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.
HOT did not say that it was told to him. He said that he had some information and then he said to call Dave Williams and ask him. At no point though did he say "someone told me this" or "I got this information from". Which is why it is suspect.
I don't doubt that the company and its directors are under investigation. What I doubt is the selective nature of the comment and the lack of anything that would give another investor the ability to verify it.
There are many things that are postured on this forum as fact. When people do not cite their source, it strongly discredits what they say. When I post information and details on this forum, I am careful to let people know where the information has come from so that they can do their own due diligence. Since I know that you didn't get this information directly from the SEC, and it is fairly doubtful that Dave Williams would have told you this himself, I have to wonder who else would have told you this and how credible they are as a source.
I don't doubt that the SEC is investigating this company and its directors for many different reasons. The SEC doesn't suspend trading on a company's stock and then delist them without an investigation. My concern is how vested is the SEC really with looking at all the facts and getting to the bottom of the fraud that has been negatively impacting shareholders for many years.
We weren't discussing something hypothetical that could be true or not. HOT made a statement of fact. Considering the SEC doesn't release this kind of information (I know because I've spoken with them on multiple occasions, including the director of the New York city office pertaining to the initial suspension), he would have had to have gotten this information directly from Dave Williams or it is hearsay from another source.
Considering that the SEC is very secretive about sharing any information with anyone, yet alone confirming on denying the existence of a pending investigation. How did you come across this information yourself?
Here is the response that I received from the I-Hub admin regarding the board and searching for it:
The board doesn't close if a company is delisted. The only thing that will happen is that the board will be moved to the delisted category. Everything else remains the same.
Here's the category with all the companies that have been delisted:
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/boards.aspx?cat_id=169
You can also search by 'fka' (formally known as):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/getboards.aspx?searchstr=fka
I've stickied T-mobile's response and the motion to reconsider as requested.
I also received a message from the ihub admin that this forum will not fold up if the company goes defunct. It will just move to a different category (hence the FKA in our name).
Do you have a link where this doc is hosted? I'd be happy to add it to the sticky.
There is a mailing list function on the website that would allow users to be notified en-mass if needed. It is the same feature that was used to communicate the shareholders' forum details.
This would also be a tool that the receiver or company could use in the future if needed to communicate with shareholders.
Sure no problem.
Yeah that's been up there for about two years. I contacted the Russian that owns the rights to it and put pressure on him to release it to the company or face arbitration through ICANN. I also contacted his registrar and was working to have the site returned to the company. Eventually the guy I was putting pressure on sold it to another guy. Both admitted via email to using the site fraudulently to generate income for themselves. It was a closed and shut case, but I was not able to get the funds or approval to proceed. This was a relatively low priority issue compared to everything else that has gone on in the last 8 months.
Updated Court Docs - Refreshed 3-19-2012
SEC Revokes CLYW
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66588.pdf
CLYW SEC ADMIN Proceeding
http://sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66492.pdf
Federal Case: Responses to Motions to Dismiss
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Response-MTD.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Daic%20Response%20MTD.pdf
T-Mobile's Motion to Dismiss Federal Case
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/T-Mobile-MTD.pdf
Receiver Accepting Appointment
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bFadTe
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/uFiHc
Receiver Order and Memorandum Opinion
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Order%20Appointing%20Receiver.PDF
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Memorandum%20Opinion.PDF
Redacted Trial Briefs
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Redacted%20PTB.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/DW%20Redacted%20PTB.pdf
Thank you to bacatcha for allowing us to use his drop box account.
I have confirmed the same on my etrade account. Unless drawn in to assist the receiver with communicating to shareholders via the company's website, I won't be checking in very often. What a sad story longs. Hopefully we have a happy ending and one of the big boys buys us out.
Since we have responded I don't believe we are under the gun for anything right now.
The revocation of the stock was inevitable after the actions of the last few months. We were on this path for the better part of 6 months.
I have been on vacation for the last week or so and this has been the first I have checked in on the message board. Sadly I have no updates for everyone. I am happy to see the stock revoked to be honest... If for the only reason to keep people off this message board who are trying to manipulate this stock. Hopefully the receiver brings us some value!!
Someone must have found some spare change in their sofa and also happens to be able to buy shares without paying a commission. I am no longer amazed about how many shares people buy and sell in this stock. It simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Thanks for pointing this out. I emailed Paul Storm and made him aware of the error if he hadn't been aware of it already. Ultimately, I don't know that he will re-file the motion with the corrected dates.
I'm thanking storm for responding to the t-mobile motion. That's the extent of it. It would have been disastrous for shareholders if nobody responded and t-mobile was able to get the judge to dismiss with prejudice. I understand that it is still in Storms best interest to keep the case going because otherwise he won't get paid.
