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.
Broke under .19 for very short time today > 0.188 3000 OBB 14:47:20 > you are correct it seems to edge slightly lower and bounce back end of day - IMO if the monster disaster WEGI holders are praying for to hit the USA does not transpire soon the price will continue to dip slowly.
WEGI FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
IMO WEGI can make some $ moves for small short term trades from this level. Maybe... However what is clear is WEGI financial "highlights" are poor at best.
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Ends: 30-June
Most Recent Quarter (mrq): 31-Mar-07
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): -59.27%
Operating Margin (ttm): -60.87%
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm): -22.58%
Return on Equity (ttm): -299.39%
Income Statement
Revenue (ttm): 10.12M
Revenue Per Share (ttm): 0.294
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): -57.50%
Gross Profit (ttm): 13.77M
EBITDA (ttm): -5.25M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): -6.08M
Diluted EPS (ttm): -0.61
Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): N/A
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq): 376.68K
Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 0.01
Total Debt (mrq): 5.90M
Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 2.439
Current Ratio (mrq): 1.416
Book Value Per Share (mrq): 0.031
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): -1.26M
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): -15.95M
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WEGI.OB
Abbreviation Guide: K = Thousands; M = Millions; B = Billions
mrq = Most Recent Quarter (as of 31-Mar-07)
ttm = Trailing Twelve Months (as of 31-Mar-07)
yoy = Year Over Year (as of 31-Mar-07)
lfy = Last Fiscal Year (as of 30-Jun-06)
fye = Fiscal Year Ending
1 = Data provided by Thomson; 2 = Data provided by EDGAR Online;
3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance;
4 = Data provided by Computershare; 5 = Data provided by Hemscott Americas
IMO This is CLEAR proof of Jim Dial lies and deceit. Read this paragraph from BBB post highlighted below, knowing what we now know from the RReed lawsuit about debt and issued restricted shares, debentures etc.. issued BEFORE this statement and it is CLEAR CEO Jim Dial lied to these folks or the poster is lying he made these statemnts were made, IMO Jim Dial LIED outright to these investors AND IMO he should be held liable for this and MANY other outright deceitful LIES.
At any rate, at the time, we were told that Grifco's share count was "39 million and change" to quote Dial. We were also told at the time that up to that point, Grifco had already bought back about 1.2 million shares on the open market. There are but only common shares -- no preferred shares, no debentures, none of the floorless convertibles, no warrants and no classes. Just common shares! Grifco's shares are divided into restricted shares and free-trading float. At the time, we were specifically told that the free-trading float was but only about 8 million shares. Oh, Grifco and CTT have absolutely no debt of any kind, and the two companies are profitable. Further, Libya is going to be really HUGE, far bigger than many realized; in fact, it is going to be far bigger than even Grifco initially realized. Libya is poised to spend as much as $47 billion to attract U.S. business.
(Ihub post)
Posted by: Been_Burned_Before
In reply to: None Date:6/20/2006 6:04:55 PM
Post #of 9822
LOL MSITF PR is total BS SCAM!
In 2005 they claimed in PR an increase in production to 50,000 kits per DAY or 18,250,000 kits per year. HOW CAN THE TOTAL KITS in todays 2007 PR on yearly basis only be 6.8 million if in 2005 they had increased production to over 18 million kits a year??!!! LOL What a PR SCAM!
http://www.medicalservicesintl.com/news/news041405.htm
Medical Services Expands Production Capacity
to Meet Increased Demand
April 14, 2005
Medical Services International Inc. (OTC: MSITF) announced today that it has taken the necessary steps to increase its production capacity worldwide to 50,000 VScan test kits per day. This increased production capacity will enable Medical Services to: fulfill contractual requirements related to the Company's existing contracts with the People's Republic of China and the Government of Nigeria (combined estimated value of US$50.5 million); satisfy other contracts currently being negotiated the PRC (estimated value of $4.0 million); as well as be prepared for additional contracts as they become available.
Medical Services owns and operates production facilities in Shanghai, Nigeria, India, New Jersey and on the island of Anguilla, B.W.I. in the Caribbean. All of these facilities were designed and setup utilizing modular construction. As sales of the Company's test kits increase, production can be increased in each individual facility by affixing additional modules. The Company has produced and provided each facility with technical manuals that explain how to expand modularly without interrupting existing production.
