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.
So my position is they should both be gone. I personally think that I'll sue Bibiyan and Ramon for breaching their fiduciary duties here, allowing the shell to go grey, not updating shareholders, etc. I'll probably do that in the state of incorporation not in the lovely state of California.
I think you would have many people willing to join you in this, myself included.
I agree there is plenty of crooked going around including Toledo's knowledge of the pump and dump that had been ongoing. I believe also that he tried to leverage that knowledge into a deal. What a surprise, the crooks didn't honor the agreement so Toledo doesn't pay the balance. Off to court for several years.
It does look like the judge recognizes the shareholder issue and the appearance of Toledo being in this for himself. I'm looking forward to the brief filing.
What really makes this interesting though, is that while all this is going on, Toledo has built what looks to be a very successful business, Busca Corp, based on the original Searchguy plans. How does that fit in?
1. You don't just magically get on the Pink Sheets, you apply to a market maker using a 211 form.
I'm confused now. I said you had to fill out one form and you freaked out saying it's hard to get listed. Now your saying it takes one form. Which is it? Maybe it's just hard for you to fill out one form? lol
Just my attempt at humor. You are obviously more versed in your acronyms than I am.
I should clarify though. Toledo may be aware of the number of outstanding shares now. At the time of the complaint, shares were still being issued and it was unknown how many had been issued, though it was estimated at over 100,000,000.
The only source of information I have is form the legal filings. It is very one sided since the defense has continued to attack the proceedure through delays instead of mounting any kind of defense against the accusations, such as producing corporate documents and records.
As for the issuance of stock that seems to have you stumped, I would agree that a non officer director of a public company would be unable to issue free trading shares. The issue here is still the same though. Ratchisky and Bibiyan did not resign their positions or transfer control of the company to Toledo as they had agreed. Instead they retained control and continued to issue shares to themselves through their Alter Egos including:
Florence equity LLC
Tabmeta Inc
Internetplays.com LLC
Rotund Entertainment LLC
Roughneck Holding LLC
Local Pacific LLC
DOES 1-50
I am curious what your position here is? Are you an investor in SHGY? Doesn't sound like your very simpathetic to the shareholder that have been screwed.
Are you just here for the show? You seem to know the cast of characters pretty well, but it's not a very interesting performance to an outsider.
Are you involved with the defendants in some way? I don't mind being told when I'm wrong about a proceedure or a form, but you really seem to be taking this a bit beyond trying to inform some idiot poster. You've put up more resistance here than the defense has against the actual legal complaint.
Did you have any part in forming any of the above LLCs? You seem to know which form to grab.
Obvoiously, you don't have to answer that. My postings here, as a shareholder only, were an attempt to inform other that were interested in the progress of the complaint as I have a Pacer account (yes, anyone can get one). I've also offered my opinion on what I predict or expect to happen as the case progresses.
Can you advise how you think Ramon will address the following?
"But it is not clear to the Court from the record, without further briefing, that Plaintiffs are free from economic interests antagonistic to the interests of similarly situated shareholders."
"The possible conflict between Plaintiffs' individual interests and the derivative claims, both brought in this case, raises sufficient concern about Plaintiffs' ability to fairly and adequately represent similarly situated shareholders that some briefing on the issue by Plaintiffs is warranted."
"Additionally, eight criteria are used to evaluate a plaintiff's adequacy, none of which have been addressed at this point."
Again, in the initial complaint, Schudel is prosectuing this case as a representative of the other shareholders. I read into this, whatever she gets, the shareholders of record get also.
It should be made cleared in the breif due 8/28/09. This is where the eight criteria should be addressed.
Do tell..how does a non officer director of a public company (even one as nonsensical as SHGY)issue common free trading shares LOL allegedly without a legal opinion too LMFAO?
According to the complaint, and that's all I have to go on, the initial settlement arrangement between Toledo, Ratchisky and Bibiyan called for Toledo to pay $150,000 in exchange for all shares of stock held both directly and indirectly by the Ratchisky and Bibiyan, the corporate binder and all documentation, and they were to resign their positions in the company.
