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.
jtl: Why don't you ask BV about what Talbot's filing with the court separating himself from serving as Gundy's lawyer going forward.
He did it to avoid any conflict of interest, due to criminal investigations. His words.
janice shell: People like jtl are hanging on to this idea based on the fact that back in early 2004, just as the SEC case started off, a hold was put on the case to allow time for justice department review for possible a possible grand jury.
That grand jury never convened, for whatever reason. Probably the DOJ didn't find RA worth their effort back then.
However, IMNSVHO, the DOJ is finding RA et al very much more interesting now. We know that criminal investigations are underway, per Talbot's filings with the court on dropping Gundy as a client precisely because of a conflict of interest based on those investigations.
Justice is not swift here...
Doogrof: Not set yet. Won't be set until sometime after his attorney files the rebuttal to the SEC's rebuttal of the initial appeal.
At the moment, it appears that rebuttal has yet to be filed.
nope - we're all out doing our xmas shopping with our profits...
puppydotcom: I don't think you'll see this shutdown for failure to file. There are exceptions to the requirement to file 10Qs and 10Ks, one of which is if the company doesn't have a certain amount of assets (5M I think, but in this case it hardly matters, since it has no assets), it doesn't have to file.
The receiver will play out her role as long as it makes sense, and the company will probably continue to trade until she seeks voluntary revocation and closes the door for good.
maniactrader: The stock still exists. As for the company, the receiver has sold off or closed down all operations. It has no business, of any kind, anymore.
maniactrader: The stock still exists. As for the company, the receiver has sold off or closed down all operations. It has no business, of any kind, anymore.
Todays Pacer filing on MJ tapes from cbeemer on RB Board - receiever is going after the tapes, which RA is now claiming belong to him and Vaccaro, and not to USXP:
Jane W. Moscowitz, Receiver
Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A.
Mellon Financial Center
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2050
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: 305-379-8300
Fax: 305-379-4404
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ::
Plaintiff, ::
v. : 1:04-cv-2322(GEL)
:
UNIVERSAL EXPRESS, INC., et al., ::
Defendants. :
________________________________________________:
RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF ASSETS
Jane W. Moscowitz, in her capacity as court-appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) of
Universal Express, Inc., and its subsidiaries, hereby moves this Court for an order directing
defendant Richard A. Altomare to deliver to the Receiver the Jackson Recordings Master Tapes
Collection (“the Master Tapes”). The Master Tapes are property of the Universal Express and
not of Mr. Altomare or, alternatively, the Receiver has a greater right to the Master Tapes than
does Mr. Altomare.
Case 1:04-cv-02322-GEL Document 266 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 9
1 The Receiver is unaware of any such declination.
2
INTRODUCTION
Universal Express, Inc. and/or Richard Altomare entered into a contract to purchase
memorabilia belonging to the Jackson family. Both Mr. Altomare and Universal Express made
representations to third parties that the collection was the property of Universal Express, Inc.
Included within the material covered by that contract were master tape recordings by members of
the Jackson family (the “Master Tapes”). The Receiver demanded that Altomare deliver these
recordings to the Receiver. Through counsel, Altomare responded that:
[Regarding] the “Master tape recordings of Jackson family music:”
it is my understanding that USXP did not purchase an interest in
the master recordings which are currently co-owned by Mr. Henry
Vaccaro and Mr. Altomare. The two are endeavoring to proceed
with various deals at their expense in which the Receivership
declined to participate.1
Letter from Arthur W. Tifford to Receiver, dated November 29, 2007, attached as Exhibit 1.
The Receiver responded by giving until close of business Wednesday, December 4, 2007
for the delivery of the Master Tapes. No delivery was forthcoming.
The Receiver now seeks an Order from the Court compelling the delivery of the Master
Tapes to her.
FACTS
On November 21, 2006, Vintage Pop LLC entered into an Agreement (“the November 21
Agreement”) with “Mr. Richard A. Altomare (‘Mr. Altomare’) and Universal Express, Inc.
(‘USPX’)” for the purchase of a collection of Jackson family memorabilia. The November 21
Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 2, went on to state that “Mr. Altomare agrees to
Case 1:04-cv-02322-GEL Document 266 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 2 of 9
3
purchase” the collection and “Mr. Altomare will give Vintage Pop LLC a good faith deposit of
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars . . . on or before November 22, 2007.” The November 21
Agreement is signed by Altomare, but on behalf of Universal Express.