All test kit production facilities, which operate to United States "GMP" standards and work to an ISO rating of ISO9001, are controlled by Medical Services, and each is operated either by the Company or one of its subsidiaries. The only exception is M&A Concepts Ltd of Nigeria, which operates through a joint venture agreement. Medical Services owns 60% of its subsidiary Minerva Biotech Corporation (http://www.minerva-biotech.com), which operates the facility in Shang Hai, China. In all cases the actual VScan test kit is manufactured exclusively by and for, and can only be purchased from, Medical Services International Inc.
About VScan ™
The VScan™ rapid test kit is a single use, easy to use, test for the screening of HIV 1&2, Hepatitis B&C, Tuberculosis (TB), Dengue Fever and West Nile, Malaria, Syphilis, and Prostate Cancer. The kits cannot be sold in Canada.
For further information contact:
Robert Talbot at 780-430-6363 or
Bill Whitehead, Jr., 416-822-5883
Medical Services International Inc. trades in the United States on the NQB Pinksheets under the symbol "MSITF".
Can anyone explain why Jim Dial FAILS to disclose he is also CEO of GFCI on the UERI website and why in his video interview he FAILS TO DISCLOSE UERI was capitalized with 56 million shares of GFCI stock > CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN any of this? IMPO "Intentionally misleading" barely scratches the surface.....
Jim Dial, President – CEO
Universal Energy Resources, Inc.
Jim Dial has a twenty year track record in the oil and gas exploration service industry. Dial joined The Brandt Company in 1977, serving as Manager of Technical Services, Research and Development Manager, and Vice President Industrial Division. During his tenure, Dial participated in the acquisition of numerous companies both domestically and internationally. Since leaving Brandt, Dial has owned, operated and sold multiple private companies. Jim has been involved in the Oil & Gas Exploration in 54 countries throughout the world.
Corporate Office:
2507N. Frazier St Suite 410
Conroe, TX. 77303
Phone: 936-788-5994
Fax: 936-788-6667
http://www.universalenergyresources.com/manage.htm
http://www.universalenergyresources.com/indi2.htm
Here is the info directly from the filing > The 7.5million from the 19 lawsuits IS Included in the accounts receivable > PER THE FILING . If you disagree, please feel free to post your opinion and reasoning, w/o attacks please, if you disagree that strongly with this information below PLEASE take it up with SEC and or WEGI accountant. I DID NOT write this or file this with SEC > This is directly from the filing >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
Again > Here it is DIRECTLY FROM THE FILING > Does it say ,or, does it NOT say the $7.5million total for the 19 lawsuits IS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE > YES OR NO?
Here is the info directly from the filing >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
LandShark so you agree? > The 7.5million in lawsuits IS LISTED as A/R and INCLUDED in the A/R total in the March filing > That is all I am really saying. I dont want to debate or dispute anything , it is all in the filing?
FYI > Here is how they outline a "doubtful" account >
PAGE 12
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts- We maintain an allowance for doubtful trade accounts receivable for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. In determining collectibility, we review available customer account and financial information, including public filings and credit reports, current trends, credit policy, and accounts receivable aging and may also consult legal counsel when appropriate. A considerable amount of judgment is required when we assess the likelihood of our realization of accounts receivables, including assessing the probability of collection and the current credit worthiness of each customer. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, an additional provision for doubtful accounts could be required. The need to file a lawsuit in a particular case is determined by a variety of factors, including our mandate to aggressively pursue all monies owed. The other considered factors include the responsiveness of the client, the running of applicable limitations periods, the ability to perfect a lien against the subject property, the value of the receivable compared to the costs of litigation and the likelihood of success in the lawsuit. When it is deemed probable that a specific customer account is uncollectible, that balance is included in the reserve calculation. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
I just want to be clear > ADDING and "Exhibit B" and posting a lease document that is altered yet still has notary seal and county info to make it appear the "real" lease document on file is intentionally misleading IMPO > That is all I am saying > Then after the REAL county documents showed on on RB and posters asked some questions the misleading documents were taken down. To me, IMPO, those are not the actions of a trustworthy professional business..... U R more then welcome to have an opinion, please feel free to post it, that is what this board is about, however IMPO those documents were VERY misleading and IMPO they were INTENTIONALY misleading. IMO
Yes it is UNDISPUTED > I see you are hung up on doing your own math that is not in the filing, Lets take it one piece at time > First > I am SURE you agree The 7.5million pending in the 19 lawsuits IS INCLUDED in the A/R total. Agreed?
