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.
Wow are areburner and his CC friends naive or what!!!! His words regarding CC's offer to CTC:
Such offers are material events and the SEC requires that they be announced within 72 hours.)
I think these guys get their business expertise from reading RB posts and talking among each other. I believe none of them have ever been an officer in a corporation.
FACT: SEC regulation does not define the term "material" but relies on definition established in case law. Material events are subject to interpretation by the company (CTC), not someone trying to place an order with the company or loan the company money. If this were so, the business world would come to a halt under the weight of disclosures on non-substantive matters. That would mean Microsoft would have to file a public disclosure on every proposal that they receive.
FACT: CTC has never disclosed other offers they turned down or considered, why, because they are not material events. Once they accept an offer it becomes material, not before.
FACT: The CC proposal is only material to CC and some freaks who want to believe in what they espouse.
Hello, hello, CC - the reason CTC hasn't contacted you is because they are not interested! Hello - did you ever try to get a date with someone who didn't want to go out with you. Ignoring you is tantamount to saying no. I swear these guys think they have God on their side!
There is no need to publish what CC offered - it's already public record in the court and been discussed here. But go ahead - it will just get shot full of holes, again. All anyone needs to know is why would CTC do business through a middle man (CC) when they can do business directly with JFE?
Remember the famous line from Jerry Maguire? I don't mean "Show Me the Money" (although that also fits). I mean the line delivered from Renée Zellweger to Cruise, "You had me from hello". Well CC lost CTC's interest from before hello from their guerilla tactics. They couldn't have tried to start a relationship any worse than they did and no amount of letters or congratulatory PR's will change the impression of them. They still remain insignificant shareholders trying to make their case on a bulletin board.
Here's the full pile of doo doo from areburner:
In response, I am not going to get into a "he said/she said" debate. It is a material fact that CTC has not contacted Cornerstone in any direct way other than presenting a letter to JR -- one that was addressed to CC, but never mailed to them. The letter that the Court received is part of the court record containing nothing in the line of "OK, well, show us what you got." Instead, it stated BB, the chief operating officer, was the wrong person to hand deliver its proposal to.
The two CC representatives who delivered to proposal to CTC and BB both left their cell numbers and various ways to contact CC in order to start negotiations, including offering to meet within 48 hours in Irvine and well as inviting them to Hudsonville to meet at CC's facility. Apparently CTC management felt that the best way to contact CC was through Derx and others on the message boards. The accusations of fake LOCs, weird church sects, phony orders, and now that CC has an invitation to "show us what you got," are all false. CTC is in receipt of no less than four (4) letters from CC requesting contact, so that terms can be NEGOTIATED in respect to CC's proposal.
This instance illustrates a pattern of conduct that would concern anyone who was prepared to loan $10,000,000 and enter into contracts to purchase core with time limitations and customer needs which need to be met. PRs, cute one liners, and false labels are insufficient to instill confidence in anyone, be they shareholders, debt holders, or customers and would be ultimately be just a catalyst to open the floodgates to a multitude of additional litigation.
I for one, have not seen a line of capital made readily available to this cash starved company. Lane Capital claims to do so, but it would do this by putting a superpriority claim on the one remaining significant asset that this company still owns. There is nobody in line to foolishly put $10,000,000 at risk without a vigilant shepherd casting a watchful eye. CTC's product potential has been the impetus by which capital has been invested in this company. This is what has caught CC's attention. Certainly, not as a result of BW's propensity to burn capital in litigation. CC has no interest in allowing BW to be in the position of threatening to go under if CC doesn't make serious concessions to negotiate a contract. This was the case of many creditors and former employees of CTC.
In closing, the "Q" came came off CPTC today. Cornerstone views this as a very good thing, but it still doesn't solve one penny of CTC's capital requirements. The offered letter of credit is still available and every shareholder should applaud this. It establishes a benchmark for borrowing that does not inclue the attachment of the intellectual properties. I laymans's terms, this holds management to a standard higher than the terms that they negotiatied in the Lane Capital financing package, where a superpriority claim was attached to the IP. This clearly does NOT serve the best interests of the shareholders.
For those of you who doubt my validity and accuracy, for my next post, I will attempt to procure a copy of one of the letters that CTC management has been keeping from the shareholders. (Such offers are material events and the SEC requires that they be announced within 72 hours.)
Rommel and others that post good stuff - KEEP IT UP! I usually let CTC know if there is a potential opportunity that shows up in the news, and in this case on iHub. I contacted them regarding your GE post. They were very thankful - in this case they were already in touch and working on it but you never know, so...keep up the good info!!!
rommel120 - Your post regarding GE investing in 3rd world transmission lines was quite timely! There is interaction with CTC & GE in this area. Off and on CTC has been involved with some planning for new transmission in Brazil.