The items comprising the memorabilia collection were listed in two exhibits attached to
the November 21 Agreement. Exhibit B is entitled “Jackson Recordings Master Tapes
Collection.” The recordings are described as follows:
Listed Below are various master recordings from the: Jackson
Collection,” many of these are two inch reels of original recordings
from the Jackson Five Television Variety Show in the mid 1970's,
and include various Jackson Five hit songs which are new
mechanical versions of their famous hits. The collection also
includes demos and studio recordings from the Jackson Five and
The Jacksons as well as master tapes and demos from Latoya
Jackson, Tito Jackson and other artists the Jackson Family
managed.
An itemized list of 26 pages follows.
On November 22, 2006, Universal Express wired $150,000 to Vintage Pop. See Exhibit
3.
On November 29, 2006, Mr. Altomare signed an assignment which stated that he
assigned to Universal Express “all of his right, title, interest and obligations with respect to the
Jackson Collection . . . .” See Exhibit 4.
Universal Express entered into a consignment agreement in December 2006 with an
auction house, Barlan Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a Guernsey’s (“Guernsey’s”) under which Guernsey’s
was to auction the Jackson memorabilia in Las Vegas in May 2007. Before the auction could
take place, both Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson sought to prevent the sale of items they
claimed were theirs. Litigation in District Court in Clark County, Nevada, ensued. Universal
Case 1:04-cv-02322-GEL Document 266 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 3 of 9
2 Exhibit consists of the pleading entitled Defendants' Opposition to Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Filed by Plaintiff Michael J. Jackson
and, because of the volume of the attachments, a portion of Exhibit 7 to the Motion. The portion
attached is the affidavit of Henry Vaccaro and the first pages of Exhibits A and B.
4
Express on behalf of itself and Guernsey's filed a document in the Nevada case entitled
Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Filed by Plaintiff Michael J. Jackson. That pleading is signed only by counsel for Universal
Express. In it, at page 9, paragraph 40, Universal Express states that it is the owner of the
memorabilia and tapes, as follows: “Subsequent to the commencement of the California
Litigation, Universal, a Nevada corporation, acquired for good and valuable consideration, all of
its Predecessors' right title and interest in and to the Personal Property. See Exhibit 7." Exhibit 7
is comprised of an affidavit by Henry Vaccaro of Vintage Pop and the same Exhibits A and B
that are attached to the November 21 Agreement. See Exhibit 5.2
Mr. Altomare made clear in later letters that the Master Tapes are the property of
Universal Express. In a letter dated July 12, 2007 to David J. De Toffol, Altomare explained the
profit split he proposed from the promotion of the Master Tapes if a transaction he was proposing
went through. That proposal was as follows:
1) Master tapes 50% Universal Express
10% Don King of Universal
Express’s share
25% Kingdom Entertainment
25% Jackson Family
See Exhibit 6.
On July 18, 2007 in a letter to Don King, Altomare proposed a different profit split with
respect to the Master Tapes, but again the profits were to go to Universal Express, not to
Case 1:04-cv-02322-GEL Document 266 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 4 of 9
Altomare. That letter goes on to state other proposed terms, including, as follows: “1. Universal
Express, owner of the music, controls all monies for distribution and along with Don Kind [sic]
releases all publicity.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 7.
ARGUMENT
The Receivership order authorizes the Receiver to take possession of these recordings.
The Amended Order Appointing Receiver (DE #204-2) authorizes the Receiver to take
possession of receivership assets. It states, at Point I, as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Moscowitz is appointed
Receiver to take custody, control and possession of the following
property, hereinafter referred to as “the Receivership assets”: all
money, property (real or personal) and other assets of Universal
Express and any of its subsidiaries, including but not limited to:
UniversalPost Private Postal Network/Postal Nation; UniversalPost
International Courier Service; Universal Express Logistics, Inc.;
Virtual Bellhop; Luggage Express; LEAP (Luggage Express
Associate Program); Madpackers, Inc.; Universal Express Capital
Corp.; Universal Cash Express; and Universal Express Properties.
The Receiver shall take exclusive custody, possession, and control
of the receivership assets wherever situated.
Moreover, the Amended Order, at Point III. a.., states:
Universal Express, and all of its officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys-in-fact, attorneys at law, shareholders, and
other persons, who are in custody, possession, or control of any
assets, books, records, or other property that constitute
Receivership assets shall forthwith give access to and control of
such property to the Receiver. . .