Here is the info directly from the filing > PLEASE feel free to double check >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
The filing CLEARLY says the approx 7.5mil tied up in 19 lawsuits IS INCLUDED IN THE A/R TOTAL > Of that money they are saying right off the bat 2.7mil is doubtful by definition they give in the filing > I am NOT adding anything or subtracting anything like you seem to be? I just cut n paste directly from the filing?
Here is what the filing clearly says >
The total of the lawsuits is almost 7.5/m and this total is included in the A/R total
The TOTAL A/R is 7.46/m and of that amount they r saying 2.7/m is "doubtful" by "definition"
Here is the info directly from the filing >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
Here is how they outline a "doubtful" account >
PAGE 12
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts- We maintain an allowance for doubtful trade accounts receivable for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. In determining collectibility, we review available customer account and financial information, including public filings and credit reports, current trends, credit policy, and accounts receivable aging and may also consult legal counsel when appropriate. A considerable amount of judgment is required when we assess the likelihood of our realization of accounts receivables, including assessing the probability of collection and the current credit worthiness of each customer. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, an additional provision for doubtful accounts could be required. The need to file a lawsuit in a particular case is determined by a variety of factors, including our mandate to aggressively pursue all monies owed. The other considered factors include the responsiveness of the client, the running of applicable limitations periods, the ability to perfect a lien against the subject property, the value of the receivable compared to the costs of litigation and the likelihood of success in the lawsuit. When it is deemed probable that a specific customer account is uncollectible, that balance is included in the reserve calculation. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
______
PART 1 Page 1
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,737,041 > 7,463,197
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
Maybe we should take a "survey" on how much CASH will WEGI need to operate thru a major disaster? Presently they have very limited cash > IMPO they will need to finance more cash from Laurus or other type of bridge loan to get thru the season. Surveys are very popular on this board I here.
I also noticed Revenues and Gross profits are down SHARPLY in the most recent filing >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
Nine-months ended March 31, 2007 and thirty-nine weeks ended March 28, 2006
Revenue
Total revenues for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 decreased by $22,520,376, or 74.8%, to $7,571,851 from $30,092,227 for the thirty-nine weeks ended March 28, 2006. This decrease was primarily attributable to $20,842,104 of revenues in the thirty-nine weeks ended March 28, 2006 from work relating to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma, as compared to no hurricane-related work in the recent nine-month period, a decrease of $248,939 in spill-related work and a decrease of $1,960,641 in asbestos, lead and mold work. This decrease was partially offset by a $324,495 increase in training and air monitoring work.
Gross Profit
Gross profit decreased by $13,697,045, or 99.7%, to $40,259, or 0.5% of total revenues, for the nine months ended March 31, 2007, as compared to $13,737,304, or 45.7%, of total revenues for the thirty-nine weeks ended March 28, 2006. This decrease in gross profit was due primarily to the factors described above in relation to the substantial decrease in our revenue offset in part by a lower decrease in our cost of revenues.
Three months ended March 31, 2007 and thirteen weeks ended March 28, 2006
Revenue
Total revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2007 decreased by $4,148,964, or 57.5%, to $3,064,582 from $7,213,546 for the thirteen weeks ended March 28, 2006. This decrease in revenue was primarily attributable to a decrease of $3,406,132 in our emergency, disaster response and remediation work (e.g. hurricane-related work) and a decrease of $770,105 in emergency spills and soil remediation work. During the thirteen weeks ended March 28, 2006, we realized significant revenues from the services that we provided in the Gulf Region in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In contrast, there was no hurricane work during the most recent quarter, which adversely affected revenue levels. The decrease in the quarter ended March 31, 2007 from the comparable year ago period in emergency spills and soil remediation work was due to the mild winter in the northeast which resulted in fewer such fuel spills. These decreases were partially offset by a $98,628 increase in training and air monitoring work.
Gross Profit
Gross profit decreased by $2,903,314, or 84.5%, to a profit of $531,289, or 17.3% of total revenues, for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as compared to a gross profit of $3,434,603, or 47.6% of total revenues, for the thirteen weeks ended March 28, 2006. This decrease in gross profit was due primarily to the factors described above in relation to the substantial decrease in our revenue offset in part by a decrease in our cost of revenues.
Were did you get these totals Cargo > ?
