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.
IF the market doens't close easly tomorrow, all the better, and I don't mind being wrong on that.
With the help of some, although surely unintended, HLNT has become hot topic across all of the boards. Expect a lot of attention on HLNT tomorrow. Too bad the market closes early tomorrow.
Well, apprenante, what is your take on the denial of Walters Motion for Summary Judgement?
Z, do you use Barcharts for your investment advice?
Actually, Jmizzle, a short squeeze is more a function of the timing, volume, and buying pressure that comes to bear on the MM's or Short Interests. MM's don't like to explain FTD's, because they conducted the short sale on the pretense that they had access to shares for the short sale. If they run out of time to cover short positions, and buying pressure is there working against them, regardless of any PR, they get caught in a short squeeze by having to compete against real buyers. When they are caught in the squeeze, they are adding to the buying pressure and increasing the volume as the PPS walks up, drawing the attention of flippers and momo players who thrive on such movements. Just the opposite situation where panicked flippers are selling into a walk down, causing the price to drop out from underneath themselves.
There isn't any shell game going on here, PD.
HLNT owns ZERO % of AHS.
HLNT (Highline Technical Innovations, Inc.) owns 50% of AHS (Alternative Hydrogen Solutions, LLC). AHSGS&M (Alternative Hydrogen Solutions Group Sales and Marketing, LLC) owns the other 50%. Everyone else knew that, understood that, from company press releases and didn't need this 'specific' clarification about the ownership interests that were created by the Joint Venture, as publicized by the Joint Venture announcements in May and June of 2012. The above statement, highlighted in Red, from post #90440, is a false hood.
"Why try ta hide that?"
The company, HLNT (Highline Technical Innovations, Inc.), is not trying to hide anything about the private company, AHS (Alternative Hydrogen Solutions, LLC), and the above statement highlighted in Red is misinformation and deception.
"Like "A joint venture was signed with Dongfeng"? "
HLNT announced the JV with Dong Feng more than 2 years ago. The announcement is a matter of public record. The company will release current information when it is ready, and we just all have to wait until they do.
Lawsuits are a matter of public record.
"hlnt is as tight-lipped about anymore ongoing lawsuits" implies that there are lawsuits beyond what has currently been discussed here. That implication is wrong. And as for being tight lipped about the current ongoing law suits, that shows a lack of legal understanding, as companies do that to protect themselves. But the impression that one would get from this, is that it is not okay for Humphries and Walters to be tight lipped either.
"I do plenty a DD bro. Tell me how much of AHS that HLNT now owns? If ya claim it's more than zero just say so. Numbers bro gimme a number."
If you do DD as much you claim, how did you miss the ownership?
"No I would sue HLNT and it's directors that formed their own private company..."
Since HLNT owns 50% of that private company, it would be a joke to file a suit that has no merit. Great advice, sounds like the advice that was given to Humphries and is probably the reason that he is in such a jam right now. Just do us a favor and keep advising him and Walters.
How hilarious. Should have forwarded this to Humphries and Walters before they pulled their fraud game. It is interesting that the Judge in the New York case upheld the claims against Walters and Humphries for, you guessed it, violating their fiduciary responsibilities.
So now the comment is made: "Yes I would file a suit in light of what HLNT has done, if I were a shareholder". HLNT shareholders are smarter than that, that is why we own shares of HLNT. Want HLNT shareholders to sue Walters and Humphries and waste their money? HLNT is already suing them!
Must be because Walters and Humphries are failing to fulfill somebody's wish, and are losing ground in the court cases.
"HLNT owns what % of AHS again bro? Ya ZERO." Should have done due diligence, like another recent poster here. HLNT stated its ownership back in June, and they were specific about it. Its not really okay to make things up, but don't expect investors to believe the made up stuff anyway, especially when the made up stuff is a false statement.
By the way, try forwarding the article to Scottie, he needs all the advice he can get to protect him from those other investors. Not that it would do him much good since he fell off the face of the earth, owning investors and creditors money.
That could be the case, if protections weren't written into the JV. But in my opinion, that is a non-issue because of the JV agreement.
"Can't see owners. Isn't that SPECIAL!"
Investors were given the information about the ownership in public statements that the company made back in May and June, and as a public statements, can only be taken as being factual. Insinuations that there is something being hidden do not change or alter the facts of the "announced" ownership.
Other posters in the past have made similar statements, but none have proven anything beyond what has been publicly announced. Such statements have only served to mislead other investors, until such time and if, their due diligence has led them to the truth. No amount of deflection is going to change the fact that the statement "Uh-huh. HLNT's "CEO" scamming investors and doing "business" with his own privately owned AHS (no TM). Sounds like MONKEY business to me!" is a false statement.
STill waiting to hear a retraction about the CEO dealing with his own privately held company. Being a CEO doesn't validate who owns the company, and if the due diligence had been done on the formation of the JV, you would not have made the false statement.
HLNT's revenues have been increasing during this quarter. As the quarter isn't over yet, we don't know by how much, but the increase is there.
HLNT spent the first 6 to 8 months of the year working on two things, the product improvements and the infrastructure for manufacturing, distribution and sales. With the Joint Venture and the addition of Mr. Cunetta, HLNT found access to companies that it would not have had as quickly had HLNT simply worked on its own. With the announcements of the infrastructure, HLNT and AHS has focused on the sales aspect of the business, which have often been based upon testing and performance verification, which we all know has taken time.