You may or may not know one of CTC's divisions is planned to go into the construction of transmission lines which would be leased to the utilities. I believe the acronym of this division is TTC (which coincidently was the acronym of CTC before going public). This is what GE Energy Finance is all about.
Time to revisit the CC offer to buy core from CTC. I have a copy of it but am too lazy to read it again. The following is close enough:
- It's an offer, not an order.
- The offer is contingent to CTC accepting CC demands for board of director seats and provides shares of CTC stock to CC at something around 1.20 each.
- The "order" part of the offer is for core only. There is no price attached to the core they want to buy. They included all sizes of core. There are no delivery dates or release schedules.
Here's why the deal won't work:
CC has slandered people at CTC
CC objected to the CTC financing
CC objected to CTC BK plan
CC has tried to partner with JFE behind CTC's back
CC used CTC's Chinese agent (at the time), ACTS, to arrange meetings with JFE
CC contacted CTC shareholders to present the plan
CC presented the plan on RB
CC has absolutely no expertise in engineering transmission lines and is totally incapable of selling the core/cable.
CC has absolutely no experience in engineering the connectors and hardware.
CC is only trying to sell the core to one customer - JFE.
JFE is incapable of providing the engineering support required to support ACCC sales without the help of CTC.
JFE is incapable of providing engineering support for hardware selection and installation without assistance from CTC or Burndy.
Burndy, the hardware supplier, is CTC's licensed partner for CTC designed hardware.
JFE is not qualified to wrap the core to GC specifications. GC will be required to certify the process.
GC is CTC's partner, not CC's of JFE's partner.
Why in the world would CTC put CC, a middleman with 0 years of experience in their industry, in charge of their product in the largest potential market in the world?
If JFE is capable of selling ACCC to State Grid, CTC is willing to deal directly with JFE - CC is not needed!
Clara has been writing for the Hutchinson News for some time. I used to be in regular contact with her regarding the Kingman project. It's good to see them back on track - helped I'm sure in no small measure by the city of Kingman and CTC working things out.
Update to Top 10 (now 12) reasons to dump Raging Bull for iHub:
Top 10 (now 12) reasons to post at iHub:
10. You can add a signature.
9. No annoying flashing banners.
8. Easy to use HTML bold, underline and italic text features.
7. You can post pretty pictures, charts etc.
6. Quick response from moderators. You actually can communicate with them!
5. Less down time.
4. Easy to post URL links.
3. No double posts.
2. No Ooooops sorry!
2. You can edit a message after it was posted.
1. You're limited to 15 posts a day unless you pay.
1a. When CTC loses the "Q" you can still post! (How many days did it take RB to figure it out?)
1b. No annoying audio advertising!
The stuff is spooled on wheels smaller than the large wire cable spools it eventually gets put on when wrapped - it bends but obviously doesn't break. The amount of core on a spool should match the length of cable that is put on a spool.
Investabot & Guns - There is no experience in composites with the exception of Van Middle who tried a stint at sales at CTC with no success.
As Flippy said - just insert "local pizza joint" in any of their offers or posts and that says it all.
To have dealt with them is to know them. As long as they and theirs sell their agenda I will respond to the poop. Nothing else needs be said.
mbiz - What is your field of expertise? If I remember correctly it was engineering and you were looking for a different job. Correct me if I'm wrong. As for employment - in my local travels I run across elec. mfg. companies that are hiring.
Readers beware - don't forget the not so distant past. Many of the bashers who show up have had some affiliation with CTC, lest we forget St and XF?
Those that have the biggest bone to pick flock together on RB. If you grouped them you would have a collection of litigants and ex-employees of which some are shareholders.
Another pile of dooo from CC on RB...
"The managers of CPTC don't give a rats behind about the stockholders, on top of that they can't be trusted as far as you could throw them. I am tired of getting pounded by the patsies that currently occupy the halls of our leaders offices. CC is not going to go away because we want to see this company succeed, with that all of the shareholders will make money. That is a lot more than what is being said at HQ right now.
So CTC management doesn't care about shareholders. Does anyone know how often shareholders come out of a Chapter 11 with all their shares intact? Hmmm, ever hear of K-Mart, Independence Air, Delphi, Worldcom, etc. Shareholders were screwed, glued, and tattooed. I wonder who made the decision to honor the shareholders? Could it be BW?
Let's get this straight, CTC doesn't care a rat's behind "some" shareholders with "some" defined as the gang of litigants including CC.
So doggy boy doesn't like getting heat from shareholders? I can certainly speak for those he despises most and characterizes as occupying space at CTC - sorry fido, none work there, none are vendors, none are partners only shareholders. Just accept the fact no one buys the CC story either at the company or within the shareholders.
More stupid stuff on RB from the Cornerstone gang...