Per most recent filing >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
PAGE 12
Gross Profit
Gross profit decreased by $2,903,314, or 84.5%, to a profit of $531,289, or 17.3% of total revenues, for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as compared to a gross profit of $3,434,603, or 47.6% of total revenues, for the thirteen weeks ended March 28, 2006. This decrease in gross profit was due primarily to the factors described above in relation to the substantial decrease in our revenue offset in part by a decrease in our cost of revenues.
Are we reading same filing?
Per the filing > ALL 7.5 Million tied up in lawsuits is INCLUDED in the A/R TOTAL > However YES 2.7mil is "doubtful" the OTHER 5mil is still in lawsuits >
Here is how they outline a "doubtful" account >
PAGE 12
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts- We maintain an allowance for doubtful trade accounts receivable for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. In determining collectibility, we review available customer account and financial information, including public filings and credit reports, current trends, credit policy, and accounts receivable aging and may also consult legal counsel when appropriate. A considerable amount of judgment is required when we assess the likelihood of our realization of accounts receivables, including assessing the probability of collection and the current credit worthiness of each customer. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, an additional provision for doubtful accounts could be required. The need to file a lawsuit in a particular case is determined by a variety of factors, including our mandate to aggressively pursue all monies owed. The other considered factors include the responsiveness of the client, the running of applicable limitations periods, the ability to perfect a lien against the subject property, the value of the receivable compared to the costs of litigation and the likelihood of success in the lawsuit. When it is deemed probable that a specific customer account is uncollectible, that balance is included in the reserve calculation. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
HERE ARE THE MULTIPLE REFERENCES TO THE A/R TOTAL INCLUDES THE 7.5/MIL IN LAWSUITS >
______
PART 1 Page 1
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,737,041 > 7,463,197
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
Longdriver98 > Here is something That caught my attention >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
PAGE 6
The diluted loss per share for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2007 excludes from the calculation 79,996,452 shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants and 25,395,710 shares issuable upon the conversion of convertible securities, respectively. These shares are excluded due to their anti-dilutive effect as a result of the Company’s net loss after adjusting for the embedded derivatives income effect during this period.
WEGI AR DOES include the 7.5/mil that is disputed. Here are direct cut n paste from the most recent filing - link included with page numbers - please feel free to check for yourself. IMO WEGI A/R cant be factored > It is all tied up in lawsuits - IMO I dont think banks or AR factoring firms will buy these receivables unless of course them give them away for pennies on the dollar - I seriously doubt WEGI is going to do that......
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
______
PART 1 Page 1
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,737,041 > 7,463,197
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
wow what a total scam PR > If u counted all of the estimated kits to be sold under contracts, with distributors, and governments, this would be a 100 million in revenues company in just last year of PR, YET WE KNOW CEO Talbot is being SUED for a 400k loan he had to take out with toxic financeer and as well had to sell a stake in his hotel de health, it is funny to read all of this BS and think ANYONE believes this stuff, please tell me no one here believes these PRs?
so u agree UERI posted misleading lease documents on the website and the minute investors on the boards asked questions about it, and posters got the real leases from the county and posted them UERI was more or less FORCED to pull down the misleading leases they had posted. Yes - I AGREE.
Universal energy has taken down the lease documents from the website - you cant find active link on the website to them any longer - they have replaced them with pictures of the wells being built, shows some PVC pipe and a flame coming out of one, IMPO Jim Dial and crew realized GFCI investors were on to his misleading lease documents and had to cover his tracks - I really believe Jim Dial has UNDER-ESTIMATED GFCI investors, and until he comes clean and pays out the assets to GFCI holders as promised, that we rightly own, he is going to find us around every corner watching prodding, making sure he walks the line and tells the truth in ALL future dealings... IMPO
The minute investors realized the gas wells were NOT under lease to LSGH and truth was they were owned by Universal Energy, a Jim Dial private venture, it was clear Claude could NOT be trusted, forward looking PR is one thing, but not keeping investors updated on the #1 business plan and then to find out thru other sources the gas wells deal fell thru really hurt any chance this stock had IMPO....
feel free to post some of these IR services they have performed > To date we have a PR and nothing else. What have they done - what r they doing - FYI most IR firms would be writing and issuing the PRs as one of the top duties. Who did u speak with?