It was normal to see smaller fleets jump first, for two reasons, their cost of investment is lower, having fewer vehicles needing to be outfitted with an HHO unit, and the simpler managerial structures, where the person making the buying decision was closer to the testing and verification process. This was evidenced by USA Metal Recycling.
Something that will become general knowledge soon is that the PR about USA Metal Recycling actually generated more sales, not just new contacts, but new contacts who were actually ready to buy, and are doing so.
HLNT/AHS is continuing to work on the 'Sales' Infrastructure, which we will get to hear more about, but more and more PR's will now be about the revenues, about closing of fleet deals. As HLNT/AHS has learned to prevent the disruptions of individuals who has tried to hurt HLNT, these announcements are coming after the fact, done deals.
Oh, and by the way, did I neglect to hint that there would be a PR last Friday. Must have slipped my mind again. As MM's get a 15 minutes advance notice of a PR, they had plenty of time to prepare last Friday for any liquidity measures that they needed to take (ie, adjust their shorting strategies). Will be interesting to see how well they fare (MM's and Short Interests) as HLNT/AHS releases more information that is coming.
It is going to be nice to see what continues to unfold here. Always fun to watch flippers, MM's, and SI's misguess and mistime the market activity around HLNT.
Everyone have a Merry Christmas, and we will be looking forwards to an even better New Years.
Apprenante, in your post 90033, you state:
"Uh-huh. HLNT's "CEO" scamming investors and doing "business" with his own privately owned AHS (no TM). Sounds like MONKEY business to me! "
There isn't anyway that any one can misinterpret what you are saying. You cannot explain the remark away, with insinuation or
a subversive attempt to imply the company, AHS, is owned by Chad.
The fact that Chad is CEO of HLNT and AHS in no way relates to him owning AHS privately. Sorry, dude, the statement is a lie. And the part of '"CEO" scamming' in the context that you have used it was not very bright.
Apprenante, if you can't find what you are looking for on the US Govt sites, I suggest that you contact Herb Southern, the lawyer for HLNT, and he can answer your questions for you. Being a novice in the Trademark and Patent sites for the U.S. will often times lead investors who are trying to perform due diligence down the wrong path. If you are truely interested, Mr. Southern will be happy to help you, provided you are qualified stock holder.
The statement was made about Coates private company. The references provided show no privare ownership of any of the companies referred to. Again, to what private company are you referring?
There is one other poster here who has often made that false statement, and seems to be the most likely source of that same misinformation you've presented.
Apprenante, where did you get the idea that Chad has a privately owned company that is doing business with HLNT?
There are lots of things that I cannot discuss, PD. Its called an NDA. But like the court cases, you are entitled to your own opinion, right or wrong.
The how many, to who, and for what is all that needs to be determined.
HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 12/20/2012:
Yesterday, the Judge in the Texas case issued his decisions on the Motions for Summary Judgements filed by both Walters Monarch Bay Company and HLNT. Both, simply were denied. This is document #70 on the PACER System, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Case #4:11-cv-00463.
Background:
Briefly, when current management took over Systems Evolution (SSEV) and it became Highline Techinical Innovations (HLNT), the company was saddled with fraudulently created notes transferred from Dealers Advance (DLAD), a Humphries owned and operated company, to SSEV. Humphries was not able to convert and sell enough shares in DLAD to accomodate the loans he had received from Ribotsky and his NIR controlled Funding companies, so Ribotsky, Humphries and Walters put together a plan to make SSEV the holder of the debts by using a sham transaction to move the notes from DLAD to SSEV, which occured on December 31st, 2008. In the process of the wheeling and dealing, Walters took the prior assets and revenue generating operations out of SSEV, and created notes against SSEV for himself and his personal companies for those debts that he did not transfer with the assets and revenues that he absconded with. Also in the process, he resigned as CEO and Humphries replaced him, dates uncertain. Charlie Foster and Mel Robinson, seeking a public entity to help fund their HOSS and HHO private companies, connected to Humphries and stock was exchanged and SSEV became the majority owner of the HOSS and HHO companies, giving Humphries something to PR so that he could pump the SSEV stock and sell shares to repay Ribotsky and NIR. One problem, Humphries felt that Ribotsky had committed to further funding of Humphries, which Ribotsky did not do, so in lacking of funds, Humphries stated selling shares to finance himself. Robinson and Foster found out about the illegal activity of Humphries and confronted him with it, at which point a Release of Liability for Humphries from SSEV was created, and he left the company to Foster and Robinson. It was at this time (March and April, 2010) that Chad Coates became the CEO of SSEV, that SSEV became HLNT, and that Ribotsky decided that he wanted to exercise his right to demand conversion of some of the notes. What Ribotsky didn't know was that Chad, Robinson, and Foster were not done in digging into the illegal acivities of Humphries and discovered the fraud that was committed by Walters, Humphries and Ribotsky, so HLNT refused to honor the conversion request by Ribotsky. In his arrogance and based upon his experience, Ribotsky filed a suit against SSEV/HLNT for payment and or conversion, still not understanding yet that his conspiracy had been uncovered, but thinking that HLNT would roll over and pay up and convert. The suit was filed in April of 2010, HLNT first filed and answer in June of 2010, while Humphries was being shaken down in a sting operation that was being run by the FBI (started when Humphries had been CEO of SSEV). After initial discovery and an amended filing of Ribotsky and NIR (to included DLAD as a defendant in case naming SSEV was not enough), HLNT filed its Amended Response (against NIR) and Counter Claims against Ribostky, Humphries and Walters (and their respective companies), in January 2011. Walters refused service of the lawsuit, Humphries objected and subsequently filed his first bankruptcy filing, and NIR objected to HLNT's (formerly, SSEV) Response and Counter Claims. Because of Humphries bankruptcy filing, the Judge in the case severs the Counter Claims, staying that part of the case, and allowing the NIR part of the suit to continue. HLNT filed a Motion in June of 2011 to have the Counter Claims rejoined, excepting Humprhies, and out of the wood work suddenly comes Walters objecting to the Motion, along with NIR. In june of 2011, the Judge rules against HLNT's motion, which is a major victory for Walters and Ribotsky, but only a few days later, Humphries Bankruptcy filing is dismissed due to lack of merit, opening the door to have the Counter Claims rejoined.
