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.
>>It really does rankle you guys that GlobeTel is surviving doesn't it?
lol, I see few indications that GTEM is in danger of surviving. In fact the probability for collapse keeps increasing as the time ticks on by.
Tell me nerd, why is it that whenever things are 'different now' with this company, it's really the same or even worse.
>>and if they filed for bk they would still exist.
Yes, just like shells exist.
>>The "K" men came in to getherdone and they gotherdone.
You have no proof of this. The only 'proof' you have is that the company still exists, and you don't even have credible proof of this. The company could declare bankruptcy tomorrow for all you know. There is no evidence that the internal audit was completed, all we know is the directors resigned. If it's not done the audit certainly must be halted though since there's no one to do it!
>>risk_it you insist on living in the past.
It's unfortunate for your efforts at touting a bright, shiny future for GTEM that so far its past has been VERY instructive on predicting future GTEM events.
>>I believe he is an intrical part of GTEM who has and will continue to possitively contribute to this company.
Maybe you meant 'integral'. You are right though, this show belongs to Huff and JohnnyL. Though when the time is right they will fade into the background too.
If they got one right they'd actually be making a profit
....maybe.
Or maybe they'd just raise their bonuses! XD
today confirmed the completion of production of the first set of 70 HotZone radios to be used for the expansion of its previously announced wifi broadband network in Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico.
Looks pretty vanilla to me. They're just PRing that they made the radios to be used in the additional buildout.
Not necessary to have a PR imo. But it's clear why they're releasing this news at this time.
>>Interim CFO who had a defined period where he would be with the company.
Sorry Danielle, I must be having reading problems again. Where in any published PR or SEC filing does it say that DeCarlo had a defined period of employment with the company? You have no confirmation that DeCarlo's exit was scheduled for this date or that it was contingent on some specific event.
Please specify before you do any twisting of your own.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919742/000114420406046929/0001144204-06-046929-index.htm
It's as clear as it's ever going to be now. All the independents are gone, only people left are the good ol' boys. That should be an indication of what is happening. Think Gotham Financial, think Uli Altvater's new company. Assets all moved away from your hands.
Raytheon buyouts and angel investor theories are just pipe dreams, realize that. This company is going to go into hibernation mode soon, and go to sleep until the good ol' boys can start it all again with the next hot thing.
I am 90% sure there is going to be another fun event coming up in the next month related to the debt GTEM took on in the financing. It's all in the SEC filings, perhaps you should read it?
Thankfully for the US markets they do not exist.
>>2- GTEM is being bought out or merging with another company. (Good News)
I am continually amazed at how this conclusion is reached given the recent board/management 'reductions'. Even if they left for no bad reason how does their departure imply a merger? When was the last time that half the board of a company being acquired left BEFORE the merger was even announced...
I highly doubt it.
Something is surely brewing. Chances are not good that it's something you're going to want to drink though.
>>The military created bogus tests, bogus results, made bogus statements to the press, even lied to Congress. That's what I was talking about.
So your current working theory is that the Strat carries enough importance in the National Security/Military circles that GTEM has been given carte blanche to mislead the AMEX/regulators (quite a bit of leeway for a program that would probably cost less than a few fighter jets)?? And that at the end of it all GTEM will be exonerated by regulators for national security reasons and rewarded with cash payments by the military????
Jeez. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Of course. GTEM does this with everything to make it look like they are in control of events which they are really not and it was really their idea in the first place.
>>tradefor look deeply into haw the cold war was won.
You have got to be kidding me right...You just managed to tie the Cold War into GTEM's condition. Talk about tangential reference. So what I get from your post, GTEM is somehow justified in lying to AMEX/regulators because they're possibly involved with a secret military program???? This makes little sense even if true.
The military would not benefit from having their contractors delisted, investigated, etc. and be unable to say anything or force them to lie to coverup a military black program. This would just cause instability in their R&D efforts. I am quite sure there is a regulatory niche for companies involved with secret military programs in which, should they be investigated on unrelated matters, they can say to regulators "this is a military secret" rather than lie about it.
>>Would they (the internal audit committee) sign off on the internal audit before the SEC investigation was complete? Many here have posted that they would not. So is this a signal the SEC investigation is done?
Sirius. Where in the news release of today do you find your info that the internal audit has been completed? All I see is the statement that Castellano and Heyn are leaving the board. Perhaps I missed the phrase that states "and prior to their departure they have completed and signed off on the internal audit".
Please explain.
As expected. More directors fleeing the sinking ship.
Only the K-boys and JohnnyL left now.
I suppose this is a good sign right?