CTC is currently in receipt of a PO and LOC from Cornerstone.
Neither "BS" nor "Gone", it's this type of false posting that Triplet dad is trying to remedy.
You're either an outright liar or seriously misinformed!
Another pile of poop from CC - An order isn't an order until accepted by both parties! Poor CC, the only audience they get is on RB!
The people that give any credit to CC are either are totally unaware of what it takes to make up an order for CTC or they are CC associates.
How many carpet cleaning, mini-blind, and credit card offers did anyone receive this past week? All mine go into the blue recycling container. Get the similarity?
Sorry in advance to any Jehovah's Witness believers for the comparison. Does anyone else see the analogy to JW missionaries ringing your doorbell and handing you a Watchtower to CC trying to get CTC to take them seriously?
M-biz - Sorry, I don't have a facility. Not sure about the dilution you're referring to. Certainly CTC will need more financing - I'm not sure how they will handle it. There are 2 more rounds to finish out the BK financing if needed.
GNBT booshed in the last hour - up 20%
trips - Wow, many questions. First off, I have never met Bonderman. I understand Bonderman has had a good deal of success in China. I believe he had a problem with going to China in a JV where you are the minority - many people have a problem with that.
As for China - the only real question that needs to be answered is who can get the business from State Grid. State Grid, like the country it's in has many provincial chiefs. I have a feeling JFE might be in good shape with a small part of the whole. All eggs in their basket while you're a minority is a bad recipe.
My impression of the TP Oregon deal gone bad is that Oregon has trouble with outsiders. Bonderman is a little too much "type A" for a "I'm Ok You're OK" tree hugger state. No offense Oregonians! Although if you guys were a little more Type A maybe the Ducks could get a BCS berth!
I think the TP Oregon deal was after meeting with CTC.
trips - I agree 10,000%. CTC needs to be marketed better to the general investor. Certainly their web site, particularly the home page needs professional help. It looks like engineering did it in their spare time on a windoz PC with Front Page. I prefer a graphics designer out of the marketing group using a Mac.
Another dog pile from RB. I'm getting tired of cleaning up doo doo. You're going to have to do better than silly conjectures to get a response the next time.
Let's analyze this pile of poop:
bd1: Why don't you explain your connection with company.
I'm just a lowly class 3 creditor according to BK court - i.e. shareholder. Nothing more, nothing less. I was one of the first 7 investors, participated in 4 private placements and have purchased hundred's of 000's shares in the open market. Didn't sell before BK or after and own more now than ever (don't tell my wife!). I believe in the horse that got us this far, further than 3M despite all their political, marketing and financial power. In addition to being there for CTC with $$$ I have testified for CTC in public and government venues. It's easy to throw rocks. What have you done for CTC?
db1: The nice machines that you sold to CPTC at a sizable markup. Business, right, your just trying to make a buck. You know that if anyone else gets in and runs this company your history.
When CTC changes from making composites to manufacturing electronics I might have something to sell them. I'm just hoping to make a few bucks when I start selling my shares
db1: In regards to your comment from Judge Ryan saying CPTC has a good management team in place, another total lie. Now that your batting o for two lets get the things out there.
Actually, the judge from Norway has me 2 for 2. Since the court doesn't allow pets I assume you weren't there. You'll just have to take my word for it or any of the others that have posted the same who were there. The statement came in his positive comments regarding the company just prior to accepting their plan.
db1: The financing deal that Lane might be able to put together would probably tie up the intellectual property rights. Is that really in the best interest of the shareholders? I don't think so. Right now that is all there is and they are willing to sign them over with a new financing package, with that the parties over for all the shareholders. You think thats a good idea, I sure as heck don't.
Here's some logic even a dog could understand. The CC boys were banking on CTC needing money in BK and having to give up intellectual property to get, as stated by CC in my meeting with them. CC thought CTC would need CC cause CC didn't want the intellectual property. They were wrong - that's why CC filed an objection to the CTC BK financing. They knew if the Judge allowed that financing they were dead, they had nothing to offer. As for Lane, the testimony speaks for itself - it was his opinion, highlighted by his infamous "Can I borrow your phone?" statement, that CTC will get better terms after BK approval than the terms they got in BK. So, here comes the logic, if the guy who got the financing for CTC in BK didn't ask for intellectual property then, and testified the terms would be better after BK, why would CTC give it up now when they are in a much favorable position?
db1: Now your batting o-for 3. If you want to post to the members of this board please start telling the truth and then just for kicks let everyone know your connections in the past with the machines that CPTC has purchased.
dboy - Even the Russian judge has me 3 for 3! OK, you got me, here's the truth about my connections with the CTC machines...