Now comes Walters, in June of 2011, demanding payment and or conversion of notes that were created in the fraud that was committed in the transfer of the NIR notes from DLAD to SSEV. HLNT refuses, and Walters files suit against HLNT for non payment in July 2011. HLNT had a poor cash flow during this time, and Walters request for payment and subsequent lawsuit filing were part of a strategy to put HLNT out of business so that it couldn't continue its fight in the New York Case.
In August of 2011, HLNT with Monarch Bay's agreement (Walters company that was lead in the suit), HLNT filed a Motion for extending the time to reply to Walters suit. An order was given by the Judge for the time extension. Two weeks later, HLNT filed a Motion to dismiss or stay, citing the fact of the existing case in New York. The judge doesn't make a decision on the Motion until Dec 28, 2011, and HLNT must file its intial response by January 11th, 2012, which it does.
During this process, Humphries has not only filed a second bankruptcy, which was dismissed again by the court, but he has now filed a third bankruptcy, again requesting an automatic stay of the Counter Claims case. Also in the New York case, Walters has tried to get the Counter Claims dismissed, or stayed, in lieu of arbitration in California, but is unable to because he did not file timely and the Judge denies his Motion for dismissal/stay. Then comes Humphries who files his fourth Bankruptcy petition, correctly, and who tries to tell the New York Judge that he has an automatic stay. But Humphries learns that there is no automatic stay and has to retract his statement, but has a lawyer (conveniently provided to Humphries) file for a stay any way. In the end, the stay is denied, and Humphries is forced to begin complying with the discovery and deposition requirements in the New York Case. Humphries and Walters still try to postpone discovery and depositions in the N.Y. Case (Walters has refused to pay his N.Y. attorney, so they file a motion to be removed), but the Judge finally puts her foot down by issuing orders that Walters attorneys will remain and see him through the depositions.
Having failed in the N.Y. case to prevent his having to give a depostion, Walters attorneys in the Texas case now file, after notice of the depositions, but a week before his N.Y. deposition a Motion in the Texas case to compel HLNT to present it's arguments about why the Texas notes are not valid, from HLNT's point of view. This is an attempt to force HLNT to show its hand in the N.Y. Case prior to the depositions, and to force the Texas case along ahead of the N.Y. case. Walters deposition in the N.Y. Case goes off first, then Humphries, after which, Walters is given a chance to change attorneys in that case. He is given 30 days, or until Aug 3rd, 2012. In the same time frame, and unbeknownst to Walters or Humphries, PWC has entered into negotiations with HLNT to settle the N.Y. Case with regards to NIR and Ribotsky. When the settlement is announced, it is a blow to Walters and Humphries.
Also, HLNT tries to file a Counter Claim in the Texas case, but the Judge in Texas denies it, due to the filing being late, according to Walters attorneys (they remembered what had happened to them for filing late in the N.Y. case.). HLNT lost the Motion, and Walters Attorneys were keeping the focus narrowly defined to the Notes in the Texas Case. The motion was denied by the Texas Judge in July of 2012.
AT Issue in Law and Business:
Generally, Notes are upheld in law, as it relates to protecting and promoting the rights of lenders in business over borrowers, making business function more smoothly. As a result, it is far more difficult to defend against a Note suit than it is to prosecute one. HLNT was traveling a tough road in this case, because the law was stacked against them, even despite knowing that the notes were created as a result of the fraud committed by Walters, Humphries and Ribotsky. With the denial of HLNT's request to file Counter Claims, and to enjoin Walters and Humphries in the case in August of 2012, HLNT's chances were even worse.
Filings of Motions for Summary Judgements:
Now comes Walters attorneys filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgement against HLNT (payment of the note balances at least). This filing is done in late September
Then HLNT files a Motion to allow it to amend its original response to Walters amended complaint. This is done in early October. Walters files his response saying that they should not be allowed to, again citing the delay in the filing.
HLNT next files a Motion, agreed to by Walters attorners, to have a change in counsel, and subsequently to delay the proceedings to after February, due to pregnancy of the substitute counsel. The Judge denies HLNT's requests. The Judge at the same time rules against HLNT's request to file an amended response and HLNT's motion is denied.
HLNT must now answer to Walters Objection to HLNT's Objection mto Walters Motion for Summary Judgement.
