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.
You are joking, right? If MF's Jayson had actually done some research and discovered anything to support your fantasy, he would have been screaming it from the rooftops, repeatedly.
I believe that he wanted both - some cash now and more valuable shares later. Like Uli, I believe Joe was totally caught off guard and surprised by CWID, Trident, TAO and other developments.
Thanks for that insight, Mide. It could also explain a motive for the incorrect/fraudulent reporting on Centerline revenues.
Pennies?
No one would fight so hard and so viciously for shares if they believed that the company would go bankrupt and the shares would be worthless. Quite the contrary.
Old, twisted info - that "$12 million" figure - such a nice, big, amount, that Seth Jayson kept repeating as gospel represented the executive compensation in 2005, in fact represented the increased value of options for execs, value which was quickly wiped out as the stock price plummeted on options that were never exercised. A non-cash figure that was reported for accounting purposes and never affected the bottom line.
Also a three-cent spread on Alphatrade - something up???
Ditto. Who is your source(s), Owl?
Modlam, as to the CURRENT status of Sanswire/TAO airships, I'd look to this latest information:
The next steps for the Sanswire 2A will be reassembly and a refitting of the airship's automated flight controls, telemetry systems, and ultra light- weight components that include new rear fins. Readying the 2A for flight- testing, initially in the mid-altitude range of 15,000 to 30,000 feet, will also require that propulsion and the automated stability systems be re- evaluated and possibly upgraded.
'Both TAO and GlobeTel/Sanswire are eager to complete work on the 2A, and give our technology partners a more comprehensive insight into the properties and capabilities of the 2A,' stated Jonathan D. Leinwand, Chief Executive Officer. 'We believe very strongly in our business plan to build and market airships for flight at all altitudes, and we look forward to completing the formation of Sanswire-TAO as soon as possible.'
The decision to continue the development and testing of the 2A in Stuttgart was attributed to the vast resources and knowledge of the TAO organization. The addition of the 2A to TAO's and Sanswire's current scheduled flight plans rounds out GlobeTel's atmospheric arsenal of low to medium to high altitude platforms.
I don't believe that his taking the website down will help him one whit as to past deeds/transgressions, but his lawyer may be trying desperately to work out some sort of deal.
Well said, indeed. I believe that the CWID invitation was a surprise to Uli, and he tried to brand it as his own because he fully intended to get the technology back which he had sold to GlobeTel. And don't forget, Russia was Uli's baby too - part of an a ongoing deal Uli had with the Russians when GlobeTel acquired HotZone.
Germany, Russia, then attempting to hijack the CWID trials. No, I don't hold him in high regard either.
I like that name too, Mide. Simple and clean, "telecommunications" covering the wireless component, and the word "strategic" covering many possibilities (civilian and military).
Taking off on your theme: Strategic Air & Wireless Communications
Bear, I like your suggestion (STRATegic Wireless), but are the mid-altitude airships (which may come first) intended to reach the stratosphere? If they join forces with TAO, you would think that Dr. Kroplin would want some part of the name, or a more generic name (excluding both Sanswire and TAO), thus I believe your suggestion, a generic name excluding both Sanswire and TAO, will be the best solution.
Perhaps they are waiting to tie it into other news, such as updating of financials, TAO agreement, etc. Seperate, sequential news releases is a waste of money, if the news occurs close in time and can be bundled together. It provides more of an impact and an overview for shareholders as well, IMO.
Cole, STOP twisting the truth! The CWID assesment concludes that GlobeTel's HotZone technology performed superbly and flawlessly. You keep insisting they "failed" tests for which they weren't tested because HotZone doesn't contain that technology - you guys are desperately trying to spin this great evaluation, but you are looking very foolish:
Posted by: nerd86
In reply to: Mr Allan who wrote msg# 92979 Date:11/5/2007 11:15:36 AM
Post #of 93003
Information Assurance clearly looks for things that Hotzone does not include. It is a commercial product. It could have the military security built in with microcoding but it isn't currently in the product, so why submit to such a test?
Cmdr. Stephens explains, “At the end of CWID, we want to have accurate assessments of every trial.”
And "flawless and superb" was the 3rd-party assessment of HotZone's performance during the CWID trials.
Many thanks to those who shared this information.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your history of GlobeTel CEO's litany. Huff turned out to be a poor manager and trusted the wrong people (Joe M.), but he did have the vision to secure the two technologies (HotZone & Sanswire) which are the reasons most shareholders are currently invested in this company, technologies which have the potential to move this company forward and GROW. Keep counting your chickens . . .
Or this, Joe?