After downpayment of $100,000, not only did Bibyan and Ratchisky fail to comply with the agreement in any form, they continued to issue shares to an alter ego.
Most companies do have a choice as to where they are listed and usually choose to be listed on best board they're qualified for.
Searchguy probably didn't choose to be on the pinks or grey, but it's a bit difficult to file a 10-q or 10-k when you don't know how many shares are outstanding.
I think trading should have been halted altogether.
I would have to say the company chose to have it listed this way for the time being in an attemt to curtail any more transactions. I believe they only need to fill out one form to return the shock to the pink sheets. It seems logical to stop the trading until the issue of the fraudulent shares is resolved.
This case is based on the allegation that Rachitsky and Bibiyan failed to deliver the corporate documents after payment by Toledo. Instead they began issueing a never ending stream of new shares to the market, thus destroying both the stock an the potential for the company to grow. This was a get money quick scheme that they apparently felt Toledo would roll over and chock up to "lessons learned". To his credit, he has stuck with it while continuing to build a viable company through Busca Corp.
Why should the shares be nullified? Why shouldn't they? They were all issued illegally. If you buy a stolen car off the street, the police don't let you keep it. Why should anyone keep stolen shares? Those that did purchase them could bring a civil case against Bibiyan to get their money back.
Toledo puchased a controlling intrest in the company. With all the millions of shares issued after that purchase, Toledo probably isn't even the largest shareholder anymore. How should that be rectified? Shouldn't he have the same percentage of the company as the day he bought controlling intrest. If you think he should, then shouldn't the rest of us that owned a percentage of the company at that date also retain the same percentage prior to the fraud.
Pre-trial conference has been moved to Oct 5, 2009.
Malgorzata Duszak (google her and her husband to get an idea of these characters) has been attempting to hijack the case from Toledo. Duszaks complaint is that she purchased shares without knowing about the legal action and doesn't feel represented. The judge denied all, but has required Searchguy to provide a brief explaining how they plan represent the shareholders adequetely. This brief is due 8/28/09.
From another poster on ihub.
Grey Sheet Shell Companies
A Grey Sheet Shell Company is a Pink Sheet that has not filed a 15c2-11. Due to this fact, all orders to purchase the accompanying stock must be unsolicited and the issue is “non-piggyback” qualified for market makers. This means that each market maker is responsible for conducting their own due diligence and cannot rely upon the due diligence of another market maker who has previously quoted a bid or ask price for the stock.
A Grey Sheet is a non-reporting entity and is sought out by companies who are interested in going public in the sense that they have a symbol, transfer agent and shareholder base, but do not have the immediate need for high liquidity and high trading volume of their stock. It is a sound vehicle for companies in need of capital in the amount of $1 million or less and can be ideal for conducting Rule 504 registered public offerings; Rule 504 accredited investor offerings and similar exempt intra-state offerings.
Grey Sheet Shells and their relevant offerings are generally for young or start-up companies that do not want to actively trade their stock and attract attention from the street until they have completed acquisitions; generated increased revenues or completed other short-term (less than five years) plans, but still desire the benefits of being a publicly traded company. These companies have the ability to: attract investors who want to know that there is an exit strategy in place for the near future; increase acquisition strength; attract venture capitalists; and enjoy the general status benefits of being a public entity.
Grey Sheets are also used by companies that already have a small number of shareholders to help them establish a larger shareholder base by conducting a 504 offering as discussed above. Typically, the NASD considers a shareholder base as a factor in approving 15c2-11 applications for market maker quotations on either the pink sheets or bulletin board. Consequently, and importantly, Grey Sheet Shells can assist companies establish a trading history through the 504 offering and with sophisticated investors, without the added expense of being a reported entity.
Since Grey Sheets do not qualify for short sales, the fear of short selling by the street is also eliminated. Also, because market makers may only quote unsolicited bids and asks and cannot “make a market” in a grey sheet stock, there is no concern of a market maker short selling the Grey Sheet stock either.
