Hope there is additional positive action yet to come beyond the spike of the past couple of days.

Under the Indexed Records view Southern is shown as defendant and HTI/AHS as plaintiffs, but under the Circuit Court Records view Southern is the Plaintiff and HTI/AHS the defendants.

Two different views of the same Case Number with conflicting information.!! One of them needs to be corrected, which one is that ? only the court and parties involved know for sure IMO

Bizarre but you are right , if I follow the exact same links as on your screenshot it does say HTI are Defendants and Southern is Plaintiff. Must be the Case Index link page is messed up because it reads bass ackwards . Anyways , that is not good news.

Do'nt know how you see it that way, here is exactly what it says in the case details online . Seems pretty clear that Soutrhern is the defendant to me

Document Details


Case Number Index Type Nature of Case Date Filed Images
13- CV-000467 CIVIL CASES 2/25/2013 4:21:30 PM 1 page

DEFENDANTS
HERBERT C SOUTHERN

PLAINTIFFS
HIGHLINE TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS INC
ALTERNATIVE HYDROGEN SOLUTIONS LLC

Saw same thing exactly awk2861. Funny how that get's spun by some from Southern being the defendant to Southern being the one going after HTI based on what is in that case link. That's a stretch of the imagination unless someone has information published elsewhere other than the court documents discovered so far.

Agreed

Swarm, I'd agree with you that it is a disconcerting state of affairs even though the waters may be being muddied more than is warranted . Hopefully there will be communications some time soon making the lie of the land more clear. I also don't get how it can be stated the new office address is a "virtual" address now that it has appeared on official documents. It isd not like it is a PO box after all. HTI must have access to that building to receive the mail there , it's just too much of flight of fancy to say it's being used just as a mail drop , in my opinion.

That case number is the same one as I reported earlier. It is the Bankruptcy Case initiated by Mr Southern and Spouse . I have read every document in there and nowhere does it say that Mr Southern or his BK Trusteee has a counter claim for $300K against HTI. It does say that Mr Southern has liabilities to creditors that could be in that range.

I checked Pacer for cases brought against HTI by the Bankruptcy Trustee (Mr Fulmer). I could not find it or the details that you referred to. But if you are able to post the actual Case Number I'll be more than happy to look it up on Pacer and verify whether it is fact or fiction at this time. Please give me the case number you are looking at and I'll report back here accordingly .

I'm no legal eagle either !! But to me if HTI is listed as a Creditor then they are owed something (I assume money) by Mr Southern. That is preferable to HTI owing Mr Southern something in my humble opinion.

In the interest of verifying FACTS I have checked the Pacer system for Arkansas Bankruptcy Court (Western District) and there is a Bankruptcy Case Number 5:13-bk-70651 initiated Feb 26th 2013 by Mr Southern and Spouse.

However, what was not stated earlier is that HTI is a CREDITOR in this case and more interestingly to me the verified mailing address of HTI as one of the the CREDITORS for this case and is as shown below :

4344297 +Highline Technical Innovations, 1209 ESI Drive, Springdale, AR 72764-1100

So that tells me HTI really has moved office as was already opined by others on this board. Since this is on a verifiable court document generated in the past 2 days it represents the latest legal address information available for HTI.

I am not going to post links or full abstracts from the Pacer system as that would be in violation of my terms of agreement in my use of the Pacer system. You may believe what is said here or verify for yourself by registering for Pacer.

Thanks for pointing that out, I updated the original post to reflect that too.

Prior to yesterday's update of the share structure the previous reported figures were based on update from TA (via Niko) and were as of 1/11/2013. On that date they were :
Authorized 2,700,000,000
Outstanding 2,625,269,832
Public Float 2,395,994,313

As of yesterday , the only number that had changed from above was the Public Float which is now 2,518,994,313 as of 1/23/2013 an reported by TA. That is a change (since 1/11/2013) of 122 million shares in the public float. As long as the Authorized Outstanding have not changed (which they have not) I believe it is not dilution.

The numbers could just be coincidences and of no significant consequence to the common share holders. It definitely does not appear to be anything to do with share dilution since the Authorized Share count has not changed at all.

It's just a guess on my part , but what if the shares were issued to an entity in settlement of the PWC $1.1 million . If that was settled by monies provided by AHSGSM it could be that AHSGSM are in return receiving shares in settlement of HTI's obligation to them for that. Again , just a guess , I have no factual knowledge of that. If it were true I don't think it is of any negative consequence .