"The parties agreed any equity compensation "Partners'" are entitled to, if any, shall be paid from the Company's shares issueable to CSI as described above, and, furthermore, the cash bonuses, if any, shall also be the obligation of CSI. However, whereas the anticipated profit margin was not achieved, and the management fees not paid, the Company believes that no additional compensation is payable to the "Partners" by CSI or the Company. Furthermore the revenue generated by the partners was not profitable, as required by the agreements. Accordingly, no additional amounts were recorded as owing to the "Partners" by the Company as of December 31, 2004.
During a period of this contract, Mr. Joseph Monterosso was a principal of CSI and was an officer of GlobeTel Communications."
Wasting time and resources to fight such typical business lawsuits is rarely done; the company needs to spend its time and resources on productive avenues. Reread the news release. In this regard, GlobeTel is making a smart business decision.
Precisely. That is the significance of this news.
Serious1, it appears that Sanswire/TAO is working on obtaining such investment. See msg. 91796.
This is excellent news. Any chance you might check with Jon on such potential telecom partnerships, Mide, given your recent meeting?
It looks as if Jon has Weinberg in there assisting Dohan to speed up the process, IMO. He appears to be in a hurry to move things along in the right direction, a very good sign, IMO, and one which comports with the sense of things I gleaned from Mide's personal meeting with Jon.
We will never know, but in Mexico, as in other parts of the world, such a scheme is more common and often considered the cost of doing business. I wonder who suggested them for the job in the first place? Joe?
Is that your theory, Mide? Kickbacks? I will never understand why these people would risk their jobs (now gone) undermining the project after Joe was history. Was their motive to skim money off the top, to derail the project because they (incorrectly) believed Joe (and others) could obtain the technology and sell it to another Mexican telecom, or was it just revenge (which makes the least sense to me)?
Bravo Jon and crew. The new CEO is definitely making waves - the good kind. Also confirms exactly what Bleckman indicated: all of the prior relationships (Elisra, VPN) continue. At last we have a CEO who looks like he can deliver on the promise of the technology. I am looking forward to news of the Sanswire/TAO project (Sanswire & TAO, Inc.)
mr_schnizzle, rockonbaby, sharklady, and others, given these threats by Joe M. against innocent shareholders and ihub posters, I believe ihub's lawyers would have no problem convincing any judge that the identities of posters should not be released to this madman, who is attempting to curtail our constitutional free speech rights and to invade our privacy.
I believe ihub could be held liable for releasing the identities into the hands of such an obviously unbalanced individual, and would NEVER risk that liability.
Thank you very much. Confirms other positive comments I have heard about those with whom you met, but it helps to hear it from others. It sounds as if you came away with the impression that they are working very hard to develop and market products. Did Dan make any specific comments on his projects and did Jon or anyone else give any more insight into the status of the Sanswire/TAO initiative/test flights? TIA
Spreading the tar on your brush with too broad a stroke, IMO. Huff was the CEO at the time (2004) in question, not Leinwand. I happen to believe that Huff trusted the wrong people (Joe M. for example), and Joe M. has been terminated and received a Wells Notice.
No, I don't question everyone's credibility for what happened in 2004. The fact that you can't cite any instances regarding the veracity of CURRENT news releases, proves my point. Keep slinging mud, but if you have no facts, you are the one miring in it.
Guess you missed it, but if you did, I have repeatedly asked anyone who claims any false facts have been disseminated by GlobeTel in news releases since the SEC investigation, reorganization, and dismissal or firing of former officers or employees (replaced by new management), to please provide proof of their claims.
If there were no successful CWID trials - you prove it. If they are not participating in Trident 2008 - you prove it. If they don't have a teaming agreement with Elisra - you prove it. If they have not moved Sanswire2 to Stuttgart, and have current flight tests planned in combination with TAO, you prove it.
You guys have had plenty of time to dig up source(s) proving what you keep alleging - that CURRENT, post SEC-investigation management, is, right under the nose of the SEC, putting out false or deceptive press releases. Yet, somehow, despite all of your time spent slinging mud, none of you have come up with anything, nada, nothing, to back up your oft-repeated libels.
Joe, ditto for me. Like rockonbaby I'm merely a common shareholder, but if you libel or harrass me, or attempt to reveal my private identity in any way, I have uncommon legal resources, and you will surely regret it.
I don't have a clue what his "rules" are, but why don't you ask him? I presume (my presumption only) that he has a list of shareholders of record. I also presume Cole or Scion do not attempt to contact him because they would not be on his shareholder list.
Whether he would take the time to answer questions from non-shareholders when he doesn't have enough time to answer all emails and phone calls from actual shareholders, would be up to him.
If you were shareholders, you could learn from IR that the Elisra teaming agreement and NMC continue. Oops, I forgot, you don't own any shares and no one at GlobeTel will waste a minute of his/her time on you.