...did you get it, nothing in the line above is there? Just what I sell to CTC, nothing.
db1: You got a sweetheart deal before, hopefully that is not what is in store for all the shareholders in the future. You've already made some nice money, now why don't you go take a nice walk and count the money you've made off the shareholders. Too bad the OIL for FOOD program isn't still going on, you'd probably be just the right guy that Saddam would want to have helping him sell his oil.
Ooops, I'm sorry, I need to come clean...you ARE a sly doggie! Hey everybody dboy has a scoop, too bad it's full of poop! Here it is...CTC is out of the composites business and is into electronic dog collars. I sold them the manufacturing equipment and have rights to the first 100,000 collars! What a sweetheart deal for me. You shareholders are a bunch of suckers! Here you thought CTC was playing for billions in the energy market, instead they fooled you and are making high tech dog collars and I got the market cornered. Whooo Hooo
To RB CC fans:
CTC has much more attractive options for financing than CC. The CC offer is not in the least attractive to CTC or to any significant shareholder I know. The CC offer was made with the goal of controlling the company. CTC will never give control of the company away for financing and I as a shareholder would rally everyone I know to prevent any participation by CC with CTC.
As Mr Lane said on the stand, he was able to get 16 million in a matter of days for CTC while in BK without CTC giving them something special, such as intellectual rights. The judge also commented on the uniqueness of CTC in regards to getting financing in BK and the speed of which CTC was able to exit. One other comment from JR - his opinion of CTC management was that it was seasoned and capable (and needs to concentrate now on revenue). CC is not in any way seasoned or mature. Lane also testified CTC would be able to get much more attractive financing once out of BK. I expect them to do that if needed and CC will not be part of the plan.
Please be specific in regards to lies regarding CC. Have you met them? Have you read their correspondence? By now I'm sure they wished they would have chosen another name! Have you met them? I doubt if you have, and if you have you are one of them!
As for their so-called order. Do you know what it takes to make orders actually happen with utilities? Do you know the responsibilities involved? The CC order is far from reality - and again, why would CTC do business with a middleman if they can do business directly with JFE?
THE JOURNAL REPORT: TRENDS
Soaring Prices -- and the Consequences
By REBECCA SMITH
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 21, 2005; Page R4
High energy prices are creating a heavy energy burden for U.S. households. And with winter right around the corner, utilities and the regulators who oversee them are bracing for lots of second-guessing about whether they've done enough to protect the public against price increases.
Current prices are "very scary," says Jeanne Fox, president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
With deregulation of the electricity and natural-gas industries nearing its third decade, officials have fewer tools for controlling the commodity cost increases. State utility commissions still regulate retail markets, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over wholesale natural-gas and electricity markets. And increases in wholesale prices can be passed on to consumers without the states having much ability to stop it.
Many energy companies that were expected to report strong third-quarter earnings actually showed they are having as much difficulty as retail consumers managing the risks of volatile prices. Some utilities didn't have enough electricity under contract or available from their own generating plants to meet their consumers' needs and had to go onto the open market to buy extra electricity at extremely high prices. Others got slapped with unexpectedly high fuel bills to run their power plants, or made mistakes trying to hedge against rising prices by entering special contracts. Such hiccups are expected to continue, with the added costs eventually working their way to the consumer.
"I'm very concerned about the impact of high energy prices on the economy," says Joel Staff, chief executive of Houston-based Reliant Energy Inc., a power generator that reported problems with its hedging program. "I don't think it's something the economy can sustain for very long."
Among the trends:
1 > HOT, HOT GAS PRICES
Surging natural-gas prices are expected to cost the average U.S. household 48% more this winter -- $350 more for heating homes, water and food, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gas costs have doubled over the past year to about $13 per million BTUs.
Pricey gas also drives up the cost of the roughly 20% of the nation's supply of electricity that's made by burning natural gas. High gas costs hurt gas utilities as well, since consumers likely will cut back on usage, reducing revenues.
Utilities this winter are expected to agitate at state utility commissions for new rate structures that change the way they're compensated. Instead of volume-based fees that produce more dollars the more gas is consumed, utilities want to collect a fee of several dollars a month for each meter served. A shift to flat fees would make it more likely gas companies would support conservation programs instead of fearing them.
2 > HIGH VOLTAGE
In some states, periods of frozen rates that accompanied a move to deregulated markets are ending soon. Utilities are out in the market trying to buy electricity for coming years, and the high prices they're being offered, as a result of higher natural-gas prices, are causing customers heartburn.
Commonwealth Edison, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., bought electricity for its Chicago-area customers under a 10-year, fixed-price contract that ends late next year. ComEd has proposed to buy electricity through a wholesale auction after that. But many elected officials are opposed, fearing it would mean a windfall profit to ComEd's sister company, which owns a fleet of nuclear-power plants and would bid into that auction. That would translate into high prices for ComEd customers and big Exelon profits.