Ambient will use a significant portion of the proceeds to reduce the remaining balance of the approximately $4.6 million in principal remaining outstanding under its 8% Senior Secured Convertible Debentures issued in May 2006. Following the retirement of a significant portion of the senior debt, the security interest in favor of the holders of the May 2006 debentures in certain assets of Ambient, as well as certain anti-dilution and other protective provisions contained in the 2006 debenture documents will terminate. The termination of the security interest and the protective provisions is expected to enhance Ambient’s flexibility in securing long-term funding.
Pursuant to the terms of the 2006 debentures, Ambient has been repaying on a monthly basis principal and accrued interest outstanding on the debentures in registered shares of its common stock. The anticipated retirement of a significant portion of the remaining outstanding senior secured debt is expected to significantly reduce issuance of Ambient shares in the future for this purpose, and the accompanying dilution.
This PR in your post RE SGLS came out March 12 >
Since this PR MSITF has issued MANY PRs . NOT A SINGLE ONE was issued by SGLS > I think u have answered your own post!
NO SIGN OF SGLS ON ANY PR TO DATE >
Tue, Jun 05, 2007
12:55 PM Medical Services to Meet Disclosure Requirements - PR Newswire
Wed, May 30, 2007
6:37 PM Medical Services Signs Multimillion Dollar Sales Contract - PR Newswire
Tue, May 22, 2007
5:14 PM VScan Retail Volume Increases - PR Newswire
Fri, May 18, 2007
12:49 AM Requests Increase for VScan Test Kits That Detect Mosquito Borne Diseases - PR Newswire
Fri, Apr 20, 2007
1:26 AM Medical Services Projects Record Year - PR Newswire
Wed, Apr 04, 2007
11:58 AM Medical Services International Inc. Receives Increased Interest in Dengue Fever - PR Newswire
Thu, Mar 29, 2007
12:49 PM Medical Services International Marketing Program Shows Results - PR Newswire
Wed, Mar 21, 2007
1:08 PM Medical Services International Inc. Continues to Expand its Distribution Network - PR Newswire
? your point ?
LIFEGEAR WHAT R U EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
SGLS is NOT has NOT been listed in or on a single PR since the one PR about the possibility of them doing IR for MSITF > U say in your post > did you notice SGLS did not put out todays PR? WELL DID YOU NOTICE SGLS DID NOT PUT ANY OF THE MSITF PR EVER!
NO SIGN OF SGLS ON ANY PR TO DATE >
Tue, Jun 05, 2007
12:55 PM Medical Services to Meet Disclosure Requirements - PR Newswire
Wed, May 30, 2007
6:37 PM Medical Services Signs Multimillion Dollar Sales Contract - PR Newswire
Tue, May 22, 2007
5:14 PM VScan Retail Volume Increases - PR Newswire
Fri, May 18, 2007
12:49 AM Requests Increase for VScan Test Kits That Detect Mosquito Borne Diseases - PR Newswire
Fri, Apr 20, 2007
1:26 AM Medical Services Projects Record Year - PR Newswire
Wed, Apr 04, 2007
11:58 AM Medical Services International Inc. Receives Increased Interest in Dengue Fever - PR Newswire
Thu, Mar 29, 2007
12:49 PM Medical Services International Marketing Program Shows Results - PR Newswire
Wed, Mar 21, 2007
1:08 PM Medical Services International Inc. Continues to Expand its Distribution Network - PR Newswire
Lifegear I was responding to your post in reply to my post. You made it sound like I said in my post that what SGLS told you was a scam or SGLS is a scam, that was what I was referring to, In the post you replied to and I am referring to I never said any such thing.
HOWEVER BE CRYSTAL CLEAR > MSITF PR IS TOTAL 100% SCAM > THAT IS KNOWN FACT > HAVE YOU READ THE PR OVER LAST 3 YEARS? THIS COMPANY WOULD BE AS BIG AS NYSE LISTED LARGE CAP IF THE PR WAS NOT A SCAM. NOW THAT IS NOT IMPO OR ANYTHING IT IS KNOWN FACT MSITF PR IS TOTAL PR SCAM MACHINE
I never said anything about a scam, just said reciprical PR is one play in the pinkie playbook..... You yourself answered the question on if they were still IR for MSITF. Do you ever read the last paragraph on the PRs? the one about forward looking statements? Me, you, other, can ALL plan to do something, we can tell the world we PLAN to do it, does NOT mean we will in fact do it, MSITF has posted PR for sales well in excess of 100 million dollars in last 3 years, PR said it was iron clad contracts, bankers had reviewed the letters of credit, parliment approved the contracts FOR well over 100 million TOTAL in projected contracted sales..... but we all know the truth, MSITF had to borrow 400k from a convicted securities felon and is now in court because they could not pay it back, I assure you the PR and contracts AND BS were "forward looking" IMPO PLEASE WAKE UP!