The Master Tapes are Receivership assets. The November 21 Agreement, Exhibit 2,
although somewhat ambiguous, is signed on behalf of Universal Express. Universal Express
made the payment required by that Agreement. Exhibit 3. On November 29, 2006, Altomare
assigned his rights under the November 29, 2006 Agreement, to the degree he had any, to
Universal Express. Exhibit 4. Universal Express represented in the Nevada litigation that it was
Case 1:04-cv-02322-GEL Document 266 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 5 of 9
6
the owner of the Master Tapes. Exhibit 5. And Altomare represented on several occasions, on
behalf of Universal Express, that Universal Express owned The Master Tapes. Exhibits 6, 7.
There are pending disputes over the ownership of the Jackson memorabilia. In litigation
in New Jersey, certain entities claim that Vintage Pop LLC never obtained title to the collection,
so it could not sell it on. Vintage Pop LLC contends that Universal Express did not obtain title
because it failed to fully pay for the collection. Michael Jackson’s counsel has informed the
Receiver that such records may be protected by copyright. None of these disputes changes the
fact that, as between Universal Express and Altomare, Universal Express has the right to have
these recordings.
It is in the interest of the Receivership Estate to obtain possession of the Master Tapes, to
safeguard their value for a future sale and with respect to pending litigation. Altomare can show
no right to possess the Master Tapes individually.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Receiver respectfully requests that this Court order
Richard A. Altomare to turn over these recordings to the Receiver immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
MOSCOWITZ & MOSCOWITZ, P.A.
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2050
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 379-8300
Facsimile: (305) 379-4404
By: s/ Jane W. Moscowitz
Jane W. Moscowitz
Fla. Bar No.: 586498
branden - Enjoy it while you can...
Too funny - According to ETrade, someone with a fat-finger made the last trade of the day at .001.
Woo hoo... The kool-aid kids are going to be hyping this with rumors tonight.
puppydotcom: If only King Abdulah had listened, he wouldn't be stuck with 40B shares that he can't find anyone to buy.
Sad. The Crown Princes are formenting a coup...
virginian: There are lots of people who have been loading up on the belief that a huge squeeze was coming. Most figured that, hey, if they can buy at .0001, worse case is they get back out at .0001.
Some really lost souls still believe everything that RA, Gunderson, and Bud are spreading around thick, and some of them have been loading up based on the eventual coming of the saviors (appeals court judges}.
There are people who like to try and play the buy at .0001, sell at .0002 game, not caring why it's at this price, again figuring they can always get out at what they paid.
And, yes, some are still totally in the dark. People are still posting links to news about luggage problems, passenger delays, and stating that it all has to be good for USXP, despite the fact that LE/VB are gone, and USXP has nothing at all to do with luggage movement (or anything else for that matter).
It's a strange, strange world in sub-sub-penny land...
maniactrader: The 10K wasn't filed on time.
It wasn't filed before the receiver took over, and she didn't find enough money in the accounts to pay for having it done.
She recently filed an NTN 10K, explaining why the filing is late, but it isn't really clear that she'll file a 10K anyway.
notablugerite: We all know they'll start coming up with reasons why the NSSers never covered.
Their problem will be that they'll never be able to come up with any reasons why these mythical beings will be forced to cover now...
themoneymaker: It's Wednesday morning.
Maybe this afternoon?????????
puppydotcom: My assumption that the Nevada case has something to do with the receiver is probably spot on. Here's a case summary of another SEC vs USXP et al suit filed in Florida back in September. Note that the case is identified as SEC vs etc, with the receiver id'ed as representing the SEC.
9:07-mc-80815-DMM U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Express, Inc. et al
Donald M. Middlebrooks, presiding
Date filed: 09/06/2007 Date of last filing: 09/06/2007
Case Summary
Office: West Palm Beach Filed: 09/06/2007
Jury Demand: None Demand:
Nature of Suit: 890 Cause: 28:0754 Receiver of Property in Different Districts
Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition:
County: Palm Beach Terminated:
Origin: 1 Reopened:
Lead Case: None
Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flag: LRJ
Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Jane Wollner Moscowitz
Phone: 305-379-6700
Fax: 379-4404
Email: jmoscowitz@mmmpa.com
Defendant Universal Express, Inc.
