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.
Rich, you said awhile back that you were thinking about purchasing RB or iHub. Where do you stand with that? A stock message board would be a great acquistion for SeaView, since the company has thus far made most of its money by selling stock.
Rich McBride wrote: "Frank, the real stockholders don't even read this board."
Wow, that's very insulting to the stockholders who read this board. So who are the "real" stockholders, Rich? Are you referring to the current and former members of SeaView's board of directors, most of whom were listed as defense witnesses in your felony fraud case before SEVU even went public? How many shares did your buddies on the board get in the PP? And why has no SeaView board member EVER filed a Form 3 showing how much SEVU stock he owns? Are they paid in stock? Are they paid at all? Do they even know they're on the board?
So many questions, so few answers...
Rich:
If you have nothing to hide and are not embarrassed by the terms of this latest private placement, then why not publish the PPM (private placement memorandum)? Since a PPM is required by law for most deals and spells out the exact terms of a PP, publication will end all speculation on the matter. SeaView’s lawyers DID prepare a PPM, right?
Because you dodged the question earlier, as you are doing once again now by asking the questioner a question.
DeadMan, now that TAfirehawk has come out of the closet, so to speak, isn't it time that you also revealed your insider relationship, if any, to SeaView?
In other words, the company financed 80% of the purchase price of the restricted shares. This is logically absurd, since the purpose of a PP is to raise cash. It means that the company loaned the officers and other PP buyers most of the money to buy the stock. Look for a future hype PR proclaiming: "We believe in the company and here's the proof -- we bought stock." Remember the overhang from the first PP that helped drive down the stock price? Well, it's baaaaaaacccccccckkkkk.
The epitome of arrrogance is a company that issues a PR about their quarterly "earnings," but doesn't say a word about a PP that has apparently wiped out 50% of per share equity in one fell swoop.
To Rich McBride:
Let me see if I understand this: First, SeaView issues a press release stating that George Benardich and others in the new management team will invest "500 thousand dollars" of their own money in a private placement to fund company operations. In the same PR, they say that you, McBride, will additionally invest "a million dollars" in a private placement, thereby infusing a total of 1.5 million in new capital to fund Secureview production, blah blah.
Now we learn from the 10Q that only $318,000 in actual cash has been raised in the PP -- at a cost to shareholders of massive dilution -- not to mention the 3-card-monte-like games that were played with your loan "payback."
And what do you have to say for yourself? Duh, "the PP was not my idea, period." "This area is no longer under my control." "My tenure is over."
With such Clintonesque statements, Rich, I'm only surprised that you didn't add: "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
C'mon, Rich, tell us the truth: How much of "their own money" did George B. and the other senior managers "invest" in this PP? Such a simple question, but one I'll bet we'll never get answered.
According to the 10Q, the other 14 million shares were sold to the PP buyers "on credit" and booked as a receivable. As evidence, I call your attention to the following line on the statement of cash flows:
"Receivables from sales of stock $1,385,450"
You can't book a receivable unless you've sold something. In this case, it's stock, apparently making the total number of outstanding shares now approximately 35.5 million.
No.
McBride was indeed sued for allegedly failing to pay for the 500K shares of WLDC stock he supposedly received. I don't know the current status of that lawsuit.
Stella Liebeck, the plantiff in the McDonalds' scalding coffee case, was not "counter-sued" as you claim. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
It is unethical for a law firm to solicit a client that they know is already represented by counsel. A law firm that sends a prospective client anything in writing must clearly state that it is a "solicitation from a law firm." I don't know if that applies to internet communciations, but logically it should.
I would not trust any attorney who recruits clients on message boards, and I doubt if you or anyone else can give me a verifiable example. However, I would not be at all surprised if an over-zealous poster directed readers to a particular law firm without the law firm's knowledge or permission.
I get a lot of class action solicitations from law firms. I would imagine that you do, too, considering the junk stocks you tout.
By the way, I am not a lawyer, so pay no attention to me.
You and I are talking about apples and oranges. To certify a class action, a judge must find that: The class is so numerous that joining all parties is impracticable, there are common questions of law or fact, the named parties adequately represent the interests of the class, and common issues of law or fact dominate over individual issues.
The point I have been trying to make is that you and I have no idea if the named parties adequately represent the interest of the class. If you do know all the facts, kindly tell us how many shares the other seven named plantiffs purchased during the class period.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the judge will certify the class. Even if he doesn't, a lot of financial damage has already been done to Seaview, as defense lawyers are not cheap. Moreover, I'd bet that Rich McBride, a named defendant, is not spending a dime of his own money on his defense -- you SEVU shareholders are paying for it.
Theft is theft, regardless of the intrinsic value of the goods stolen.
The number of shares owned by a plantiff, lead or otherwise, is irrelevant. It is whether the case has merit that counts. The plantiffs in the SEVU case are not paying any out-of-pocket legal fees, so they can "afford" to sue even though they may have owned very few shares of stock.
Let me see if I can explain this so that you and others can understand the facts. Eight separate federal lawsuits were filed against SeaView and Rich McBride. Each of those lawsuits listed a lead plantiff and sought class action status. A judge combined the suits into one suit, listing each of the eight plantiffs as plantiffs in the combined suit. Gotinearly claims that one of those plantiffs, Ann Scheuer, wants to drop out. If his info is accurate, that still leaves seven plantiffs, so the lawsuit is still very much alive.
Just because there are only eight plantiffs listed in the actual lawsuit doesn't mean there won't be seventy, or seven hundred, or seventy thousand plantiffs in the "class," if and when this case is eventually granted class action status. In other words, I don't know how many stockholders got ripped off by SeaView's false PR's and quarterly filings, and neither do you.