Cole, now you're just being plain silly. Of course not, but our discussion concerned what constituted "insider" or "material" information. And, based on the accepted definition of materiality, I suggested to you that relating the design goal to reach a certain altitude in one generation of a prototype unmanned aerial vehicle similiar to a later generation model of that airship would not be considered a material fact, but that the actual testing and/or achievment of that goal would be.
http://www.niri.org/regulations/ExecAlerts/EA091001.cfm
Materiality
Materiality raises some of the most difficult and debated issues. Materiality decisions are the lynchpin for enforcing Reg. FD. The rule clearly points out that selective disclosure occurs when an issuer official, covered by the rule, intentionally communicates material, nonpublic information to an analyst, professional investor or anyone else who might trade on the information.
SEC officials have repeatedly said they are not about to "second guess" materiality decisions when made on the spur of the moment in such settings as conference calls or other meetings with analysts or professional investors. And, as discussed before, should an inadvertent disclosure of material, nonpublic information occur in a closed forum, the company must release that information within 24 hours or before the next trading day.
There are five key elements that the Commission must prove in a Reg. FD enforcement action: (1) Was the person who selectively disclosed the information covered by the rule? (2) Was the information clearly material? (3) Did the issuer official know it was material or was reckless in not knowing? (4) Did the issuer official intentionally disclose the information, and (5) Was the information disclosed in a nonpublic setting such as a phone call, one-on-one meeting or a group meeting that was not made fully accessible to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. found that a fact is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder should consider it important" in making an investment decision, or if the fact would have "significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available." So, what is a reasonable investor? Reg. FD, draws a distinction between the "reasonable investor" and the "sophisticated" analyst or professional investor who, using the mosaic, collects information from various sources and through detailed knowledge of the industry and the company and through his/her insight draws a material conclusion from the mosaic.
Specifically, Reg. FD says, "Similarly, since materiality is an objective test keyed to the reasonable investor, Regulation FD will not be implicated where an issuer discloses immaterial information whose significance is discerned by the analyst."
The 1976 Bausch & Lomb, Inc. decision, 420 F. Supp. 1226 (S.D.N.Y.) states that corporate officers and analysts may engage in a "general discussion out of which a skilled analyst could extract pieces of a jigsaw puzzle (the mosaic) which would not be significant to the ordinary investor but which the analyst could add to his own fund of knowledge and use toward constructing his ultimate judgment." The Reg. FD implementing release says that the "mosaic theory" is alive under the rule.
Therefore, an issuer official may selectively communicate public or nonpublic, immaterial information to an analyst that helps that analyst in his/her effort to complete a mosaic and come to a material conclusion. The rule says, "…an issuer official is not prohibited from disclosing a non-material piece of information to an analyst, even if unbeknownst to the issuer, that piece helps the analyst complete a 'mosaic' of information that, taken together, is material."
Aw, Cole, trust you to twist around my analogy, but don't worry, your clumsy attempt to compare a developing, cutting-edge technology company against an established company is just that: blatant and clumsy. Keep trying.
You are grasping at straws and comparing apples to oranges. If Sanswire had been designing and building airships which had flown at certain altitudes, ever higher, for years and years, like Intel has designed and produced ever-faster chips, your argument might have some merit.
Oh, and do you have evidence that anyone traded and profited on this mind-boggling information, LOL?
"Don't ask me what "material" is from a legal SEC standpoint, I've read the definition several times and still don't have a clue...."
Cole, I'm not expert on what constitutes "material" under the SEC, but I do have common sense. Companies, including cutting-edge technology companies, design things all of the time, but whether they work or not, have a successful test or not, is the material fact, IMO, not the "design" for a hoped-for outcome.
Maybe he's as "confused" as Vern once was about that alleged dismissal:
Posted by: siriuslyricher
In reply to: siriuslyricher who wrote msg# 85551 Date:8/28/2007 2:18:40 PM
Post #of 91191
Vern, you misinterpreted the ruling.
This is the link to the docket report.
http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2007&pCase_Seq=20439&pCase_Co....
The ruling is a “Denying Order Showing Cause Etc” - the judge denied GlobeTel's motion on the Court's Order to Show cause only with regard to Trimax. The Order to Show Cause would have given GlobeTel immediate rights to take back the equipment.
It was denied on jurisidictional grounds; the judge said GlobeTel should have brought the action against Trimax (not Uli) in Collier County . The lawsuit remains pending and has not been dismissed.
My guess is that it will end up like the hangar suit, i.e., it will be settled between the parties.
That is hilarious. I look forward to it. Joe is a total fool. Hello, Joe! Please waste all of your money deposing common shareholders. As a GTEM shareholder who has seen you do everything possible to attack this company, I'd be more than happy to waste your assets in a nice, long deposition. Bring it on.