"The underlying question is this: Was ComEd's generation truly deregulated back in 1997?" asks John Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon. He thinks the state needs to hold to its end of the bargain and let ComEd buy power at market prices from all suppliers, including its unregulated affiliate, Exelon Generation.
Many similar dust-ups are likely as regulators try to undo aspects of deregulation deals that now look onerous to consumers. This could erode investor confidence and lead to lawsuits.
3 > SOME RELIEF
Funding for a federal program to help low-income people pay their utility and heating bills has been stuck at about $1.8 billion for years. Now, with energy prices high, there's momentum in Congress to raise the funding so more people can be helped. Nearly half the Senate is calling for an extra $1.28 billion in funding for the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Separately, hundreds of so-called "fuel funds" that distribute money from the federal assistance program and state programs are working harder this year to get direct donations from the public as well. The funds hope the federal government will increase its funding. They're also getting more donations from utilities, since shutoffs generate bad publicity and increase uncollectible debt.
4 > RENEWABLES FLOURISH
High natural-gas prices are proving good for alternative fuels, especially the wind industry. In some places like Colorado and parts of Texas, it's now cheaper for consumers to sign up for green energy programs giving them electricity from wind turbines than it is to buy electricity from gas-fired and coal-fired units.
"Some things are starting to line up that put us on the verge of some exciting times," says Douglas Faulkner, assistant U.S. energy secretary.
The price-competitiveness of renewable power will put more momentum behind state laws that mandate a certain proportion of a state's energy supply must come from non-fossil-fuel sources.
For the first time in two decades, big California utilities also are getting behind the development of utility-scale solar installations. Two are proposed for Southern California. If the plan works, the solar dish technology probably will be picked up elsewhere in the Southwest.
5 > GETTING TOGETHER
Now that the recent energy bill rescinded a Depression-era law that set restrictions on utility mergers, it is easier than at any time since the 1920s to put together big utility companies.
Most industry watchers expect more mergers, though state utility commissions still can prevent a transaction if they decide it's not in the public interest. So far, commissions have been cool to proposals involving private investment from groups such as Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. But commissions are thought to be amenable to interests that pledge to buy and hold.
The biggest combinations pending are between Exelon and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. of Newark, N.J.; Duke Energy Corp. of Charlotte, N.C., and Cinergy Corp., of Cincinnati; and PacifiCorp, the Portland, Ore., unit of ScottishPower PLC, and Des Moines, Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Holdings Inc., itself a unit of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., of Omaha, Neb.
Many industry advisers believe consolidation is good in a period of rising commodity prices. "State regulators should be fully supporting consolidation, even requiring it, as a way to reduce rate increases," through the sharing of merger savings, says George Bilicic, an investment banker for Lazard Freres & Co. State officials often fear consolidation will mean job cuts, less reliability and erosion in local accountability.
6 > FOXHOLE CONSERVATIONISTS
High energy prices can make a conservationist out of anyone. Customer-funded rebate programs will offer more money to encourage purchases of energy-efficient appliances, insulation, thermal-paned windows and the like. Many new gizmos will be road-tested, too.
Utilities in California are considering installing millions of advanced meters that would track household energy usage throughout the day, making variable rates possible that would reward conservation when it was especially needed, like on hot summer days.
7 > PAY MORE LATER?
Regulators and utilities may work out deals where some utility costs get deferred for collection in future years. Used wisely, this can be a good thing to shield consumers from rising costs.
But in some cases, the companies could run up big tabs that are hidden from customers. It might amount to a "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" scenario for utilities, in which customers continue to consume an expensive commodity because they don't see the higher price in their current bills, and utilities later would be reimbursed the full cost, with interest.
8 > TRANSMISSION CRITICAL
Most experts agree that more transmission lines are needed around the nation to let electricity move more freely. In general, the larger the effective market area, the lower the cost to consumers.
The most glaring example of poor interstate connectedness is Texas, where the state's biggest utilities formed their own mini-grid decades ago. The effect today is that it keeps cheaper power outside Texas from coming in. The state historically has favored this setup because it keeps retail and wholesale electricity markets under state control. But the status quo could come under attack if Texans get tired of paying higher prices than they see friends and relatives paying outside the state.
9 > LOSING POWER
In many places, independent generators still are on the ropes, burdened with heavy debt loads. Few new plants are being built because generators say they can't get financing for projects based on speculative needs -- and many experts fear shortages of electricity if that doesn't change soon. California experienced blackouts this summer, and other states could follow as demand rises.
One proposed solution is for power buyers to make "capacity payments" that compensate generators for having plants standing by. Generators could use the extra funds to build new plants, even if all the capacity weren't immediately needed.