IMO
IMPO You wont see SGLS doing anything in an IR capacity for MSITF. I happen to KNOW a LOT more about SGLS then I will disclose here. However understand this > reciprocal PR is a mainstay of pink sheet stocks. I scratch your back you scratch mine...... It is all part of the pinkie PR game
no that is NOT what it says?
Please be clear it says >
"that it anticipates that it will meet the Pink Sheets' Guidelines"
"The Company will also be required to subscribe to OTCIQ."
PLEASE BE CLEAR >
ABTG > It is time!
ABTG has spent many years working on the tech and patents - have had to finance under not the best of terms - now they are on verge of large scale BPL rollouts - paid off the financing in place with an unsecured bridge loan > It is clear the time has come for ABTG price per share to begin to reflect the years of hard work on the patents and technology. Not going to happen in one day but this news is clearly a large step forward, but it will take patience.
ABTG > It is time!
ABTG has spent many years working on the tech and patents - have had to finance under not the best of terms - now they are on verge of large scale BPL rollouts - paid off the financing in place with an unsecured bridge loan per todays PR = It is clear the time has come for ABTG price per share to reflect the hard work on the patents and technology.
IMPO BUY ABTG
Here is the other active suit WEGI vs ECONOMIC Development > The case is still active with WEGI as Plaintiff, however per the SEC filing below it says Economic Dev has filed counter claim, that does not show up on the court record as a stand alone suit, I guess it is all wrapped up in this suit below. Look at the time lines, suit started in 2004, still in court 2007, still not resolved, I can only guess at the Lawyer bill for this one case thus far and how this effects the fair value of the monies they are trying to collect.
WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail
Court: New York Civil Supreme Index Number: 602552/2004 Upstate RJI Number:
Case Name: TRADEWINDS ENVIRONMENTAL vs. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Case Type: City-Contract
Track: Complex
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due: 04/06/2007 NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline:
Calendar Number: RJI Filed: 01/17/2005
Jury Status:
Justice Name: SMITH, KAREN S. (DCM)
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2006/04/28/0001144204-06-017228/Section16.asp
On August 5, 2004, we commenced an action against the New York City
Economic Development Corporation in the New York State Supreme Court, County of
New York, seeking to collect approximately $1,255,000 of contractual billings
relating to a large roof tar removal project. On October 15, 2004, the Economic
Development Corporation filed an answer, denying our claims. On November 4,
2004, the Economic Development Corporation filed an amended answer denying our
claims and asserting counterclaims in unspecified amounts seeking liquidated
damages, reimbursement for consultant's fees and breach of contract. The case is
currently in pre-trial discovery.
Here is the outline of the lawsuit vs CON ED > WEGI is Plaintiff in this case , it is still active. Next court date is July 06. WEGI is suing them for approx 1.6 million >
WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail
Court: New York Civil Supreme Index Number: 115014/2004 Upstate RJI Number:
Case Name: TRADEWINDS ENVIRONMENTAL vs. CONSOLIDATED EDISON
Case Type: E-Filed Contract
Track: Complex
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due: 07/06/2007 NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline:
Calendar Number: RJI Filed: 01/13/2005
Jury Status:
Justice Name: FRIED, BERNARD J.
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2006/04/28/0001144204-06-017228/Section16.asp
In April 2003, we commenced a remediation project in New York City for
Consolidated Edison Company, a local utility, to remove sediment from an oil
storage tank. During the course of the project, the sediment in the tank was
found to be substantially different than the sediment that the customer
represented to be in the tank prior to the inception of the project. We
continued to work on the project so as not to default on the terms which we
understood to exist with the customer. The additional costs incurred to remove
this matter were approximately $1,600,000. As of June 28, 2005, we have
recognized revenue of approximately $1,700,000 with respect to the original
scope of this project. All amounts due under the original contract have been
paid. We have not recognized the revenue associated with our claim for the
additional work for which we billed the customer. The project has been
substantially completed and the customer has refused to acknowledge its
liability for these additional charges we billed it. On October 22, 2004, we
commenced an action against Consolidated Edison Company in the New York State
Supreme Court, County of New York, claiming that we are entitled to
approximately $2,000,000 of contractual billings and related damages in
connection with this matter. On December 6, 2004, Consolidated Edison Company
filed an answer, denying our claims. The case is currently in pre-trial
discovery.