Grey Sheets can evolve into Pink Sheet Shells or Bulletin Board Shells by filing a Form 10 or similar registrations statement as well as a 15c2-11 application to be quoted on the bulletin board, and may even bypass the application to be quoted on the pink sheets.
Sounds like exactly the right place for SHGY. It should have been here long ago while the trial is ongoing. What's the use of having a market for shares that are illegitimate and will be wiped out?
10,000 shares at .022 amounts to only $220. Nothing new yet. The litigation is moving as fast as molasas on a cold day, but there are dates set to move things along. Aug 17th is the date set for the final pre-trial conference.
Of more interest is what is going to happen once the case is settled. All the shares sold after the change of control were illegitimate. Will they be cancelled, or will the legitimate share holders be lumped in with them. How will Busca Corp and Searchguy be combined? Searchguy is now a worthless product and Busca Corp has been progressing very well, but Busca Corp is the product of developing Searchguy.
I know that when this case is over, I feel I should own the same percentage of the combined Searchguy/Busca Corp as I did before all the fraud. Anything less would continue to be fraud.
Nothing much new on Pacer. Still briefing and re-breifing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date History
7/27/2009 Due APPENDIX
1/9/2009 Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
3/25/2009 Appellee or Cross Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
6/3/2009 Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
7/17/2009 Cross Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ / Appendix Filing Date
/ / Disposition: ; by
/ / Mandated on
>> Please Note: The briefs above are only the most current. <<
The letters that have been submitted to the court don't really paint the picture of a very astute character. He hasn't even had legal representation since 10/16/2008.
Here's the latest from Pacer.
Date History
6/22/2009 Due GRAY 2 BRIEF
1/9/2009 Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
3/25/2009 Appellee or Cross Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
6/3/2009 Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ / Cross Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ / Appendix Filing Date
/ / Disposition: ; by
/ / Mandated on
>> Please Note: The briefs above are only the most current. <<
This page tends to lag behind a bit, but it shows the latest filing being due on 6/22/09 with nothing else scheduled yet. The 6/3/09 filing by the defendant(United States) was rejected, no reason given. A corrected filing was accepted on 6/5/09. Probably some clerical error.
I share your concern about the disposition of the warrants. I do think Judge Block's opinion will be upheld, and that is when we will see if the award will be distributed as it was intended or if we get to go through the courts again in a class action suit that is sure to follow.
NOTICE of Hearing: Final Pretrial Conference reset for 8/17/2009 10:30 AM in Courtroom 03 before Judge Roger T. Benitez
Bibiyan has sent notice to the court that he will not attend because he can't afford to get there and that he doesn't have a car. He offered to attend if the plaintiff would pay for his expenses.
I'm guessing the judge won't find this humorous either.
I was able to login after a three year break without any problem. Just had to remember the password.
I think the next brief is due shortly, a grey brief. It's another pre-trial response to an earlier crayola colored brief. I'm not sure which sides turn it is anymore.
A few more and it should get to a hearing before the end of the year.
The case against Rachitsky has been settled out of court. There is no indication as to what the settlement was, only that it was withdrawn and all counterclaims were also withdrawn.
The case against Bibiyan contiues, though probably not much longer as Bibiyan continues to reject to respond to court orders and deadlines.
I sold out this morning.
Not really, but somebody did. 9mil traded.
Yes. I have been able to purchase another 75000 shares over the last couple of days through Mytrack.
Obviously, I'm looking in the wrong place. Can you point me in the right direction to see the filings. Thanks.
Updated:
I just tried again and was able to find it on Pacer. I don't know why it wouldn't show up earlier. User error, I'm sure.
Thanks for the case number.
I don't think they have filed the appeal yet. It should be filed by next Friday if they are going to file.
It should show up here http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/newcases.txt
when they do file.
Nice trade on CROX ninja and eagle. I was watching, but hated to get in again. The second trade is the one that always cost me.
Out those CROX options at .55
Bought $10 Apr Call option for Crox @ .40
Zero. Other than by those trading without understanding the case. The price of this issue will ultimately be determined by the final award after gross up and appeal. It will not be determined in any way by the price of WM stock.
There will be price fluctuations as the speculation continues and as the case proceeds, but that's all.