HLNT then files a Motion for Summary Judgement, requesting dismissal and stating that the notes were not valid because among other things, Humphries never had the authority to sign them. This occurs in the later part of October.
Walters now files a Motion to allow for new testimony from Humphries, stating that Humphries was authorized to sign the notes for SSEV. HLNT files objections, but the Judge rules in favor of Walters.
The Judge's Order:
The denial of the both Motions for Summary Judgement was a victory for HLNT, simply because notes are difficult to defend against. While it would have been nicer had HLNT's Motion was approved, the denial of Walters Motion meant that HLNT had established enough factual evidence to question the validity of the notes.
What to expect:
This case is now going to proceed to trial, which is to the benefit of HLNT. While there are some critical issues that I cannot discuss here, prior to the Judges rulings, HLNT had less than a 20% chance of winning this case. With the Judge's decisions, HLNT's chances have jumped to over 50%.
Conclusion:
Both the Texas Case and New York cases are now going to trial. This is what Walters and Humphries least wanted and needed, as trial proceedings are a matter of public record, and they both have a lot to answer too. And in truth, Walters worst fears are coming true.
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and each investor should conduct their own due diligence and make their own investment decisions accordingly.
At point is the stock that Humphries issued, which is part of the reason as to why he was forced out of the company or risk criminal action. As part of the full disclosure, even that released by Humphries has to be accounted for, even though the financials for the last two years would be sufficient as part of the the disclosure. As I understand it from Humphries filings, stock transactions were a part of the the documentation that he had given to the SEC/FBI (or whomever) was to be provided to HLNT. We'll have to be patient to see where that goes.
Z -
Charting can be a useful tool, and it certainly has its place, but it is one tool of many, and is one piece of information in the whole puzzle that must be looked at when making an informed decision in buying and selling stock. Second, as has been stated, "the trend is not your friend", and that applies in either a rising PPS or a falling one, because the chart can only suggest a direction, not predict one with absolute accuracy. Investors who use charting have to understand that they are dealing with probabilities, not certainties.
Investors who use charting and are comfortable with it do so at their own risk, and hopefully use other tools and due diligence to augment their decision making, whether is be for the purposes of a quick flip (which is seldom done with any repeatable success, even though some would like to suggest it is possible) or for the long term holding of a stock that leads to capital gains, and a better tax rate.
As for recommendations made by such places as "Bar Charts", research has concluded that buying and holding a balanced porfolio has actually done as good over the long run versus the use of advisements issued by any such company, and anyone who buys and sells according to such "specialists" would often times fare even better by not following the advice of such recommendations and/or predictions.
Other than that, we are all free to express our opinions, and others are free to disagree with us.
Ravmn -
I do not have an answer to your question for the reason that I am not the one who has received the documentation, and do not know what was included or what was not.
Under the best case, if the documentation was complete, and orderly, it would take probably less than 30 days to review and find what was needed. Under the worst case, not all needed documents have been received, and there has been no definitive time frame set under which they could be sent by Humphries.
If I hear anything on the status of the discovery documents from Humphries, I will pass it on.
HLNT Board Members, just a reminder about TOU and TOS. They can be found at the following link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Terms.aspx
The following is directly from the Users and Moderators Handbook:
"Deletion of Posts
While in manage mode, Moderators will see a message that says "Click any message below to view, then remove or restore it." Clicking on a specific post will then show the option to "remove" in a box on the left. Clicking this will then provide the following options as a reason for removal: Personal Attack, Duplicate Post, Spam, Off Topic, Vulgarity, Author Asked to Remove, Violation of Privacy, Threat.
Duplicate
This is an accidental duplicate post by a single Member. This does not mean a similar message posted previously or the same content posted by a different Member.
Personal Attack
This is when someone attacks one or more members personally rather than the content of that Member's message. The post does not have to be addressed to the "target" of the attack to be considered a Personal Attack. If it attacks a messenger rather than the message, it qualifies for deletion and it is expected that Moderators will remove it.
Spam
Posting the same or similar content to more than two (2) boards within a calendar day; Posting the same or almost identical post more than twice within a calendar day i.e. "where's the PR?", "anyone seen the PR?", "thought there was going to be a pr today?", "geez, is the pr coming out today or not?"; Sending the same or similar unsolicited PM to multiple recipients More on PM spam. Posting content that is off-topic to the subject of a board; Posting statements that do not add value to the discussion (i.e. "My cat ate my homework" or "Bzinga"); Posting excessively on one or more message board(s). If you feel someone is abusing their posting privilege in this manner, please discuss this with a Site Admin prior to removing any posts. Spam that overlaps off-topic (see below) are posts containing content promoting other sites, stock-related or not. Spam promoting other stocks/companies that has no use in the discussion (for example, if your board is about Ford Motor Company, a post or link about a home improvement company is not relevant to the discussion). This does not apply to legitimate industry comparisons and discussions. Posting the same "noise" posts i.e. "to da moon" or "this stock is a POS" continuously without other relevant content. This does not mean that if someone asked about dilution yesterday, a similar post today is considered spam.