Looking for DD on Laurus Master fund > I see them listed in the IBox and was wondering if anyone had some recent articles or information on them. I for one agree 100% they are notorious toxic financeer, however a group of posters I know seem to believe Laurus is best thing could have some along to finance with. Any info would be appreciated.
It is posted under > 2006 Noteworthy Audit and Investigation Report Abstracts > http://mtaig.state.ny.us/html/reports.html
That is as current as the website has listed?
I didnt bother looking back into 05,04,03 etc... yet on this website but u r right maybe we have some other reports to look over. Ill check Thanks.
Maybe we can take a SURVEY about how this can effect WEGI prospects for State of NY contracts?
sorry guys this one is dying, wind sheer, local news just went over it ans YES it is going to bring us much needed rain thru next few days but it is NOT going to strengthen, wind sheer has gotten to it, chances are extremely small it will even become a named storm...sorry to break your hearts no one will get homes destroyed, flooded or damaged enough to make you any money...sorry....
PUNTA GORDA > NOT "PUNTA VERDA" > It is in Charlotte county FL, my home town. My mother and my sister BOTH lost homes in Charley. They have since recovered the monetary losses thru insurance but they BOTH, No the ENTIRE family LOST so many personal sentimental things that money can NEVER replace. Have you ever been thru a hurricane or go down into a hazard zone for weeks on end trying to help out and save what you can for family and friends?
The exclamation points and obvious joy and fever pitch of your posts at the mere sign of a depression is the only answer I need, sorry for asking.....
It appears WEGI > Tradewinds has had some issues with State of NY contracts and billing > They were originally denied a contract for a "non-responsibility determination" per outline below, However they DID APPEAL the decision and have since had it reversed per below.
The other most recent issue I found involves $260,000 in erroneous charges for the disposal of waste materials generated by "LIRR". I am putting together the latest information on this for the board to "SURVEY" this evening > In short the NY Office of the Inspector General(OIG) concluded that Tradewinds supplied "altered and/or incorrect documents to both OIG and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office" "OIG recommended LIRR deny payment for the charges that could not be supported with corresponding manifests and invoices."
Here is the appeal Tradwinds WON on the "non-responsibility determination"
http://www.nyc.gov/html/moc/html/documents/trade_winds_environmental_rest.html
Appeal of Non-Responsibility Determination
Contract Between
The New York City Department of Health
and
Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc.
PIN 81600EA353
West Nile Fever Prevention Services
OVERVIEW
By letter dated March 28, 2000, the Agency Chief Contracting Officer ("ACCO") of the New York City Department of Health ("DOH") determined that Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. ("Trade Winds") was ineligible for the award of the contract referenced above because it was not a responsible contractor. The ACCO based this determination on Trade Winds’ failure to disclose an affiliation between its parent, Windswept Environmental Group, Inc. ("Windswept") and Spotless Plastics (USA), Inc. ("Spotless") on the Vendor Information Exchange System ("VENDEX") questionnaires submitted on behalf of Trade Winds.
By letter dated April 6, 2000, Trade Winds appealed the DOH ACCO’s determination to DOH’s Commissioner. In its appeal, Trade Winds stated that it was embarrassed by the incomplete and sloppy manner in which its corporate structure was disclosed in the VENDEX forms submitted to DOH. Trade Winds argued that this performance is at odds with the company’s reputation for excellence in the service it provides. To avoid a similar problem in the future, Trade Winds has assigned an employee adequately trained in this area to complete all VENDEX forms.
By letter dated April 19, 2000, DOH’s Commissioner upheld the ACCO’s non-responsibility determination. DOH’s Commissioner concluded that Trade Winds’ failure to disclose Spotless’ existence after being given the opportunity to do so during separate revisions to the original VENDEX submission, raises concerns about Trade Winds’ business integrity.
By letter dated May 2, 2000, Trade Winds appealed the DOH decision to this Office. For the purpose of this appeal, Trade Winds adopted the arguments set forth in its appeal to DOH’s Agency Head.
