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.
Let's be clear, the tax issue was my mistake. I ran the report with the state and it showed Tax Delinquent, I sent the report to Doc. He's in Germany, he took my word for it.
Now as far as the other person you mentioned, I can't vouch for him. But as I've said before I've known Dr P for 4 years now and his credibility is impeccable.
Very plausible, but (lol) - what about the point Doc made - ATRN still had millions of Authorized Shares and only needed to sell a small amount to generate the cash they needed? Why didn't they?
I disagree chunky, if they're a member of Doc's place they haven't sold. The 33m shares we own collectively over there are in very strong hands.
dolmo, thanks for your kind words. You may be right, and I certainly hope you're right. I just think they'd be playing a dangerous game with the SEC if they made a deal with ATRN, were given millions of shares to pay down debt before the deal was finalized, sold these shares into the market, pocketed the proceeds, then used said proceeds to buy shares back at these lower levels.
It seems too complex to me, do we know of any other companies that have done this before?
Also, with 87m shares outstanding, and of that 87m we (Dr P's group and several others here who haven't given him their details) are holding AT LEAST 40m of that (not including smoke_em who I don't really believe anyway), we're then assuming the other 47m are locked up by the company. I just don't know if I buy that.
However...there have been some pretty decent-sized blocks for sale the past 2 weeks under .10 and have sat out there for awhile. If BD was buying, why not just grab them? Most I've seen have been bought piecemeal.
I don't believe BD is buying shares. I don't believe ATRN is merging or being bought out. Assuming they aren't filing bankruptcy (which I don't believe), I think they're trimming the fat and trying to turn the company around after the Kazaa disaster.
No, because they issued 8K's regarding the sale of assets specifically indicating the proceeds were to pay down the debt.
Well I can assure everyone that if there is any evidence of criminal activity, there will be substantial resources available from the current group of shareholders to see justice served. And that would include BD if they knew, for example, that Atrinsic was going BK (which I don't believe they are, I'm merely citing that as a possibility which would implicate BD) and took shares in lieu of cash then shorted them into the market.
I'm not convinced either way, but we're going to find out in the very near future. Laws exist for a reason, and although it could take years to sort it all out you can see the resolve of certain shareholders here who won't mind waiting and seeing it thru to the end.
Unless they already made a deal in late 2011 for a much lower share price. We'll find out sooner rather than later, that much I'm sure of.
Yes, I agree, assuming management is committed to doing the right thing and trying to make the company profitable this is the most logical answer; and assuming they're indeed moving to less expensive offices, eliminating non-essential personnel, etc. then obviously none of us should have a problem with this gameplan.
Now, if they're doing all this AND trying to depress the share price intentionally for some reason that is not in the best interests of shareholders (ie. breaching their fiduciary duty by self-dealing or whatever), then we (and they) have a massive problem.
It's obvious someone has been working out of a decent position in the stock all day today (smoke_em?). Without any buy pressure to provide support we could test the next resistance point. These are the consequences of a company going silent as others have pointed out today.
You keep using the term "armchair CEOs" as if the people on here don't have any business experience compared to ATRN management. You'd be surprised at some of the resumes of the shareholders and posters here, myself included.
So I'd appreciate it if you stopped using that term, at least when referring to me.
Thanks.
Would love to see the company come clean with positive news and a massive short squeeze. I know it's not likely, but if BD et al still hold a lot of shares they could cash in big along with the rest of us and everyone will be happy except the scumshorts.
At .01 the market cap is less than $1m. I don't see it, that's tip money for a guy like Dyne, and there are people here and over at Dr P's place with enough funds to buy the whole company at that price (or even now).
I'm not even concerned about revenues, we know they're making a few million per quarter at the very minimum, my biggest concern is their outstanding debt.
Fair enough, I truly hope you're right. Good luck to you also, and all of us.
buck, please don't get me wrong - I appreciate all the DD you've done and your confidence in the company. I too hold a lot of shares and believe they will increase in value in the future.
However, ATRN management is not doing what Facebook management is doing. You can't disregard their actions that have caused the share price to plummet to these levels. In the absence of any rational explanation from the company (which we've yet to hear), all indications point to breach of fiduciary duties. I want to know why they've taken the actions that have resulted in us sitting near .07, don't you?
One form of a breach of fiduciary duty is called self-dealing, where the fiduciary does something to help himself at the expense of the other party. For example, if the trustee managing investments in a trust diverts a valuable opportunity away from the trust and into his own business, that's a form of self-dealing. Similarly, if the manager of a pension fund permits an investment advisor to manage the fund in return for a bribe, that's a breach of fiduciary duty. If the fiduciary's contract with the beneficiary breaches a fiduciary duty, the law will refuse to enforce the contract.