Off Topic
Posts not about the topic of the board including other stocks or companies. This does not apply to legitimate industry comparisons and discussions when outlined in the post. Posts about or focusing on other Members or groups of people and their reasons for posting on the board (i.e. "XYZDownDaDrain" is just a basher, ignore him", "XYZToDaMoon" is a pumper", "the naysayers are very loud today", "c'mon, where did all the cheerleaders go?"). The post does not have to be addressed to a specific person. If the post is about other Users then it should be removed. Posts with religious or political statements should be removed as "off topic". These inevitably create an avalanche of replies that are off topic as well. Posts about Moderators and/or deletions are also "off topic". Issues of this nature need to be discussed with a Site Admin. Putting "ot" at the beginning of a post does not make it acceptable. It is still off topic and eligible for removal.
Vulgarity
The PG13 rule is loosely used as a guideline to what is/isn't acceptable when determining whether a comment is vulgar. The theory is that if society has deemed it appropriate for a 13 year old to hear, it is unlikely that it will be offensive to the majority of Users. Profanity of this kind is unacceptable on the stock boards, even when punctuation characters are used to "fill in the blanks" or letters are changed (f**k, azzh*le, etc.).
Any form of vulgarity directed at another User is unacceptable and should be removed (i.e. "you're a sh*thead", "being an a** doesn't help your case").
Author Asked to Remove
When a Member has specifically asked that a post be removed and has cited a valid reason for removal, such as accidentally revealing personal information. This is an occasional accommodation and is not to be used to "mask" the removal of bona fide TOS violations. If you are asked as a Moderator to remove more than 2 messages as Author Request, please send the User to discuss with Admin. Messages over 48 hours old are not removed, even when requested by the Author, unless there are extreme circumstances (i.e. accidentally revealed an account number).
Violation of Privacy
Posting of what the Member believes to be any personally identifiable information (email, real name, phone, address, etc.) about another User or posting the contents of a private message is a privacy violation. For example, if a Member posts that "XYZDownDaDrain is actually Bob Smith", whether the information is accurate is a moot point. The Member was trying to disclose personal information. This is a serious violation and can get you suspended or terminated from the site. Posting or referring to the contents of private messages without the author's prior consent is considered a violation of privacy and can get you suspended or terminated from the site.
Threat
A Member threatening any other Member in any fashion is to be removed. Threats or insinuations of violence or physical harm against anyone is a serious infraction and can get you suspended or terminated from the site.
PD, how could you have misunderstood what I wrote?
""Time ta settle" for Humphries?". What I wrote was that it is time for Walters to settle. Humphries has been used, played by Walters, and when Walters no longer needs him, Humphries can kiss his 'are you sure you're a lawyer' representation goodbye.
"The timin is all about PwC bro. November is perfect. PwC will have HLNT back in court for breach prior to that".. This makes absolutely no sense. This is now December, so how is PWC going to go back in time to file a breach? A real winning statement there (NOT!!!!).
And Humphries asking about AHS at trial? "Objection your honor, not relevant!". Even suggeting that Humphries try such a thing is showing a complete lack of knowledge of the legal system.
"Playin poker now bro." Funny that this analogy was used, because Humphries has been bluffing all along. HLNT has called his bluffs repeatedly, in the New York case and in his professed bankruptcy cases, even the one he tried to file in Texas that he shouldn't have filed in the first place, and each time and he has constantly shown a losing hand. Falls into the same line as all the other predictions about how the court cases would go, lot of bluff and bluster, but always wrong. Better luck with some other NIR case.
It was asked why PWC went after HLNT? PWC didn't go after HLNT. PWC took the suit that was started by Ribotsky and brought it to an end, asking for a lot less than Ribotsky was suing for, cause they (PWC) knew it was a bad case, and they hoped that HLNT would choose to settle rather than continue to run up more lawyers fees that they would never get back from a defunct NIR.
But back to Humphries, the dudes holding a half of a lowly pair, looking at HLNT with 3 Aces showing and the table card is the fourth Ace, trying to bluff HLNT out of a winning hand. Never said he was smart. But just like him, keep your bluff going, who knows, it may sound good to someone.
HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 12/10/2012:
The New York Case:
On November 6th, 2012, HLNT's lawyers filed a Notice of Issue (Document #196 on the Scroll System, Case #600893-2010) asking for a Jury Trial in the Case. Humphries, in his manueverings, managed to get the Judge to vacate (cancel) the trial by his sudden efforts to comply with the Judge's order to provide documents requested in discovery. The Judge in her order (Document #201) gave Humphries until the 30th of November to show results, with documentation as to what he steps he had taken in order to comply.
In the Judge's Order on December 6th (last week), the Judge in a very simple order gave HLNT the go ahead to refile the Notice of Issue, giving HLNT until the 6th of February to do so. In her simplistic statement, the Judge has said that there will be no more delays and this case will go to trial as soon as the trial date is set.
The Texas Case (Walters/Monarch Bay):
In the last filing, by HLNT (Document #65, filed on 11/27/2012), HLNT's attorneys in the case responded to Walters/Monarch Bay's Objection to HLNT's Motion for Summary Judgement. It is by far the most damning document filed against Walters, using his own, and Humphries own, testimony to refute Walters Objections. It is worth reading, as Humphries is caught in yet another lie. Walters has tried his best to use smoke and mirrors in the case, misdirecting attention and focusing narrowly on the notes only, telling everyone not to look at what they actually did, but to look only as what they said was intended by them. Unfortunately for Walters, it is what is done that counts most in legal arenas. The Texas case in now waiting on the Judge there to decide the outcome of the Motions filed for Summary Judgement by both Walters and HLNT. The Texas case is already set for trial in February of 2013.