If WM were to face furthur challenges that cause it to re-organize or be taken over, this would only change the formula for the payout, not the payout itself. That's my opinion on it.
Last week when the price dipped a bit, I decided it was time to get a little more. I tried sending money to my account electronically like usual so I could buy the next day. It wasn't working. I figured it's no big deal. What's a few days after so many years? I just wrote a check and threw it in the mail instead. Doh! Guess I won't be getting those ones.
I can still send three of my kids to college. I'll just tell the fourth one that the checks in the mail.
SS,
Sorry about my speculation as to your motives, but your post took me back to my Raging Bull days where almost every post was suspect. It just looked all to familiar, though probably what you were saying and what I was reading didn't match up.
This is an interesting stock to watch and hopefully this story will have an ending one day, one way or the other.
Are we talking about the same decision? I was refering to the latest published decision on the uscfc website.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/SMITH.REPUBLIC030608a.pdf
It's got lots of motion granted for the plaintiff and motion denied for the defendant. Ends with a $14.6 mil award.
I read over the latest decision and it again points to the government(defendant) throwing everything and the kitchen sink out to delay and confuse the case.
All of the governments motions were denied and all except one of the plaintiffs(Republic Savings Bank) motions were granted except one, the judgement on time since there has been no way to determine what the value should be other than "more than zero".
The action on todays market concerning DIMEZ was curious, especially without any information to rationalize the trading pattern. Without much volume, the price dropped conciderably.
It all seemed a little clearer after your first ever post on Investors Hub speculating that something bad must be happening and only the big bad banking experts know it.
After a little looking I also found your name to be associated with what I can only imagine will be coming across my fax machine at some ungodly hour without invitation. http://www.goldletterint.com/documents/pdf/GLOBALURANIUM_SPU_March07.pdf
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it smells like crap, I try not to step into it.
In his last decision regarding Anchor, Judge Block admonished both parties lawyers for dragging out justice for over 9 years. That was back in 2004. Way to go Block. Keeping that government operation working like a well oiled machine.
Here's a short bio.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Bios/block..pdf
I don't think your going to find "dirt", and certainly nothing that can be leveraged into a decision.
There may be some politics in play, but we'll never know.
We all need to blow off a little steam about it once in a while, but all we can really do is decide if we want to wait or not.
The government lawyers have, in most of the Winstar cases, used every tactic they could to delay the outcome. This case in particular has the potential for a huge payout by the government.
It's not hard to picture someone asking for a little extra time. I wouldn't be surprised if the settlement isn't declared until it can be rolled into another administrations budget, whether by appeals delay or just by Judge Block taking his time. I know I would be pissed if a previous administration had left this mess fo me to pay out.
Nobody wants a $100 mil payout on their departments record. I'm betting there's a little dealing going on about when it will be awarded, not how much, just when.
My guess is early next year for an award, at least a year for an appeal, payout under somebody elses watch.
These links are just an example of lazy reporting. The writers have no clue what Dimez represents and are only listing them in their articles because it comes up on a ticker search for Washington Mutual. Obviously, DIMEZ has absolutely nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages and shouldn't have been mentioned, not that it matters one way or the other.
One good thing that may come out of it is if Judge Block happens to wake up and read the article, maybe he'll remember that he has a decision pending. I wouldn't count on it though.
It's starting to look like somebody has unofficially requested that the decision be delayed as long as possible. It does involve a huge pile of money and people do stupid things for even a small pile.
I can't remember the timing on Vipaxx, but I think that had a ton more volume than this clown was pushing.
Interesting DIMEZ hit on Google.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp19981.pdf
SEC going after a 21 year old for manipulation. Among others, he tried manipulating the price of DIMEZ in late July 2006. Didn't do a very good job as he walked away with only $84 for all his work. lol
Sorry, meant to put on DIMEZ page for Rollin.
Interesting DIMEZ hit on Google.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp19981.pdf
SEC going after a 21 year old for manipulation. Among others, he tried manipulating the price of DIMEZ in late July 2006. Didn't do a very good job as he walked away with only $84 for all his work. lol