I wonder if these numbers are just coincidental ?

1. Somewhere in the period between 1/11/2013 and 1/23/2013 the public float increased by 123 million common shares. In that time period the prevailing PPS was averaging around 0.009 + or -. That translates to value of very close to $1.1 million give or take a bit depending on the average PPS on any particular day. Seems interesting to me that it is so close to the value of the monetary portion of the PWC settlement. Coincidence ?

2. With the recent (within past 12 days) increase in the public float by 123 million shares the difference between public float and shares outstanding is now just a little over 106 million shares. That is very similar to the number of 106 million shares of restricted common stock granted to AHSGSM for the JV and which cannot be traded for 12 months from the time of the JV establishment. Is it possible that while they are restricted they are still a part of the Outstanding Share count and that whenever they become unrestricted they would move into the public float and absorb the current difference between OS and Public Float ? Coincidence ?

Niko, need to update the Share Info on Intro page, the float increased by 122,200,000 shares between 1/11/2013 (your last update) and 1/23/2013 (per Heidi at Fidelity, see below)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In response to your email, please be advised the following on Highline Technical Innovations, Inc. through the end of business on 1/23/13:
·Number of common shares authorized: 2,700,000,000
·Number of common shares issued/outstanding: 2,625,269,832
·Number of common free-trading shares (float): 2,518,994,313

As always, should you have additional questions, please let me know.
Thank you.
Heidi Sadowski
Office Manager
Fidelity Transfer Company

J4P just want to say I appreciate and value your lucid and rational posts, they are a refreshing diversion from some of the extremes that are bandied around, keep up the good work.

Yes, should have been directed to the poster you were answering, but I think you get the gist.

The next quarterly statement due in February should answer some of those questions. Just wait a few weeks and you should have some answers

Wishing fruitful and happy voyages Casa, to you and the rest of the HTI/AHS crew, hope to see you call back in port here from time to time to keep up with the news.

OK maybe I'm smoking something but 20 minutes ago I did not see Ribotsky's name on the liquidation committee list , but now I do see it again. Weird.

http://ajw-group-liquidation.com/committee.html

PWC - AJW Bankruptcy proceedings

Interested to note there was an emergency meeting called by liquidators PWC in Bankruptcy Court New York Eastern District Jan 9th 2013

http://ajw-group-liquidation.com/downloads/United%20States%20Bankruptcy%20Court%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20New%20York%20-%20Order%20Scheduling%20Emergency%20Hearing%20-%209%20Jan%202013.pdf

Also interested to see that Cory Ribotsky was removed from the Liquidation Committee, he was on it back in August 2012 but no longer is, not surprising really.

http://ajw-group-liquidation.com/committee.html

Lastly here is link to DOC posted on NY Eastern District on Jan 11th , probably in response to the emergency meeting. I don't have access to the system to follow up , maybe someone here does .

https://ecf.nyeb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?380436

So you are using a poster's statement as a statement of fact ?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTI and AHSG participated together to form a joint venture which created an umbrella company called Alternative Hydrogen Solutions. This statement is to clarify that this joint venture is not a merger of the two companies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82837548

How can we kow that the poster of that message is speaking for the situation as it really is and is not misspeaking from lack of knowledge of the actual setup ?. That posters message does not represent total proof ijn my opinion. But appreciate your asking the questions, I am not totally convinced one way or the other right now so I'll keep an open mind if more specific, company generated information becomes available.

50 to 1 for 2013

AHSG is the company that was created for the sole purpose ... if you read your own post. Where does it say that AHSG created AHS ? It says that AHS is used as a vehicle by AHSG and HTI . What is wrong with a newly registered company using a pre-existing registered company to conduct business through ?

Pleased with the way the HLNT pps has played out this week.

I don't get all the fuss about AHS being registered before AHSG. So what ? , if the AHS company was set up first and then a couple of months later becomes the vehicle by which new company AHSG and existing HTI decide to operate with it, I don't see anything illegal or fishy about that. How many times do you see pre-existing shell companies being used by other companies to pursue their business needs ? . I'm not necessarily equating AHS to an empty shell company, just expressing the opinion that it does not matter that it existed before AHSG was set up .