Interpretations:
HLNT's attorneys will probably file a Notice of Issue (Request for a trial) to see if they can get the trial on the docket before the Texas case goes to trial. A favorable verdict in the New York case would be devastating to Walters in the Texas Case. Walters filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, hoping that it would be granted quickly and that he could use that against HLNT in the New York case. However, HLNT's Texas lawyers have done a very good job in challenging the notes that Walters had claimed were valid. While the Texas Judge is difficult to predict in his decisions, HLNT has presented enough valid evidence to dispute the notes, so the only question that remains there is how the Judge will decide on the two motions.
What to expect:
Now is the time for Walters to settle. If he waits and relies on the Texas Judge to decide for him, there is great risk on his part that the judge there will decide against him, putting him in jeopardy of losing both the New York and Texas cases. If he loses the Texas case, it will be even worse on him in the New York case. If he were to win in the Texas case on the Partial Summary Judgement, a loss in the New York case could possibly result in the Texas case be overturned, or worse yet, be entered as evidence as to damages to HLNT in the New York case. Either way, he loses.
As for Humphries, if Walters settles, Humphries immediately loses his protective shield and financial legal support. As for any issues that Humphries could have had against HLNT (as claimed by PD), those issues, should they even exist, would not exonerate him from the wrong doing that he committed in any case. He was used by Ribotsky and Walters, but he also let them, hoping that they had some kind of magical power to free him from his illegal actions. Now he will have to live with the consequences for those disreputable actions.
As for Ribotsky, HLNT's settlement took Ribotsky and NIR off the hook, but saved HLNT much more legal fees. However, Ribotsky's problems with the SEC and the FEDS are growing, and he is subject to civil suits by NIR investors, which will happen, once they can find out where he stashed his ill gotten gains. Ribotsky should be getting his due in time, and it isn't going to be pretty.
The end to the cases can now be antipated, being finished in the first quarter of 2013. However, it would be a nice Christmas present if Walters came to his senses and settled now instead of waiting for the worst possible outcome he can get.
The opinions expressed herein are my own and each investor should conduct his or her own due diligence and make any investment decisions accordingly.
Shrewd, what has been going on inside the company has been changing too quickly to valuate at the moment. I suggest that we sit back and enjoy what is unfolding here.
Did I not drop a hint that news was coming? Must have slipped my mind. Looks like the Short Interests and MM's were really caught playing with themselves today. Wouldn't want to be them, as it is just going to get worse from here on, a real shorters nightmare. But Longs will really love watching them squirm. Those that accumulated when I suggested it, even above .02, will get their money back and then some, if they had the strength of charater to hold what they bought and not have been scared into selling.
You don't have to have an appointment to drop by the company, but it would be much better if you set one up well in advance. Just dropping by, the employees may not be there, as you have a few employees trying to do several jobs until the revenue picks up. As to your other question about where do they get the money to make the units used in testing, that happens through the business support that they have been getting.
Ravmn - The financials were current on Oct 31st as to current accounting information. What was not current, because of Humphries, was the Net Operating Loss carryovers from when he and Walters were CEO's, explanations of various stock transactions that occurred during Humhries tenure, and the corresponding narative that goes with the financials, ie, the disclosure.
One poster on HLNT has suggested (or stated) that the financials aren't up to date because they would show non-payment of the PWC note (Post #86719), however, the September 30th financial statements clearly stated that no payment was due to PWC during the 3rd quarter. As we understand that there are 3 payments to be made, but no information was given as to the date due, it can be speculated at least one payment is due during the 4th quarter, but no information is publicly available as to its status.
Supposedly, Humphries sent the discovery documents to HLNT's lawyers, according to his filing on the 30th of November, but we will see, and the next conference is on Thurday, so by Friday, we will get to see if Humphries is being a good boy or not.
Rookie, the Notice of Issue was the request for a trial by HLNT. A trial date was set, but by it being vacated, that means that the trial has been cancelled, at least for the moment. Basically, Humphries has engineered another delay, probably about another month, before a new trial date can be set. In the end, Humphries is going to get what is due to him, when HLNT gets a judgement or verdict against him.
Dodging the truth again?
In March of 2011, Humphries filed a response to the request for discovery from HLNT that the Feds had the Documents. Don't ignore the fact that he should have asked for them then. And what about the documents he referenced in his response to HLNT's first Adversarial proceeding in Jan to March of this year (before Humphries 3rd B.K. filing was s-canned for violation of good faith filing). Those weren't with the Feds. The Judge in the New York case has had enough of Humphries games. She wants specifics, no more excuses. The Trustee in Humphries 4th BK filing wants the documents and asked the BK judge to force Humphries to give them up. Those are not opinions, those are filings in the various courts.
Hunphries has played his fraud shell games long enough, and even the judicial system has gotten tired of it.
And the reference to the Texas Fraud Complaint: "Humphries ramped up the game with the Texas Fraud Complaint." There is no ongoing complaint. When a case is dismissed, a person lives in a fantasy world when pretending it is still ongoing. Check it out on the PACER system, case # 3:12-cv-02615. The case was dropped by Humphries himself. Made a big splash (not) for what, 30 days?
Don't know for sure what advice Humprhies has gotten from his "advisors", but one of these days, he is gonna realize that he had been played like a puppet on a string, and them advisors will be shocked at what he will do when he turns on them. It is coming faster than Humphries compliance with the Judges's orders.