The officers and directors of corporations bear a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation and to its shareholders. If the officers and directors waste corporate assets, that's a breach of fiduciary duty that may subject them to liability.
In addition, the majority shareholder has a fiduciary duty to the minority shareholder. So, let's suppose the majority shareholder refuses to declare a dividend to force the minority shareholder to sell his interest, that could be a breach of fiduciary duty.
But it isn't just the fiduciary who's liable. Under New York law, a person who induces a breach of fiduciary duty is also liable. This may be helpful if the fiduciary is judgment proof-- i.e., without the assets to pay a large judgment. Under New York law, the injured party may sue a relatively peripheral figure that induced the breach, who may have the resources to pay a judgment.
The existence of a fiduciary relationship imposes on the fiduciary a duty to volunteer relevant facts. That is, in an arms-length relationship, neither party is required to volunteer facts. But in a fiduciary relation, the fiduciary is required to disclose relevant facts. Failure to do so gives rise to a fraud claim. Thus, for example, if a fiduciary is selling real estate to the cestui que trust, the fiduciary is obligated to volunteer all the relevant facts.
http://www.newyorklitigator.com/lawyer-attorney-1626209.html
Buck, you're not comparing apples to apples.
Zuckerberg did not give away most of the company's remaining shares to a debtor in lieu of merely selling a small amount into the market to pay off the debt in full, nor did Zuckerberg delist the stock to destroy the market value of the company, nor did he allow the shares given to the debtor to be shorted further destroying the company's value, nor did he "go dark" to keep investors completely unaware of what the company's financial situation and overall status is.
Companies do not do these things if they're acting in the best interests of their shareholders.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there is strong circumstantial evidence of criminal activity on the part of ATRN management for self-dealing, particularly when you connect the dots to all the relationships that exist amongst them within ATRN and to "partners" in the industry, including their lawyers, and their past deals. There are too many coincidences and incomprehensible business decisions to think otherwise.
That's not to say ATRN doesn't have a bright future, but facts are facts and for whatever reason(s) management has made decisions to turn off those lights (at least to investors). We deserve to know why, we have rights.
Omnicom is hiring for quite a few positions on Monster.com (just search by company).
Interesting.
The stock never hit .37 on the way up, the high was .3599
Conversely, the management hasn't shown a single reason that they ARE doing their jobs. If you're a public company with a fiduciary duty to shareholders, there is at least a minimum standard of disclosure you should meet. We have ZERO disclosure. If you believe Fong, Baker, Dyne et al are acting in your best interests that's all well and good, but the facts say otherwise.
As I posted yesterday, there are only 2 scenarios:
1. They're going to screw us
2. They're not going to screw us
That's what this all comes down to ultimately.
I understand that there are many of us diehards who are holding on for more than .15-.25, but the reality is that probably half of those holding now will sell somewhere around that level in the absence of any concrete, positive news. That was my point.
I think many of those holding (50% or so) will sell between .15-.25 if they get the chance. That will provide those holding from the low pennies to recoup much of the profit they lost by not selling on the first few runups, and those who got in late to break even or come close to it. Unless the company gives some indication otherwise that would cause people to hold out for more, I see at least half the current group bailing out at those levels.
I told you guys earlier today that Fong, Baker and other key management are no longer operating out of the 7th Ave. address. I'll have more details later this week but I'm 100% certain they are not working out of that office anymore (although they may drop in from time to time).
I think the key people have already moved and there is just a minimal staff at that location winding things down. I'll have confirmation of this myself by the end of this week, but I don't believe Fong, Baker, Johnson and other executive management are working out of that office any longer.
What are you talking about? There is only 1 company sponsoring the contest - Turnstone. Atrinsic is merely 1 entry among 184 in the contest, so not sure what you mean.
My point is that out of the 184 entries, Atrinsic's sucks. Surely Amy Johnson is not dumb enough to think that her video would be an actual contender for the prize. Hence, the video's main purpose was to convey the message that they're moving, not to win a 25K makeover.
Do you comprehend what I'm saying?
1. Spyder is just a small part of what Atrinsic does. And yes there are lots of Spyders out there which is why Atrinsic et al cannot trademark it for internet search/marketing purposes, it's too generic (although they could eventually apply for AtrinsicSpyder but haven't yet).
2. When they move I believe they'll simply update their website and notify their clients/vendors/etc. via email (if they haven't already).