This is already being done in New York, and capacity markets are being considered in New England, the Mid-Atlantic region and California. But opponents -- who far outnumber supporters -- say the payments would cost billions of dollars and wouldn't guarantee that any new plants got built.
10 > LINES THAT TALK
Modern electronics are reshaping the industry. Advanced transmission systems employ sensors that give grid operators a lot more information about what's happening on the network -- and give them more ability to take corrective action when things start going wrong.
New kinds of power lines also enable utilities to move more electricity. Composite Technology Corp., Irvine, Calif., has developed a cable with a composite core that can move far more electricity than conventional cable of the same diameter. That means it can be strung on existing towers, increasing the throughput.
Some technical innovations could lead to whole new businesses for utilities, such as broadband over power lines, or BPL, in which high-voltage power lines carry voice communications and Internet services. A home served by BPL lets consumers get instant Internet access from any wall socket. But the potential goes way beyond that simple use: Any piece of equipment that plugs into an electric outlet could become a two-way communications device. Imagine Coke vending machines that automatically send alerts to the local distributor when they're running low on cans.
"There are huge ramifications," says Ray Blair, a vice president at International Business Machines Corp. who's working on a broadband initiative. "Every plug in a building could talk to every plug in any other building." But for the technology to take off, he says, regulators "have to get behind it."
So far, Texas and California have done the most to remove regulatory barriers to BPL.
--Ms. Smith is a Wall Street Journal staff reporter in San Francisco.
Cockamamie RB post of the day by bigdog_ca1...
....Bill and Benton do not like to deal with issues at hand and have a very hard time getting back to people that want to negotiate. Believe it or not they actually get the messages when they are posted here on RB. That is one reason why the forum is being used by Cornerstone. There is a saying a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. What are your thoughts now. More about the Cornerstone group will follow. Sparty67, you seem like a bright guy, I hope this information has been of some help.
CTC doesn't listen to CC because they are a joke, an insignificant group of religious zealot shareholders that know nothing about composites and nothing about the technology / knowledge required to make this product work. They think they can do a better job? Give me a break, all they knew is how to listen to ACTS. ACTS is gone, done, they have nothing to do with CTC. They got their shares and they are history. ACTS couldn't get the deal done correctly in China. CC is a one-trick pony. They think they can put up an order for core, give it to JFE and China is done. Good grief!
If CTC was going to trust JFE with all the China business why would they use CC? They could just go ahead with the proposed JV and get on to twiddling their thumbs waiting for JFE to bring more non-standard size, insignificant orders from State Grid. So what's CTC's choice for China? For sure it's not a bunch of small-share-holding, back-stabbing, bible-toting no-nothings who buddied up to the CTC agent (ACTS, who for months was on the outs with CTC and is now truly out) and bought a plane trip to China and think they sold to State Grid.
Look at CTC's partners, GC, EDF, Burndy, Pow-Line etc. Look how CTC has accomplished more than 3M going head to head, toe to toe in the marketplace. Then look at CC, a Nolo Press $100 corporation with absolutely no experience, a family member/friend with a building in MI, and a bank account. Wooo hooo, granny, let's rev up ole nellie and head to Beverly Hills! This is the NFL, not the local mighty mite pee wee league.
The only forum CC has is RB! They tried their story on shareholders who actually have shares, they tried BK court and got nothing but eyebrow raises and snickers. Add it up CC - your votes / opinions mean nothing. Your Rb friends (if there are any) mean nothing. The 24 million shares that showed up in court + BW + BA easily trump you and anybody you can bring to the game.
willy - Someone posted on RB a link to a picture TM of CC. This is not the TM of CC.
I will not post their names despite the fact they attempted to post personal info on me. Use of personal names is a violation within the code of ethics of most bulletin boards, including iHub and RB. You can get their personal info from Pacer. I assume it's the same documents I have in my possession which is a compilation of their court filings and includes their Bios.
The important thing to know about CC is....they are not important, they are insignificant and strange. CTC is not in any way interested in them or their goofy order/offer.
Speaking of CC. TM posted in response to my post on iHub (post # 3646) about being Catholic and not related to any "Christian" weirdoes. He may not be but CC communication certainly exhibits an obtuse version of Christian lingo. The CC post by TM provided a lot of humor within CTC. They particularly enjoyed the the nicknames CC gave them.
Very funny and at least significant as the CC PR!
Someone needs to wake up at CC. What is their purpose? They slam management before forming their venture, as shareholders with a pittance of shares they threaten to bring management down by forcing their company (named in reference to the new religious wackos) down CTC's throat, they object to CTC exiting BK in court and lose, all the while claiming they want to buy ACCC core but only if CTC accepts their demands for a board of directors. Quite a group of friendly guys! Then they PR CTC as if CTC will look favorably on them. Do they really think CTC takes their order seriously?