Defendant Richard A. Altomare
Defendant Chris G. Gunderson
Defendant Mark S. Neuhaus
Defendant George J. Sandhu
Defendant Spiga, LTD.
Defendant Tarun Mendiratta
Yeah, but it has it's own case number, and in a totally different jurisdiction.
Bizarre...
kamazi: Although we are both on the same side of the USXP story, I find some of your posts to be a bit strange.
For example, as long as I've been posting here, I have never seen any factual post, such as what you are harping on here, deleted.
Do posts disappear? Yes. Do they disappear based on the fact that they aren't something that supports the long side of the issue, and only that? Not that I've ever seen.
I had a post deleted, once, and only once, and I have a long, long history of what most would consider an anti-USXP posts. I believe they are far closer to being anti-RA posts, but most longs can't see that distinction. The one post I had deleted was when I called a poster 'naive' and he objected.
My point is, if you don't include any refs to other posters that can be construed as an attack on that person, in any way, shape, or form, you aren't going to wind up with your posts deleted.
Unless you continuously harp on a subject that has been covered over and over and over again.
Lighten up. There are far, far, far worse mods around than the guys patrolling this board.
TIA...
P.S. The fact that the post I responded to was deleted, is a perfect example of harping - you're continuous posting about mods and deleting of messages.
puppydotcom: What I don't understand, and won't until the SEC complaint is available to be read, is why another suit against all the same guys in another federal jurisdiction.
The SEC can't file the same complaints. The suit can't have anything to do, at least complaint-wise, with any newer violations because it is clear the 3 co-conspiritors have not been involved with USXP or RA since the original suit was filed.
My quess right now is this may have something to do with the receiver trying to recover property in Nevada.
We'll all know more, eventually...
It looks like the SEC has initiated a new suit against RA et all in Nevada court. Not much info available, yet, from any source, except PACER notes the following:
United States District Court
District of Nevada (Las Vegas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-ms-00076-NA
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Express, Inc., et al
Assigned to: None Assigned NA
Date Filed: 11/28/2007
Plaintiff
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission represented by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Universal Express, Inc.,
Defendant
Richard A. Altomare
Defendant
ChriS G. Gunderson
Defendant
Mark S. Neuhaus
Defendant
George J. Sandhu
Defendant
Spiga, Ltd
Defendant
Tarun Mendiratta
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
11/28/2007 Case assigned to Judge None Assigned NA and None Assigned NA. (JAG) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
Article about luggage handling in WSJ. Mentions about half a dozen companies, some I've never heard of before, but no mention of LE, VB, Sports Expess, RA or USXP:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119630232156007360.html
therealtruth: Doesn't anyone but me think this is bizarre?
Cyberkey is advertising an online only discount on the biovault, with an updated date, dispite the fact that they no longer do business with SQUM?
Funnier yet, if you access the link for the online deal on the biovault, you get to the Cyberkey home page where no mention of this product exists anymore.
There is no way to order this product online...
Never mind, saw your response too late...
Ignore this:
virginian: The BB, pinksheets, and greymarket are all OTC markets.
USXP.ob was an OTC BB stock, while Pinksheet and greymarket stocks are typically identified as 'Other OTC' (see Yahoo! finance page for USXP.pk, and for CKYS.pk, a greymarket stock).
Anyone know the case number for the appeal in the second circuit court?
Apparently the SEC response has been filed, but it is, as far as I can tell, impossible to access 2nd circuit court of appeals records without getting to PACER through that court's website, AND using the case number.
TIA...
themoneymaker: I'm curious - takeover of what, exactly?
USXP has no businesses of any kind, has no employees with any experience in running any businesses of any kind, has no assets of any kind.
It does have massive debts, probably close to at least 30M, counting the penalties of over 20M.
And you think someone is going to takeover this company?????
Cassandra: The filling PDF also cites 44.1 of the local rules, as well as 1.16 of the Pennsylvania Code of Professional Conduct.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/chap81toc.html#1.16.
This is text of 1.16:
Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation.
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
Comment:
(1) A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. Ordinarily, a representation in a matter is completed when the agreed-upon assistance has been concluded. See Rules 1.2(c) and 6.5. See also Rule 1.3, Comment (4).
Mandatory Withdrawal
(2) A lawyer ordinarily must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation.