3. I don't think Amy Johnson's video was intended to win the 25K Office Makeover Contest. Have you seen some of the entries? They are VERY professionally done. Hers was basically recorded on a cellphone and gave no real reason why they should win the contest. Therefore, I think it was a merely a message for "us" to find. Maybe they think it's funny and are just playing games with us by dropping these obscure clues, who knows? But one thing I'm sure of is this video was not made to win the contest.
Basically we are down to 2 scenarios (regardless of a buyout/merger/etc.):
1. The company will f*ck all shareholders, then deal with the aftermath thru the legal system.
2. The company will not f*ck all shareholders (and let the market decide the price based upon their performance going forward, assuming no buyout/merger).
I think each scenario is 50/50 since the company has shown no regard for shareholders up to this point; but, they understand that they're not dealing with just any ordinary shareholder group.
I think this move is a good "move" and is another cost-cutting "move" so that the company can "move" forward.
There can only be 2 possible things happening:
1. They're providing an update to everyone (shareholders, customers, industry, etc.) before the Summit starts on Monday so as not to cause any potential embarrassment at the event nor detract from the agenda
2. They're reacting to Doc's letter which they received today (by posting an update, or by not posting an update)
Well we have confirmation that they have Doc's letter, so this is quite interesting.
It would make sense to put out something before SIS starts on Monday so as not to detract from the event itself. I'm sure they're anticipating people asking them wtf is going on with the company so the wise thing to do would be to just give everyone an update and focus on the summit.
No one should be messing with their clients. Their attorneys would be all over someone who tried to do that.
Let this play out. The company knows we exist and how much stock we own collectively, they know we're anxious for news, and they know we're willing to fight if we have to (keyword "if"). The ball is in their court right now and I'm cautiously optimistic they'll do the right thing. Each and every one of us has a price we think the company is worth, and also a price that we'd be willing to sell our shares at (which for many is significantly lower than what we value the company at). But that price is not .08. Most are willing to "go down with the ship" if that's what happens, and I can't see these guys destroying the company because they have an ax to grind with shareholders. Not when the company has so much potential in such a hot market.
I believe we'll know sooner rather than later.
The fact that Doc has gotten 201 people (not including himself) to send him screenshots of their ATRN holdings is pretty impressive no matter what happens. It's also a great testimony for ATRN, that they have that many shareholders who believe in them and are not willing to part with over 37% of the total shares outstanding for a bargain basement price.
The company may ultimately screw us over in the end, but people will be hard-pressed to find another penny stock in the future with this type of support from its shareholders.
What's so funny? You think we can't get all 202 people who sent Doc their share count to request their certificates, thereby reaching the 300 shareholder of record threshold forcing ATRN to become a reporting company again?
Never underestimate people when it comes to their money.
The "problem" is that 99% of everyone in ATRN on this board is not trading the chart (although I commend you for your work). Whether that's a bad move remains to be seen. I think we're coming close to D-Day no matter what the outcome.
I'm not an investor, I'm a trader. Most of these companies are bullsh*t anyway, people working out of their homes, cars, maybe even homeless. I don't care, as long as I can make a profit. If I lose on this one there's always another.
We really don't know anything at this point. I never believed a rabbit breeder could buy $12m worth of biofuel in the first place. I just want to hear what the company has to say in their next report due out any day, then I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for your efforts.
How do you know it's not the other way around and she's the scammer and not the "scammee"? I wouldn't trust a rabbit breeder either, I spoke to her earlier today and she said she doesn't deal in biodiesel (I have a client/supplier that I'm trying to hook up - no pun intended), but isn't that what Agri Liquid Products is supposed to be involved in?
As long as I don't see the company diluting I'm holding. They still have the mineral recovery business also.
Certainly the most plausible scenario to date. Well thought out.
8.3m shares left and still bashing the company on a message board full of longs. Interesting.
I would expect them to file by the 19th since they've been compliant all along. If there's nothing to report then why would there be a delay, it's a no-brainer to file a report that says "hey, we're not doing anything!". Hopefully that's not the case and they'll have something positive to say (keyword: hopefully).
Another cryptic tweet from Rifkin, does it have any hidden meaning?
- Family Fued - note how he spelled Fued wrong "FUed" - hmmm...could he be telling some folks who have been harrassing him to F off?
- playing some Family Fued with Goldman and Alan Osetek - could it be that Kenshoo or Resolution Media are bringing ATRN into their "family"?
Rifkin's tweets always contain something that can be construed as a subliminal message to shareholders. I could chalk one up to coincidence, but not every tweet the guy sends out.
Call me paranoid, but this is what ATRN does to you eventually! LOL.