Time will tell if his actions are in support of bringing value to shareholders or not. Hopefully the receiver will hold him to this.
I didn't ask him any questions when I spoke to him. Hopefully we hear from the receiver soon clarifying some of these issues.
I called Paul Storm this morning and thanked him for his timely response to T-mobile's motion. T-mobile clearly was trying to slip this in knowing that we were in receivership and hoping that we wouldn't respond in time.
Lets see how we are going to respond to the SEC issue.
Pretty well argued and presented, professional, factual and neutral. What i'd expect. I'd say Paul Storm did a decent job responding to T-mobile's request to dismiss the case.
I am starting to get concerned as well, especially considering the urgency of the required T-mobile response and SEC admin hearing. I had hoped we would have gotten more communication throughout this process. I've never been invested in a company that was turned over to receivership before though so I can't say I really know what to expect as a shareholder.
I can agree with that.
These documents are a re-post so that they can be consolidated to free up the sticky slots.
Recent Important Court Documents
CLYW SEC ADMIN Proceeding
http://sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66492.pdf
T-Mobile's Motion to Dismiss Federal Case
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/T-Mobile-MTD.pdf
Receiver Accepting Appointment
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bFadTe
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/uFiHc
Receiver Order and Memorandum Opinion
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Order%20Appointing%20Receiver.PDF
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Memorandum%20Opinion.PDF
Redacted Trial Briefs
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/Calypso%20Redacted%20PTB.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49946173/DW%20Redacted%20PTB.pdf
Thank you to bacatcha for allowing us to use his drop box account.
I think your question is a really good one and I honestly am not sure if I have an answer at this point. I asked the receiver if the company still had a board and he said that they did. My best guess as to who is on it would be the four members as of the status quo order. I have no idea what power the board has or if there is management and what authority they have. I have been trying to answer these very questions for myself.
Paul Storm is probably legally required to respond to the t-mobile motion on behalf of the company. Ultimately under the receiver's direction of course, but I am not sure beyond that.
No the receiver didn't discuss anything with me and I wouldn't expect him to. He just thanked me for letting him know about the SEC admin hearing. He provided clarification on the one question that I asked regarding the current function of the board and that was it.
I've offered on a number of occasions to use the website as a means for providing regular communication to shareholders during this process, but thus far he has yet to take me up on it.
Generally speaking, he is very tight-lipped and by the book, which I respect and appreciate.
I am sure the receiver has the authority to review any claims for pay that is owed. I'd imagine that since they are all still directors, they would be, at the very least, compensated for board related activities in accordance with the articles, bylaws and committee charters.
I spoke to the receiver this morning and notified him of the SEC action. He hadn't apparently been served with papers yet.
I also clarified with him something that I had heard from another shareholder earlier this week. Our board of directors as of the status quo order still exist and can function as a board under the supervision of the receiver. The board was not dissolved by the judge's order. I have no idea what this means moving forward considering the immense amount of internal strife on the board - but there it is for folks who were confused about this.
Great response - I think that pretty much clears it up for those of us who had questions. Appreciated.
Right I get that - but what if you can't sell it? So at 3 bucks a share, it just sits in your brokerage account valued at millions of dollars, how does that impact insurance valuation and other stuff?
I apologize for the questions - I've just never had to deal with this before.
You have an interesting point. I'd be interested in knowing how this would affect claiming a loss on next year's taxes if the final value was 3 bucks.
Anyone know how this works?
Yeah this is a pretty sad state of affairs we find ourselves in as shareholders.
Perhaps this will give the receiver an opportunity to clear the air by officially responding and showing up to the hearing. What a mess.
I've stickied your post since it is pretty important. Thanks for digging this up.
Honestly do you just make this stuff up to get under people's skin?? I have not spoken to him an have no intention of making any requests or demands. Do you take me for a fool? And who is this that is posting elsewhere making these kinds of allegations?
I got caught up in meetings at work today and wasn't able to call until almost two hours after I said I would. The easiest explanation is that he simply was not available when I called. Over the last few months I have had the opportunity to interact or speak with shareholders that represent roughly 40 million shares. I have yet to speak with Drago directly so I reached out to him. I do my own due diligence and whenever possible, prefer to talk to people directly. All of you are welcome to speculate one way or another, but I thought it may be worthwhile to speak to our largest shareholder (good, bad or otherwise) and hear his take on recent events.
I've been tied up in meetings all day so far. I left him a voice mail this afternoon.
Something like that... I don't recall what the share split is between drago and his lawyer is. There was some talk of the shares being in his wife's name too awhile back.