WOW! This is a group that thinks they can manage a company/product which could be vital to the nations grid?
Why didn't they put in their PR they were unsuccessful to stopping CTC from exiting BK?
The CC guys are soooooooooo wierd! The ugly girl can't find a partner at the dance!
willy -
Michigan PUC - http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc
Electricity group at PUC - http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,1607,7-159-16377---,00.html
Grid maps - http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/elecmaps.htm
All transmission companies that serve MI - http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/tolinks.htm
CTC WSJ Article...
CTC is mentioned in a very positive light in this article on utility investing ideas!
CTC in Wall Street Journal! Sweet!
CTC receives a favorable mention in today's Wall Stree Journal, page R4.
"New kinds of power lines also enable utilities to move more electricity. Composite Technology Corp., Irvine, California, has developed a cable with a composite core that can move far more electricity than conventional cable of the same diameter. That means it can be strung on existing towers, increasing the throughput."
A sample of dumb stuff posted on Raging Bull:
There was no amnesia in court by BA and BW. BA was never asked a question about his shares. BW was asked a question that related to his shares and his response was something like, "in as much as 21 (Million) is greater than 19 (million)" when asked about the Koch claim for shares in relation to those that he owns. The Judge would not let the CC attorney go down the encumbrance path with BW. No amnesia.
"It's my understanding that the Pacer testimony of BW & BA (as posted by you) show that BW & BA had a questionable case of amnesia when responding to a direct question on the stand regarding the amount of their shares that they had pledged or encumbered."
BW does not own a majority of the company. BW and BA combined do not own a majority of the company! This is public information reported to the SEC. Be careful with your facts. CTC has been interviewing candidates for the BOD. It's not just an exercise."
Since BW owns a majority of the company, I don't see him establishing a BOD, that's not within his ego frame. It'll be a drawback for "street" investors and I wonder how a big board listing will look without a BOD.
This one is kinda funny cause this person used to work there. You'd think they know a little bit more about the makeup. OK, maybe 1/3 is a lions share in their mind. (B + B = 40 mm. TOS = 120 mm) However, this is the classic definition of an old saying dating back to the 1700's - "The greater part or most of something, as in Whenever they won a doubles match, Ethel claimed the lion's share of the credit, or As usual, Uncle Bob took the lion's share of the cake. This expression alludes to Aesop's fable about a lion, who got all of a kill because its fellow hunters, an ass, fox, and wolf, were afraid to claim their share."
"Out of curiosity, what makes you think our vote on BOD will amount to a hilll of beans? BW/BA control the lions share of stock and votes. I just hope they attract good candidates to start with.
guns - You can review this plan and check into the board members to see if there is someone who should hear the message: http://www.nprb.state.ne.us/report_2004/
Most of the state is probably handled by this cooperative: http://www.nrea.org/
Good luck!
garth - Let me add to your thoughts...
...per Koch close associate, Koch is a gambler. I tend to believe him as he gambled big and won big (6.5 mil shares). Gamblers hate to lose (not hate to lose money, but hate to lose). The next gamble is playing the market to maximize share value. Do you:
a. short big time on this 3.25 mm shares (less attorney fees and less Tarbox) to try to get even more shares at a low pps but put your future 3.25 mm shares at risk
b. wait for PPS rise to execute a.
c. wait for PPS rise to take $$$ off the table slowly while waiting for the next 3.25 mm shares
d. wait for your other 3.25 mil shares to do anything, you can always sell along the way if things don't look good
e. give up the game, cross the entire amount and walk away from the table
f. give up the game, immediately sell the entire amount in the market
Some of what might happen could be affected by paying attorneys and Tarbox.
Geez - you guys go way too far into this junk!.
FYI: A quick Google search on the wording. I only included a few results.
http://www.allbusiness.com/forms/financing/190.html
http://ronald.cori.missouri.edu/cori_kbase/2003-03/17324_dex421.html
http://www.earningsview.com/ev/322/910322/0000950117-04-000958/ex4-1.txt
http://www.shareholder.com/lh/EdgarDetail.cfm?CIK=920148&FID=920148-02-15&SID=02-00
CTC isn't in the business of printing forms or determining what is printed on a form ordered out of a catalog. Whomever (I assume the transfer agent) orders up blank stock certs that conform to SEC requirments from a form supplier. That wording is on the stock form and the transfer agent fills in the blanks, ie Company name, date, no. of shares, purchaser, etc. This is no different than filling out any pre-printed document bound by federal and/or state law. A loan application is a good example.