Ann Scheuer is currently only one of eight plantiffs in the SeaView proposed class action law suit. The other plantiffs, any of whom could become lead plantiff, are:
WILLIAM J. HENRY
CHRISTOPHER HENRY
ROBERT J. TARJAN
RAYMOND HOWLIN
DOLORES GOUVERT
JOHN GRAMMATICO
IRENE WENGEL
The lawsuit against SeaView will move forward with or without Scheuer.
It is an old wives'tale that you "don't have a loss until you sell." You have a loss of equity that is just as real as an equivalent drop in your checking account balance.
Sorry, I meant PM not email.
I am well aware of the fact that "consolidation is not class action status." That's why I used the word "consolidated." Are you under the erroneous impression that anything I posted suggested otherwise? As for posting a link to my source, it's a paid site. Anyone who wants to know the fees and how to sign up for federal court information can email me.
On July 24, a federal judge consolidated all of the separate lawsuits against SEVU (each of them had sought class action status) into the first suit, filed by Ann H. Scheurer. The Scheurer case number is 8:2001-cv-957-T-26EAJ, and here is the relevant excerpt of the case summary:
7/16/01 8 MOTION by movants, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J. Tarjan for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, for
approval of their selection of Lead Counsel and for
consolidation of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 9 MEMORANDUM by movants, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J. Tarjan, in support of [8-1] motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for approval
of their selection of Lead Counsel and [8-3] motion for
consolidation of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 10 DECLARATION of Mark S. Willis, Esquire by movants, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J. Tarjan re: [8-1] motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for
approval of their selection of Lead Counsel and [8-3]
motion for consolidation of all related cases
(8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW, 8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW,
8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and 8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak)
[Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [8-1] motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for approval of their selection of Lead Counsel, [8-3] motion for consolidation
of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM), [9-1] support memorandum and [10-1]
declaration to counsel of record for this and related cases
by William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J.
Tarjan. (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/24/01 12 ORDER granting [8-3] motion for consolidation of all
related cases: 8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW, 8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW,
8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and 8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM with this
case for all further proceedings. All subsequent papers
shall be filed in this lead case and shall be identified as
In re: SeaView Video Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation. Deferring [8-1] motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiffs and deferring [8-2] motion for approval of their
selection of Lead Counsel. The parties shall immediately
advise this Court of any other action which may be filed in
this District or any other District related to the subject
matter of these consolidated actions. The Clerk shall
administratively closed the member consolidated cases. (
Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak)
[Entry date 07/25/01]
To Rich McBride:
Assuming you're not indicted on new criminal charges in connection with last year's SEVU earnings restatement, when will you be coming off felony probation?
I'm the one who's stupid, eh? Oh, okay, then, why don't you tell me all about how "business is ran." LMAO.
80K in cash plus how much SEVU stock or other "barter" payments? Did you know that McBride and Associates has been receiving stock as "payment" from some of their penny stock clients?
Also, think about the absurdity of this statement in the filing you referenced: "Mr. McBride received no direct or indirect compensation from R. L. McBride and Associates, Inc. while serving as an executive for us." McBride is the sole owner of RLMA, Inc. How can money a company receives not represent at least indirect "compensation" to its owner?
Based on the only evidence the public has ever seen -- Videocom's 10/2000 144 filing -- SeaView, the company, essentially paid nothing for the Videocom license. Instead, the shareholders paid for the license in the form of stock dilution.
An equally important question that the company has apparently refused to answer is how much money and/or SEVU stock RL McBride and Associates has received for "public relations services." These related party transactions arguably should have been reported in SEC filings, but as usual SeaView management has been mum on that issue. (Ambiguous verbal comments made in a shareholder meeting or elsewhere do not constitute formal disclosure.)
I should hope that anyone who invests in stocks knows that the SEC does not have criminal prosecution authority, just like the FBI who investigates a federal crime is not the agency that prosecutes the offenders. People nevertheless sometimes end up in jail due to an SEC probe.
As for your opinion that "there is no fraud in the stuff SEVU did," it is just that -- your opinion. Don't assume there was "no personal gain" just because there were no 144 filings by any insider during the class period. The SEC, for example, routinely looks for nominee sales and undocumented offshore transactions.
See my recent postings on RB for case summaries on the class action lawsuits.
The class action lawusit is a civil case. Regardless of the outcome of that case, neither McBride nor anyone else has any criminal exposure. The SEC investigation is a different matter altogether and may well result in criminal prosecution.
Ignorance is bliss, but it is very dangerous to one's success as an investor. TAFirehawk, in the future please get your facts straight before you attempt to rebut one of my posts.
The following is a verbatim quote from Rich McBride, page 4 of the handout given to people who attended the February open house: “I will tell you that I will not vote my shares at the next stockholders meeting. You can then voice your opinions with your vote.”
Accordingly, any reasonable person would be forced to agree with me that McBride broke his promise not to vote his shares. One may continue to bury one's head in the sand at their own peril.
SeaView and Videocom officials have refused to explain the exact terms of their licensing agreement. All we know for sure is that Charles Abraham of Videocom filed a 144 for 100,000 shares of SEVU stock last October. The "news" that Abraham, and not McBride, had invented SeaView's current PL technology was first broken by a poster (I think it was Sailbad) on Raging Bull. Prior to being "outed" on RB, McBride had always stated or strongly implied that he had been the inventor.
To Rich McBride:
You promised not to vote your shares. Your promise, as written, was unconditional. By your own admission, you broke that promise. Therefore, why should anyone believe anything else you have ever promised, or might promise in the future?