(3) When a lawyer has been appointed to represent a client, withdrawal ordinarily requires approval of the appointing authority. See also Rule 6.2. Similarly, court approval or notice to the court is often required by applicable law before a lawyer withdraws from pending litigation. Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client’s demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer’s statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3.
Discharge
(4) A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer’s services. Where future dispute about the withdrawal may be anticipated, it may be advisable to prepare a written statement reciting the circumstances.
(5) Whether a client can discharge appointed counsel may depend on applicable law. A client seeking to do so should be given a full explanation of the consequences. These consequences may include a decision by the appointing authority that appointment of successor counsel is unjustified, thus requiring self-representation by the client.
(6) If the client has severely diminished capacity, the client may lack the legal capacity to discharge the lawyer, and in any event the discharge may be seriously adverse to the client’s interests. The lawyer should make special effort to help the client consider the consequences and may take reasonably necessary protective action as provided in Rule 1.14.
Optional Withdrawal
(7) A lawyer may withdraw from representation in some circumstances. The lawyer has the option to withdraw if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client’s interests. Withdrawal is also justified if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, for a lawyer is not required to be associated with such conduct even if the lawyer does not further it. Withdrawal is also permitted if the lawyer’s services were misused in the past even if that would materially prejudice the client. The lawyer may also withdraw where the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.
(8) A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation.
Assisting the Client upon Withdrawal
(9) Even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client. The lawyer may retain papers as security for a fee only to the extent permitted by law. See Rule 1.15.
gimp_vulture: French clearly states that one of the things needed for future growth is "more equity financing, and convertable debentures."
Maybe Laurus wants that business.
Hedgeworld.com article (you may need to logon - I used a logon that I use at other sites, and it worked):
http://www.hedgeworld.com/news/read_news.cgi?section=dail&story=dail14524.html
Universal Express Overstated Courtroom Victories:
Receiver
By Christopher Faille, Senior Financial Correspondent
Friday, November 16, 2007 8:09:43 PM ET
BOCA RATON, Fla. (HedgeWorld.com) —The actual value of
what remains of Universal Express may be even less
than what the court-appointed receiver thought it was
in September. That is the inference readers will draw
from the receiver's report to the U.S. District Court
in Manhattan, filed on Wednesday [Nov. 14].
Universal Express Inc. is a logistics and
transportation company that, according to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, has made illegal
unregistered distributions to the public of hundreds
of millions of shares of stock. Its receiver, Jane
Moscowitz, filed her second report on its assets this
week, for the benefit of the judge presiding over the
SEC's case against Universal Express, Gerald E. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch appointed Ms. Moscowitz in August Previous
HedgeWorld Story, and in her first report, the
following month, she noted that Universal Express
claimed among its assets two court judgments against
"various stock manipulators and ‘naked shorters,'"
totaling, with interest, approximately $700 million.
Both judgments were obtained in uncontested trials. In
this second report, Ms. Moscowitz painted a still
gloomier picture. She made note of rumors surrounding
these judgments, rumors that seem to have sustained
Universal's shareholders in the false hope of a big
payday.
"One was that early on the Company had located and was
about to collect $183 million of the judgments. That
rumor is wholly without foundation," she wrote.
"Shareholders have also written that they were told
that $15 million had recently been offered by [one of
the defendants, Ronald] Williams. No such offer was
made."
In general, Universal Express' characterization of the
judgments as substantially collectible doesn't appear
to be correct, she concluded.
The company's assets also formerly included a
collection of memorabilia of entertainers Michael and
Janet Jackson. This asset, too, was overvalued. In a
press release in May, the Universal Express estimated
the value of the memorabilia at between $30 million
and $200 million. An auction held soon after realized
only a little less than $600,000.
"The morass of litigation and money owed surrounding
the acquisition and auction of this collection makes
it highly unlikely that any funds will be realized. .
. ," Ms. Moscowitz wrote. "The Receiver is, instead,
seeking to minimize liabilities."
There has also been a flurry of filings in recent days
with regard to the SEC's case against co-defendants:
individuals who served as go-between in the
corporation's allegedly illegal issuances of stock.
These individuals are Mark S. Neuhaus, George J.
Sandhu and Tarun Mendiratta. Their attorneys couldn't
be reached for comment Friday afternoon [Nov. 16]. The
SEC claims that they received stock from the company
at a substantial discount to the public market price.