>>If some of the Sanswire has gone Black, as some have thought, then it would seem that is what GTEM was trying to keep from the AMEX investigators.
That's quite a big IF you've got yourself there. Also i'm sure IF the Strat was black, Sanswire would have been able to tell the AMEX that they cannot release the required information due to their relationship with the military. Top secret, confidential or whatever. I'm sure the military does not condone lying to exchange officials/regulators etc. even in the name of national security...
Don't forget that the AMEX also stated that GTEM "provided materially false and misleading information and statements to the Staff, as set forth in paragraph 2(e), hindering its investigation into the Company’s compliance with applicable continued listing standards"
>>So, Raytheon recently showcased its latest security gadgets to Sanswire's invited guests because Raytheon had nothing better to do?
I'm sure that if I created a company with the stated intention of strapping cameras on model airplanes (let's call it "AeroCam Inc." just for fun) I could get Raytheon to come to my hangar. One call to the regional Raytheon sales rep and they would be running to present to me and my 'invited guests'. A sale is a sale for them. As long as security/sensitive technology concerns are addressed they do not care who they sell products to. Do other companies PR when Oracle comes and 'presents' a new database product to them?
>>Raytheon is purportedly assessing
That's one of the big problems. Purportedly. You have no real proof of Raytheon's interest in Sanswire besides this board and circumstantial evidence, it's all hearsay. I think that if you wanted to you could come to the conclusion that Raytheon is 'purportedly' assessing the technology of any company you want.
Why is it that the positive spin always requires so much more of the imagination than the negative one?
Perhaps she just left because she saw what a mess the company is, and the potential liability she could exposed to?
Hmm...Nah it must be an impending deal with Raytheon to partner/buy the strat which Muntz has negotiated. And of course she is quitting the BOD to collect finders fees and eliminate the conflict of interest.
As expected.
First off, an 'issuer' is not defined as an officer or director of the company. An Issuer is the company as an entity.
"(b) Issuer. An "issuer" subject to this regulation is one that has a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l)"..etc etc.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
The sections I quoted show pretty well that it does not matter if there is trading or not. That is a separate violation on its own. The disclosure of material information to a person not a member of the company or authorized to receive material, non-public is a violation, THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE TRADING.
"No. If a shareholder meeting is not accessible by the public, an issuer's selective disclosure of material nonpublic information at the meeting would not satisfy Regulation FD's public disclosure requirement."
Does it say "and then the shareholders go out and trade the security"? NO.
Are you done yet?
4. Can an issuer satisfy Regulation FD's public disclosure requirement by disclosing material nonpublic information at a shareholder meeting that is open to all shareholders, but not to the public?
No. If a shareholder meeting is not accessible by the public, an issuer's selective disclosure of material nonpublic information at the meeting would not satisfy Regulation FD's public disclosure requirement.
Seems pretty clear that if it's a violation to tell a group of shareholders something material, nonpublic it would follow pretty easily that telling just one would be a violation as well.
9. May an issuer provide material nonpublic information to analysts as long as the analysts expressly agree to maintain confidentiality until the information is public?
Yes.
Again, it seems clear that material, nonpublic is not to be relayed and that if the receivers of the information were to retransmit it without some kind of express release from the company they would not be in the legal clear.
Satisfied Nerd? Or do I have to go around figuring out how to cite case law and specific articles of the reg itself.
http://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone/phonesupplement4.htm
Nerd I do not know the specific language of the law that would provide the incriminating clause you want. I do know that one of the parties somewhere is liable in a case like this. So let's go through some situations using your version of the law.
Company discloses material, non-public information to a shareholder via e-mail:
a) Shareholder disseminates the info on internet message boards. Nobody trades on it. The company is not liable for selective disclosure of material information regardless that no one traded?
b) Shareholder disseminates the info on internet message boards. People beside the Shareholder trade on it. The company is not liable for selective disclosure of material information? Shareholder is not liable for transmitting information that he/she understood to be material, non-public thereby inducing people to act on it?
Company discloses material, non-public information to a shareholder via e-mail with agreed to Non-Disclosure:
a)Shareholder disseminates the info on internet message boards. Nobody trades on it. The Shareholder is not liable for spreading the material information in violation of NDA?
b) Shareholder disseminates the info on internet message boards. People beside the Shareholder trade on it. Shareholder is not liable for transmitting information that he/she understood to be material, non-public thereby inducing people to act on it?
>>tradeforit is completely legal to recieve inside information and share it, this of course excludes brokers. It is not legal for one to act on it.