First, ya got ya dates wrong. Humphries was approached in 2009 when the sting started. He wasn't even aware of it until 2010 when the FBI pulled him in and gave him a choice, sing about Ribotsky or face a long jail time. He wasn't sentenced until October 2010, but he did turn over the documents at some time between July and October of 2010. Some one keeps trying to make the deal out as through the Feds are after Robinson and Foster, truth is, these two are being ignored by the Feds.
And as for the case in Texas that you talk about, give a case number. A search of the PACER system shows only the following case that was filed by Humphries, 3:12-cv-02615, but if you bother to look it up, you find that it was dismissed. So put up or quit providing false information.
Defending Humprhies good name, are you? HLNT asked for the documents back in February of 2011, Humphries claimed that they were with the Feds. Instead of requesting them then, like he should have, he tried to use a bankrupcty to block the discovery. He had his time to provide the documents, just used every excuse he could to avoid doing so, cause he knows that he will be in more trouble by providing those documents.
This is the guy that was caught in an FBI sting unrelated to HLNT, after he was forced out of HLNT (SSEV), and admitted to his fraudulent activities to get a deal by plea barganing against Ribotsky? Bet on him if you want to, smart money says he will return to jail in fashionable "orange" for his further crimes, unless the Feds gave him a free pass for his Ribotsky testimony.
Tell us about this court case in Texas, where Humphries is suing HLNT, Robinson, and Foster. Ya know, the one that was dismissed because Humphries was told by the bankruptcy Trustee to drop it. Humphries had no standing, as all his rights went to the bankruptcy court. Now the Trustee has had to ask the Judge to compel Humphries to give up the documents "that prove he had a case", but that forces Humphries hand to provide all the documents that he doesn't want to give up as they also confirm his fruadulent actions at HLNT. Depending on Humphries is like betting on a horse that won't get out of the starting gate because it doesn't want to run. That's a race that was lost before it was even started.
Well, no one said that Humphries is smart. The Judge has asked for specificity, guess she needs to explain to Humphries is that she wants to know when calls were made, what was the nature of the calls, etc. The e-mails are self explanatory, if the hurricane didn't blow them away.
And the "I can't pay for copies" ploy!!. By listing and summarizing the documents, he can provide the documents to the counsels with the understanding that they will make what ever copies that they need, and in the end, what belongs to Humphries will be returned to him.
Oh, yes, dont' the SSEV documents belong to HLNT anyway? He just needs to turn them over, period.
He has until the 21st to comply.
James719, the Preclusion applies only to the evidence that Humphries would provide in his own defense.
There are really only three ways in which a Judge would dismiss a case with Prejudice. The first of these occurs when two parties settle their dispute and agree to drop any complaints or counter complaints, which is what happened when HLNT and PWC settled. The second of these would occur during a motion for summary judgement, in which the Defendant(s) move for a dismissal on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to plead the complaint sufficiently. Walters tried that last year about this time to get HLNT's 3rd Party Claims dismissed, but the Judge upheld that there was sufficiency for HLNT to continue in her rulings. The third way is when a case goes to trial and a verdict is rendered, then the judge dismisses the case with prejudice as there is no need for the case to be retried. This does not mean that the case cannot be appealed, but a new case cannot be filed for the same issues.
Undoubtedly, Humphries would love to provide only those documents that could help him in his defense, while claiming that he can't find or get any of the other documents. But the judge has told him that if he tries that then what he does provide will not be able to be used by him. Nor would it be useable by Walters.
HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 11/18/2012:
Ravmn, the Judge held a 'Status Conference' on the 13th of November. This S.C. was not announced in advance. That is significant in itself. From that conference, the Judge issued the following order:
"ORDERED that by November 21, Humphries shall file copies of any written communications regarding document production for this case between himself and the federal government, along with an affidavit 1)verifying the foregoing; 2)attesting to any oral communications on the aforesaid subject between said parties; 3) identifying with specificity the documetns he has received as of such date. Upon review of the foregoing the Court shall issue a further order. Humphries shall deliver Bates-stamped copies of the documents currently in his possession to the other parties by November 21, 2012, along with a privilege log in accordance with this Part's rules. Failure to comply with the foregoing shall result in preclusion."
Interpretation:
The last sentence quoted above was hand written by the Judge. What it means is that if he doesn't provide what he has, and a reasonable explanation of the efforts he is taking, that the Judge will disallow any evidence that Humphries could use in his defense. He has to comply with all discovery requirements, not just pick and chose what he wants to submit, like he wants.
Humphries, with Walters on the sideline advising him, has tried to delay the responses to discovery as long as he possibly can, to give Walters a chance in winning the Texas case. But the Judge in the New York case has put her foot down, and no more generalized excuses are being allowed by Humphries. If the Federal Government fails to provide Humhries with documentation, that would cause the Feds a problem, so they will get it to Humphries as expeditiously as they can.
Now for the real kicker. The Judge wants specificity. That means that Humphries has got to identify the documents that he is getting from the Feds. In the past, he has said that all the documents went to the Feds. Yet in his Bankruptcy case, he some how came up with documents (in a prior adverserial filing by HLNT to which Humphries responded). Let's say the Humphries claimed that he sent documents "ABC" and "XYZ" to the Feds (under the pretext that he sent them all the documents), but in his specificity, he can only account for document "XYZ" because that is all he sent to the Feds, and that is all that they can return to him. If Humphries lied about sending document "ABC" to the Feds because he never did, he is going to have to explain his little misstatement.