Your link is useless as far as searching for Pending Patents is concerned. Pending Patents are not accessible to public search, as is indicated on the USPTO website itself. Go to link below and read for yourself. There is nothing sinister about the fact that you can't find anything yet in the USPTO database about HLNT's pending patent, that's just the way it is .

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/access.jsp

Maybe, but I personally don't know if so or not. It was JoeSmith33 (POST 87747) that mentioned something that was in their past

Apologies for the confusion, was going off of this which is probably confused too

CDEL is the old market maker CDRG.

CDRG M Citadel Derivatives Group LLC CHICAGO, IL 312-395-2717

http://www.alphatrade.com/E_Gate/tails/java/classes/resources/level2/marketMakerIDs/c.html

CDEL - M - CITADEL SECURITIES CORP. - FREEPORT, NY - 516-378-1000

http://www.level2stockquotes.com/market-makers-c-list.html

Was not saying that CDEL was pumping and dumping , but is it not possible that they would be taking advantage of the dips and accumulating if they see HLNT and it's technology as a potential winner in the Energy strategy area going forwards. Just my thoughts , nothing to back it up other than speculation.

Looked up some info about MM CDEL. Interesting few pages from their website in the link below. Although they don't specifically mention HLNT or it's kind of technology, it is obvious from reading that they have a pretty targetted focus on the future directions of all things related to energy development whether it be traditional, renewable or emerging technology. Could be that they are recognizing HLNT and it's technology as a potential winner that fits in with their overall philosophy and are right now accumulating as cheap as they can while the getting is good. These are my opinions and conjecture and should not be construed as investment advice. The link is worth a read and you can make your own decisions based on those contents and the recent trading environment .


http://www.citadelgroup.com/about/citadel-conversation.php

My opinion on today is that some of the "late to the HLNT party" crowd that bought in at around 0.011 after the news release on Tuesday were spooked by the initial drop to around 0.011 earlier today and decided to bail out when it recovered to 0.012 giving them a chance to at least flip a few burgers worth. Volumes coming in then and leaving today seem pretty close to each other.

Granted that there is potential for Natural Gas to become a bigger player in the HLNT picture. But we should also be reminded that the Shale Gas "Bonanza" that is being talked about is already showing signs of rapid depletions of accessible reserves in some of the areas being developed. These new shale gas plays will likely turn from Boom to Bust scenario based on a much steeper production decline curve than that which would be experienced on more traditional oil/gas development and production. I think talk of 20+ years of Shale gas develoopment and production is exaggerated. If it does go on for that amount of time the reserves being extracted 20 years from now are unlikely to be as easy to get at or as prolific as those we'll be seeeing for maybe the next 3 - 5 years. It will not be as cheap as it is today in that case.

So if companies like USA Metal Recycling or AHS/HTI or HLNT are bona fide companies that are going about their daily businesses in a legal fashion, could it then be considered to be libellous if someone continuously posts on IHUB that those same companies are shams ?

If a mega shareholder is in possession of 200 million HLNT shares then that would be 7.4% of the outstanding. If that is the case should'nt that be public knowledge? It would have had to be reported to the SEC due to being above 5% ownership of the outstanding ? I've not yet been able to find such a document detailing who taht is but still looking .

The broader market could include the European Union. Look at this white paper in the link below that lays out the road map that the EU is pursuing for fuel efficiency and emmissions controls. Hy-Impact products address so many of the details in this road map, the mind boggkles at the opportunities that can be available.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:HTML

Did some more DD looking through their website and links provided. My impression is they are only interested in selling the method and materials needed. A buyer would still have to create the "system" to make use of it.

Also, I'm feeling skeptical about the description of the chemistry involved. The catalytic carbon material sounds weird and contrived. Results might be expected if Potassium or Sodium Hydroxide is involved and perhaps that is used to dope the catalytic carbon which then promotes the generation of the hydrogen GAS,

Another Hydrogen production method being promoted in a news release/article today. Looks like just unsubstantiated claims as far as I can see, and the company's website looks a bit naff too. Something to be aware of and do some further DD on to see if it is anything authentic.



http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20121031/GETPUBLISHED/210310309/New-material-produces-Hydrogen-fuel?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CNews%7Cs

This suggests that the HLNT hydrogen technology could also benefit the performance of natural gas fuelled engines too.

http://www.intechopen.com/books/fossil-fuel-and-the-environment/a-review-of-use-of-hcng-fuels-in-internal-combustion-engines