005 if they have a client asking to sell at .004 because they'll be looking for a broker who is sitting at .004.
linkclicks: CKYS is trading on the 'grey market,' the lowest possible rung of the OTC ladder.
Here on the 'greys' anything is possible.
going-for-it: I don't think it panned out at all, but I was willing to give Tom P a chance to provide evidence of any Cyber Tracker sales by CyberKey (never mind 6M worth).
Tom P: Have you seen CyberKey marketting the Cyber Tracker?
If so, where? TIA...
YES!!!!!!!!! Now we're moving - up 7.69%!!!!!!!!!!!
On a 14.00 trade. Woooooo Hooooo!!!!!!!!!
knowlesmsncom: Short covering may provide part of the answer as to who is buying the shares. But if people are covering 10's of millions of shares, that does not account for who is selling them the 10s of millions of shares they need to buy to cover.
So, short covering does not answer the question as to who is selling the shares, and is there any dilution going on in that process.
TampaTradr: That sounds like an idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be something CyberKey could sell.
scrubs: Why does the businessman need rapid access to the safe? That's the only reason to pay the premium for biometrics when it comes to a safe, unless you think the 'cool' factor will be enough to overcome the premium to sell it.
And you aren't going to fit a laptop in one of CyberKey's safes, as far as I can tell.
scrubs: Isn't the idea of a biometric safe to allow very quick access to its contents in an immergency?
How does locking your gun in a safe that is locked in the trunk allowing for rapid access? Might as well just use a good combo safe, because the couple of extra seconds are going to be meaningless in this situation.
geo39: According to Plant's PR it is.
powerbattles: Earnings are 4 to 6 weeks away still.
massimo: So far the investigation is still ongoing. And you don't file civil charges overnight. You need to create the legal document that defines the charges, then file them.
The SEC began investigating USXP in August of 2003. They filed suit agains USXP in March of 2004.
I'm not saying anything will really be found wrong at CyberKey, but it is impossible to determine that the SEC has cleared them of any wrongdoing at this time.
massimo: To do that they have to file civil charges that would need to be ruled on by a judge. They do not have the power to shut down a company without due process.
They can halt a company for 10 days, but that is it.
hawk1: The SEC could only halt trading for 10 days, no matter what they found.
The investigation is apparently ongoing. If the SEC wanted to do anything more, they'd have to file civil charges.
smartmoney: liquid was talking about how he could look at all the records because he owns 5% of the company stock.
As you pointed out before me (and with the info about the law), he needs 15% to do all the things he stated he wanted to do.
Can't do everything he wanted to do with only 5%.
liquidcoolback4more: By Nevada law, you need to own 15%, or be the official representative of a group of shareholders that own 15%, to do what you want to do.
Good luck with that effort.
5cap: Huh?
The only thing I found strange was smartmoney's idea that the eBay listings were for used CyberKey products, that one seller would have three different USB flash drives, and a bio safe for sale, used. How is that bashing?
Or are you trying to tell me that it is bashing to point out that Jim may be doing a test market of CyberKey products on eBay?
Please, I'd really like to understand your reasoning on this.
TIA.
jeffgator: Tell that to smartmoney. All I was doing was pointing out to him that this was a possibility, that it wasn't necessarily someone selling off their 4 different used CyberKey products.
Why is it such a big deal to you that I think it is possible that is what Jim is finally looking into doing?
jeffgator: See my previous post to ToddWHO2.
ToddWHO2: And it would still surprise me to see one EBay seller selling four different CyberKey products, used.
One, possibly. Three different USB flash drive models, and a used safe?
Sorry, but what about that makes sense to you? Do you think this guy went out and bought them, then decided he didn't need them anymore? Or maybe he's buying them at flea markets around town?
And aren't you supposed to have me on ignore or something?
smartmoney: It really costs them almost nothing to test how EBay sales might go. So why not?
I agree that Amazon would be a better shot. I'm also wondering how anyone on Ebay would find the safe and drives that are for sale. You'd have to be looking for a particular item, especially with the safe.
Derek8: Since we are both here all the time, whether the stock is going up or down, this stock must always be a buy.
Good luck with that. The SEC charges all validated by the judge, and RA can appeal all he wants, the appeals court will deny his appeal.
smartmoney77: They are not used, and they may very well be a test sale by the company. If you click on the seller's name you get an address that is in the same basic location as CyberKey.
It would be strange to have the same person selling three different USB drives and a safe that are used, and I doubt someone would buy them from CyberKey new and then decide he doesn't want any of them.
IMNSVHO, it is a test by Jim to see how EBay sales might go.
smartmoney: Hmmm - didn't notice they were used. That's a bit strange that used CyberKey products are being sold on EBay.
That person also has a safe for sale as well:
http://cgi.ebay.com/KeepSafe-2-0_W0QQitemZ120089414012QQihZ002QQcategoryZ52501QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ...
No bids yet.
The listed prices are a significant discount to the price on the website.
And currently, none of them have any bidders.
Mighty_Mezz: Too bad for him. All he needed to do was agree to pay you a small royalty for every use and F.A.K.E. would have left him alone.
Foolish man...
Mighty: Come on, he's right. RA is a pioneer - nobody had ever thought of charging people to make calls for FedEx for them before.
Absolutely not. He can have nothing to do with publicly traded companies in any way, shape or form.
Will he try to run the company anyway? Possibly. But you can fully expect criminal charges to come soon. The Judge in his ruling cited his continiuos fraudulent behavior.
The DOJ will be coming.
virginian: Fantastic product? Companies have been moving luggage etc for years, long before RA got into the gig.
And his only product is to act as a middle man - Call him and he calls FedEx.
If it is such a wonderful product, the company can continue, and maybe have a chance to survive without the 11M in losses that the parent company brings down on LE's head.
I have no idea. The court may have to appoint someone, because RA is the sole member of the board of directors, so he can't appoint a successor.
virginaian: Here's what the judge says about this pioneer:
As CEO of a publicly held company, Altomare occupied and continues to occupy a position of significant power, which he abused by repeatedly and brazenly committing fraud and flouting investor-protecting registration requirements. He has not only opposed the SEC’s request for summary judgment without pointing to a single piece of evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any material fact of his liability, but he has also had the chutzpah on an
overwhelming unfavorable record to seek summary judgment himself. The defendant’s professional position and apparent refusal to acknowledge the types of conduct that violate securities laws raise serious concerns that he will engage in such misconduct in the future. For
these reasons, the Court, applying the multi-factor inquiry typically employed on such requests, Patel, 61 F.3d at 141, concludes that Altomare should be barred from serving as a company officer or director within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2).