On May 11, 2000, this Office met with Trade Winds. This meeting was conducted on the record and under oath.
Discussion
This review of responsibility is de novo. This Office can uphold a responsibility decision for any reason, including a ground that was not cited by the agency. This Office can also reverse a responsibility decision based on information that was not in the record before the agency. In other words, this Office can reverse an agency’s decision even though the agency did not err or act in an arbitrary or capricious manner provided that the record, as developed, supports this conclusion.
The New York City Procurement Policy Board Rules ("PPB Rules") require that City agencies award contracts to responsible contractors only. The PPB Rules also require a prospective contractor to affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility. Responsibility has been defined to mean that a contractor must have both the capability to perform the contract and the requisite business integrity.
At issue here is whether Trade Winds’ failure to disclose the affiliation between Windswept and Spotless in its VENDEX submissions may bear on Trade Winds’ business integrity. A prospective contractor’s failure to disclose information in its VENDEX submissions may bear on such contractor’s integrity if the prospective contractor knowingly failed to disclose information with the intent to conceal. This does not appear to be the case here. Trade Winds had no motive to conceal its recent affiliation with Spotless. To the contrary, Trade Winds advised this Office that it is very proud of its affiliation with Spotless. Spotless is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spotless Group Limited, an Australian company that is publicly listed and has annual revenues in excess of $650 million. Windswept, Trade Winds’ parent, has even gone so far as to publicly announce that the affiliation with Spotless marks a positive turning point for Windswept in that it represents the confidence of this substantial international company in Windswept’s current management.
While Trade Winds acknowledged that it failed to disclose Spotless’ affiliation with Windswept in its VENDEX submissions, it was Trade Winds, and not DOH, that ultimately discovered this oversight. Trade Winds was in the process of gathering and providing relevant information concerning Spotless when DOH’s ACCO deemed Trade Winds non-responsible. Notwithstanding this determination, Trade Winds submitted the relevant VENDEX questionnaires for Spotless.
Trade Winds has provided this Office with an earnest assurance that it has implemented measures to ensure that all VENDEX submissions are accurate and updated. Trade Winds has assigned an individual well-versed in the company’s corporate structure to maintain all necessary Securities and Exchange Commission filings and prepare all VENDEX submissions. This self-initiated corrective action plan demonstrates that Trade Winds understands the importance of full and accurate disclosure in all VENDEX submissions.
Based on the record before me, I do not agree with the agency’s determination. I find that Trade Winds inadvertently omitted information regarding the affiliation between Windswept and Spotless and made every effort to disclose this affiliation once it realized it was not included in its VENDEX submission. Moreover, the remedial measures that Trade Winds has initiated to ensure the accuracy of all VENDEX submissions is a positive reflection on Trade Winds’ business integrity.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, I conclude that Trade Winds has demonstrated that it is a responsible bidder in connection with the subject contract. Therefore, the decision of the New York City Department of Health is reversed. In accordance with Section 5-10(e)(6) of the PPB Rules, this decision is final.
Decision by: _______________________________ Dated: __________________
Claude M. Millman
Director, Mayor’s Office of Contracts
City Chief Procurement Officer
I was doing some DD into the 4 lawsuits WindSwept has active in NY state courts. I should have the hard copy early next week for all of them.
3 of them are for "contract" issues - normal course of business stuff. The one that seems "different" is the one with MCCORMICK REALTY ASSOC. Only because It is listed as "Case Type: Other Special Proceedings - Nt" I am not lawyer and dont know what that means, but it does not appear to be for a different issue then the others. I will try to scan and post and or setup and or post a link once the hard copies arrive.
FYI > Windswept / Tradwinds is listed as PLAINTIFF in 2 of the 4 active cases - one of them is with "CON EDISION" and the other "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" Could both be for money owed WEGI and or some other form of positive issue being they are "Plaintiff" in 2 of the 4 active cases...
Here is link and case# for the MCCORMICK action > Plus you can get details on ALL of the active and disposed cases in New York State.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch
WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail
Court: Suffolk Civil Supreme Index Number: 017325/2006 Upstate RJI Number:
Case Name: MCCORMICK REALTY ASSOC., LLC vs. TRADEWINDS ENVIRONMENTAL
Case Type: Other Special Proceedings - Nt
Track: Expedited
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline:
Calendar Number: RJI Filed: 07/12/2006
Jury Status:
Justice Name: PETER FOX COHALAN