They then re-sold the shares to the public for a quick
risk-free profit and used the proceeds to finance
subsequent stock purchases as the scheme rolled
forward. The dilutive effect of the issuances lowered
the stock's value, according to the SEC.
The recent flurry of filings has involved what are
known as motions "in limine," i.e. motions by one
party to ban another party from introducing certain
specific items in evidence, or producing the testimony
of specified witnesses.
The attorney for Mr. Sandhu, for example, has asked
that the court preclude the testimony of three members
of the SEC staff, on the ground that they don't have
any personal knowledge of the facts at issue on the
one hand, and they aren't qualified as expert
witnesses on the other.
Consequently, "they are hearsay witnesses who can only
offer speculation," Mr. Sandhu's attorney claimed in
the motion.
CFaille@HedgeWorld.com
tkalantzis: So, according to this statement, the receiver filed a report with the judge that was entered into the court record that was filled with outright lies?
Really? She gave RA all the ammunition he needs to not only get her dismissed as the receiver, but to have her charged with numerous counts of fraud, that can ruin her career, and result in her license to practice law being stripped from her?
Any realistic explanation as to why she would do that? Why she'd risk all of that?
Remember, please, I said realistic.
TIA...
tkalantzis: And, yet, the King made no effort to purchase LE/VB, let it get sold off for 100K, stripping USXP of any value, any operations.
Go figure...
money66: And, yet, the judge dismissed USXP's case against the SEC, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal.
Go figure...
faster: The 10Q will give us more info.
NT10Q out:
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0000909012%2D07%2D001423%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2007%5C11%5C15%5C&CoName=THINKPATH+INC&FormType=NT+10%2DQ&RcvdDate=11%2F15%2F2007&pdf=
"The Company believes that its revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2007 will be approximately $3,670,000 which represents an increase of $170,000 over the revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2006 of $3,500,000. The Company believes that its net loss for the three months ended September 30, 2007 will be approximately $520,000, compared to a loss of $380,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2006."
Another half mill down the toilet...
puppydotcom: ETrade Pro now shows only 4 MMs left on Bid at .0001.
Getting closer to No bid x .0001 ask...
puppydotcom: After the GF clause ended, anyone who was nss and covered by that clause, had 35 trading days to cover their position.
So, all the nss believers now have early December as when the super-duper squeeze of all time will happen.
Never mind there is no evidence of any nss postions on this stock, period.
Never mind that anyone who actually might have been short this stock has had a very long time, with another 3 weeks, to cover at .0001.
In there minds, its amargedon for nssers...
tkalantzis: The SEC owes USXP nothing. The suit that RA filed was dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld by the 11th circuit court of appeals.
As for the totally ficticious 183 million frozen in europe, if this money really existed, wouldn't it have made sense for RA to inform the court of such, possibly saving the company from being put into receivership?
Or, why didn't Talbot, the person who was pursuing the judgement money for USXP, then, and still doing that now, inform the receiver of this fact when she asked him for the status of the attempts to collect on the judgement? Do you really think this was something he could feel was not an important detail?
At least your posts are very entertaining...
wii1dr: I understand that perks being doled out to company execs are often over the top. The shareholders of such companies are taking action, and the SEC is spending more time looking at the perks in question.
However, to spend company money on a gift still needs to be reported in the SEC filings as either compensation to RA or compensation to his wife, and employee of the company.
By your logic, he could have bought her a house in the Hamptons and not reported it.
Your logic is totally flawed on this issue.
wii1dr: You did notice that in all but one instance, what was given was clearly part of a package used to lure a very high executive to switch companies. Standard practice.
If you do a little research you will also find that all of these events were reported by the companies, but you will find no mention of RA's purchases of jewelry, such as the 500,000.00 diamond, using company funds, in any PR or SEC document.
Also, RA 'awarded' himself these funds. None of those other execs awarded anything to themselves.
Did RA report the cash used to buy the jewelry as part of his compensation anywhere? It isn't in any of the 2006 SEC filings.
South Floriday Business Journal article. The following is supposedly the full text, copied from beatenvalue on his board. It requires a print subscription to access all of this text. The text available at the website is limited:
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/11/12/story5.html
Friday, November 9, 2007
U.S. marshal seizes jewelry sold by former Universal Express CEO
South Florida Business Journal - by Brian Bandell
Federal authorities say former Universal Express CEO Richard Altomare
used company funds to add to his personal watch and jewelry
collection - including a $500,000 diamond - then sold everything for
hard cash.