You are correct. Unfortunately you forgot to add that it is not legal for that original recipient of material, non-public info to continue disseminating that information to others unless released to do so by the company. Even then they must state clearly to the next recipients the nature of the information they are receiving AND the recipients must agree to receive it. You cannot just shout material, non-public at people and thereby force them to stop trading.
Anyway, how does this all apply? Are you saying that Danielle is getting her info from inside sources?
Very interesting if actual e-mails. We have no way of knowing unfortunately.
Who exactly is the sender talking to Leinwand? Is it Sands or whatever his name is, the PR guy that left?
Leinwand's "cover my ass" e-mail is hilarious.
Edited for your reading pleasure admin
Please tell us Danielle how your magic 'numbers' tell you that PRs are going to be released?
I would love to hear your methodology. If it is legitimate DD conducted through legal means certainly it must be reproducible by others?
Edited for your reading pleasure Admin.
>>You are responding to a post in which the poster conveniently left out the part about the Raytheon demonstrations being for INVITED GUESTS too (not just Sanswire employees) but you know that.
Sirius, if what WilliamFL says is true, that there were invited guests there does not change the fact that Raytheon was presenting TO Sanswire and its guests. NOT, presenting WITH Sanswire to their guests.
>>Good news release shows raytheon is interested in this project and will give GTEM funding.
How exactly do you get that from the press release? The most optimistic reading I make of it is that Raytheon had representatives at the blimp test who were presenting Raytheon products to the attending parties. Maybe the Raytheon products were on the Strat or something and that's why they were there. Regardless, there is absolutely no mention of a partnership/funding/coffee sharing venture with Raytheon.
So you admit that you believe it is a material event that should have been filed with the SEC?
That disclosure rules may not be enforced properly does not change the fact that the company is the one at fault for not filing. It is certainly represented as a material event in the press release, so IMO they should have filed an 8-k with the 'joint development and marketing venture' agreement.
>>A material even is one that would cause an informed investor to buy or sell the stock of the company. The Metrotel PCS announcement clearly is not that.
I fail to see how the company entering into a "joint development and marketing venture" with another company is a non-material event. The agreement with MetroTel should be filed in an 8-k by now.
Seems to me that GTEM just entered into a joint development and marketing venture with VPN. Please enlighten me nerdy.
So they are actually updating the website. What ever happened to Alice Muntz? They can't even cut/paste her bio into the 'Corporate Governance' html?
Also their address is not updated, they still list Dohan as their auditors...i'm sure there's more I just haven't looked.
Oh and just to remind certain board individuals, from the FAQ:
Q. Why don't you respond to message board posts?
A. GTE's policy is not to respond to message board posts, positive or negative. Additionally, GTE staff abides by our policy of not posting to message boards. As a publicly held company, we are held to very strict reporting processes, and we comply quickly and accurately. We disclose all material events. Beyond that, should we determine that a piece of information, positive or negative, that may not necessarily qualify as "material" needs to be included in the public information mix that would enable investors to arrive at educated decisions regarding your company, we issue that information as well.
I love this part:
"Please continue to rely on your company, and not message boards, for news about your company."
Perhaps your pro-forma analysis is good for something afterall Danielle! Please explain how the JV is going to be treated as a subsidiary when GTEM will be holding a minority equity interest as well as a minority voting interest in the new company?
Profit distributions from joint ventures are not treated as revenues.
JV investments are held as assets on the balance sheet and the revenues earned are not consolidated into the revenues of the partners. Distributions will most likely be treated as cash inflows from investment activities.
Nerd86 you did not answer my question.
I don't care about the new product, clearly MSFT doesn't have to 8-K every new product they introduce, your point on that is moot. The point is the venture they have with MetroTel. A "joint development and marketing venture with MetroTel PCS Communications LLC" certainly sounds material to me. Where is the agreement for the venture?
Is certainly is being represented as if they have an agreement with an outside party/entity. Please show me under Reg FD where they are permitted not to disclose a new relationship such as this one?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070116/20070116005579.html?.v=1
I asked before and either got deleted or ignored.
Why has an 8-K not been filed for this agreement with MetroTel? Was it just another vaporous deal???
Could you share some of that info? Your DD in the past has been very insightful.
I think that JimProfit is just saying that GlobetelWireless Europe 'has failed', not all of GTEM. I think he was just not being specific enough in his wording.
Perhaps he can clarify.
Mine was not in reference to the GTEM's legal matters. I don't know so much about those. Those are valid concerns though and will probably play the larger role if mine don't spring up.
I was referring to some other events/deadlines coming up.
Think debt.
I think there is a high probability of something happening before the hearing. Say...about a week before.