I don't remember if CTC changed transfer agents in mid 2003 or maybe the transfer agent ran out of forms after the Feb 2003 offering and the new ones they ordered had different wording. The boilerplate stock cert form used at the time of the Feb 2003 offering, the offering Koch reneged on, which I also participated in, has different wording. The Sep 2003 offering that I participated in is on a differnet boilerplate stock cert that contains the language now in question. Had Koch lived up to his agreement, in 2004 he would have received a warrants cert for the Feb 2003 offering that had the wording in question.
People get in a tizzy regarding 3M and California. Somebody posted a very old 3M document on Raging Bull. This comes from early 2004, well over a year old.
You can see it at;
http://www.electricity.doe.gov/documents/TRPeerReviewPresentations/Deve_Herve.pdf
Bottom line for 3M and CA is this - they tried it, and so far....they hate it! They have discovered the real issues, the same issues others have discovered in the industry (EDF for one). Stay tuned - "CTC is running silent and deep in CA" and will soon surface.
Why not let em slug it out in State Court!
Won't happen - Koch will never get a better deal and he knows it.
FWIW - The verbage "This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation..." is standard boilerplate language, I guess Koch hasn't seen a certificate in a while!
kids - Unless size shows up there is absolutely nothing to determine from the trades. Sideways plus or minus .10 is OK by me for a while. The fact we don't go lower on the lack of volume and news is encouraging.
Nice steady events are what CTC needs. Pending AEP event, PCorp, Kingman order, shipment of cable to China are not revelation's - just confirmation CTC is moving ahead. I believe these events, when confirmed, along with erasure of the "Q" will bring some volume.
FWIW - CTC has very few shareholders. Remember - we had about 50 investors represent almost 50% of the float show up at BK. These people are long. That doesn't leave a lot of the shares on the table for trading so it won't take much volume with some positive news to move the PPS. The key for CTC is to preach the story to a larger audience.
Good luck to all!
Thanks T-Dad! Don't you love it - the acne that never seems to go away.
mrclean - The Gov has had meetings where CTC was discussed. He may have a sample of the cable. For sure the ex head of his energy task force (now serving as Chairman of Ca Energy Commission) has a sample and is aware of the technology.
Probably a stretch though to think he would promote it in China.
garth - Agreed. No one estimated the snail-like progress the utilities make towards using new/better technology in grid development. The Energy Bill with FERC determining what's reliable will be a big boost.
Long CTC investors can appreciate 3M's continued interest in the market. They do not enter a market without potential high revenues and even higher profits. I used to do business with them. They have very solid people and solid business practice. They like to enter the market early and reap large margins as the technology catches on. By the time competitors catch up and profits go down they have covered all development costs and then will compete on price.
I hope 3M doesn't lose interest unless it's because they determine they can't compete with CTC/GC. If I was keeping score I would say 3M has the lead in govt. affiliated test sites and CTC has the lead in commercial test sites and sales. I would gladly let 3M test for WAPA while CTC books business with AEP/Pacificorp types. Since CTC knocked 3M out of the box with EDF I haven't heard a whiff of 3M int'l dealings. It appears that CTC has the int'l lead due to EDF and their business in China (although China seems quite convoluted).
patsy63 - Thanks for the post. Actually I wrote a similar message yesterday and decided not to post it - it doesn't matter how many times I respond to him. He just doesn't get it.
He has an issue with me not coming out against those that may have sold prior to BK. Can he read? For some reason he is unable to draw the conclusion that the people who were posting BK info on RB prior to May 5th and the others speaking of BK before the fact ended up in litigation together against CTC. If he read and comprehended my posts regarding those people he would know where I stand. Certainly they did based on their responses, not only on iHub and RB, but to me personally.
It better be good if needabreak posted it!
The data comes from a boilerplate presentation by CTC. It was used ina presentation available on the web. Do a Google for: Submission to the Electricity Commission Auckland Transmission Upgrade Consultation Alternatives. It's Exhibit D.
lent - You missed the most important part of my post, I bought on 5/4. Why would I buy then if I believed they would BK? Because the PPS would rise with the announcement? We all know that didn't happen! If you still want to use your flawed analogy that's fine (although it doesn't make sense and in itself indicates nothing) but it only explains my absence from 5:48 (RB time) on 5/3 on cause here's the most important fact - checked my cell records. On May 3rd, 2:48 local time, 2 hours after the close, I fielded a call from Michigan re: BW is a jerk and CTC is gonna file for BK.
Don't forget, CTC had to release a PR the day after BK as the BK PR did not specifically say the shareholders were protected. The original BK PR only mentioned Debenture Holder protection and Creditors. Normal folks, me included, don't realize SH can be grouped in with Creditors. There was a statement that said relationships with SH were important but nothing that gave me comfort. So, on BK day after the market close I was able to reach BW and he assured me the SH would be protected. During this call I informed him that someone called me on 5/3 to slam him and discuss BK. He thought that call was odd because that same caller called him on BK day to say he was a big buyer, big supporter.