On Oct. 10, U.S. marshals seized 24 pieces of jewelry and watches
from Kravit Estate Buyers/The Estate Department in Boca Raton. The
SEC filed a motion in New York federal court on Nov. 5 to sell those
items to satisfy its $21 million judgment against the shuttered Boca
Raton-based company.
A judge ruled that Universal Express and Altomare illegally sold
unregistered securities and issued false press releases. As the SEC
prevailed, the company raised an additional $9.5 million by selling
unregistered securities this year, while Altomare took a $1 million
salary from the money-losing luggage shipping company, according to a
report by Miami attorney Jane Moscowitz, who took over as receiver on
Sept. 7.
Altomare is under federal criminal investigation while he appeals
$3.1 million in damages.
In an Oct. 31 letter, Moscowitz asked Altomare to reimburse the
company for $558,900 in jewelry purchased from Les Bijoux in Boca
Raton, $30,000 in gambling markers at a Las Vegas casino and his
$200,000 bonus.
Altomare did not return a call to his personal residence. His Miami
attorney, Arthur Tifford, also did not return a call.
"Their choice was to take money from the company and not pay the
employees, which is ridiculous," said Fort Lauderdale attorney
Christopher Whitelock, who represents a former Universal Express
employee in a federal unpaid wages lawsuit against the company and
its former executives. "He's gambling with people's wages."
Whitelock believes nine or 10 employees weren't paid for several
weeks and were denied overtime payment. The receiver's report shows
that some employees charged $61,000 to their credit cards to cover
company expenses - and were not reimbursed.
Money wired for jewelry
According to the SEC's motion, Altomare used wire transfers from
Universal Express to Les Bijoux from January through May to purchase
an 11-carat, emerald-cut diamond for $500,000; a 7-carat, radiant cut
fancy yellow diamond ring for $85,000; a Jaeger LeCoultre Atmos Clock
for $40,000; and a FP Journe Chronometre souverain platinum watch for
$20,000. These purchases were not mentioned in the company's SEC
filings and weren't part of Altomare's disclosed compensation.
In September, Altomare sold Kravit Estate Buyers the yellow diamond
ring and four other items for a total of $90,000 and signed an
agreement that he had title to the property and was free of liens,
according to the SEC. However, when Mark Kravit of Kravit Estate
Buyers asked Greg Osipov of Les Bijoux for the ring's certificate,
the jewelry store's managing member said Altomare still owed him
$65,000 for its purchase.
Later that month, Altomare sold 21 items - including the emerald-cut
diamond and the FP Journe watch - to Kravit Estate Buyers for
$481,000 in hard cash, according to the SEC, which noted that these
items were purchased for much more.
"Altomare's attempt to sell the property and take the proceeds for
himself was theft," SEC attorney Leslie Hughes wrote in a court
memo. "Under these circumstances, the Estate [Buyers] acquired no
title to the property because the property was owned by the company
and wrongfully converted by Altomare. No one can confer a better
title than he has, and a thief cannot pass good title."
Carl Schoeppl, the Boca Raton attorney for the Estate Department,
said his client would file a motion in the New York federal case to
have the jewelry returned to it. The Estate Department was a bona
fide purchaser without knowledge of the liens against Altomare, he
said. It will contest that the items were stolen, but if it can't
recover them, it would take action against Altomare and his wife,
Schoeppl said. He said falsifying a purchase agreement is a criminal
offense.
Professor backs SEC stance
The SEC has a good case for assigning the jewelry to the company's
assets, Nova Southeastern University law professor Mark Dobson said.
Unfortunately, the shop that bought the items appears to be on the
hook, and its best hope is that Altomare still has the money it paid
him, he added.
As for Altomare, buying the jewelry with company assets and taking
them for himself could be considered criminal theft - similar to what
former Tyco International CEO Dennis Kozlowski was convicted of, said
Boca Raton securities attorney Jim Sallah, who used to work in SEC
enforcement.
"Companies get looted all the time, but this is pretty brazen,"
Sallah said. "The fact that Altomare did it right under the SEC's
nose and after the company was thrown into receivership is pretty
outrageous."
bbandell@... | (954) 949-7515
Not sure how much this means, but ETrade Pro shows only 8 MMs on Bid at .0001. Last time I checked (2 days ago), there were 12.