Humphries also has a problem with the Bankruptcy Trustee. The Trustee has asked the Judge in that case to force Humphries to turn over documents that would substantiate Humphries complaint that he wrongly filed in Texas against HLNT. But this will also force Humphries to turn over any documents to HLNT, since pursuit of any action against HLNT will also result in discovery. Humphries has been backed into a corner now in both the Bankruptcy case and the New York case, and he has lost all room to wriggle around with excuses.
It is assumed that Walters provided the lawyer for Humphries (Mr. Espinoza, the "are your sure your a lawyer" helping Humphries), under the contention that this would help Humphries in any and all cases against HLNT. The only one that this has really helped is Walters, and the question arises, when will Humphries come to terms to the fact that he has been duped and used by Walters? Once Humphries realizes how much he has been had, he will turn on Walters with a vengeance, and it won't be pretty.
The opinions expressed herein are my own and each investor should conduct his or her own due diligence and make his or her own investment decisions accordingly.
There are two supposed notes, one is $50,000 and the other is $80,000. But HLNT is even contesting the values, and doing so correctly. There was no accounting for the $80,000 note when Walters created it, or at least it was not supplied with the note, it appears to have been a "sign here, please!" kind of arrangement with Humphries doing the rubberstamping. As for the $50,000 note, Walters gave Humphries the stock, not to HLNT (SSEV at the time), so the question is why is HLNT (SSEV) having to pay for a note that it did not receive the consideration for, as Humphries is a stock holder, not the company himself. Humphries should have been personally obligated for the note, or the stock should have been given to SSEV.
Humphries and Walters, 'here, David, give me the stock and we'll have the company pay for it. Sure thing Steven, just sign this little $50,000 note right here.'
That is a good question, and a pretty insightful guess.
HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 11/07/2012 Part 2:
In post #84327, it was pointed out that there was a lot of activity on the Walters case in Texas. The following is a summary of the filings in that case, which is on the PACER system, Case # 4:11-cv-00463, Northern District of Texas.
Summary:
Document #25 06/13/2012 Filed by Monarch, but immediately unfiled by the court as it was not filed properly. Refiled as Document #28
Document #26 06/13/2012 Filed by Monarch, but immediately unfiled by the court as it was not filed properly. Refiled as Document #29
Document #27 06/13/2012 Order by the Judge to unfile Documents filed as #25 and #26.
Document #28 06/14/2012 Filed by Monarch Bay, Motion to Compel asking the court to have Highline answer with specifics as to Highlines allegations that the Notes were invalid.
Document #29 06/14/2014 Filed by Monarch Bay, Appendix to Document #28, showing HLNT's responses to discovery questions asked by Monarch Bay.
Document #30 06/15/2012 Order by the Judge that Monarch's Motion will be held in Abeyance in order for Monarch and HLNT to resolve their discovery disputes.
Document #31 06/18/2012 Filed by HLNT, Motion for permission to file Third Party complaint naming Walters and Humphries as 3rd party defendants in the case.
Document #32 06/18/2012 Filed by HLNT, Brief of information and supporting citings of law for HLNT's Motion in Document #31.
Document #33 06/18/2012 Filed by HLNT, listing of parties related to the case.
Document #34 06/18/2012 Order by the Judge for Monarch Bay to file its response to HLNT's request by the 26th of June to help expedite the case.
Document #35 06/26/2012 Filed by Monarch Bay, responding to HLNT's motion, citing timeliness as an issue, ie, that HLNT could have filed the Motion previously since it was already knowledgeable under the proceedings of the New York case.
Document #36 06/26/2012 Appendix in support of Monarch's response in Document #35, showing the complaint filed by HLNT in the New York case.
Document #37 07/19/2012 Order by the court showing the Judge's decision denying HLNT's request to file a 3rd party action in this case, citing the timeliness issue as a reason for the denial.
Document #38 09/24/2012 Filed by Monarch, but immediately unfiled by the court as it was not filed properly. Refiled as Document #41
Document #39 09/24/2012 Filed by Monarch, but immediately unfiled by the court as it was not filed properly. Refiled as Document #42
Document #40 09/24/2012 Order by the Judge to unfile Documents filed as #38 and #39.
Document #41 09/25/2012 Filed by Monarch, Motion for Partial Summary Judgement against HLNT for the amount of the two notes.
Document #42 09/25/2012 Filed by Monarch, Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgement.
Document #43 09/25/2012 Filed by Monarch, Appendix in support of the Motion, additional evidentiary materail.
Document #44 10/03/2012 Filed by HLNT, Motion asking for Permission to file an amended answer to Monarch's origninal complaint.
Document #45 10/03/2012 Filed by HLNT, Brief in support of its Motion for filing an amended answer in Document #44.
Document #46 10/04/2012 Order by the Judge for Monarch to file a response to HLNT's Motion by the 9th of October.
Document #48 10/09/2012 Filed by Monarch, Opposing HLNT's request to file an amended answer to Monarch's Complaint.
Document #47 10/09/2012 Filed by Monarch, Brief in support of its opposition to HLNT filing of an amended answer.
Document #49 10/11/2012 Filed by HLNT, Motion to substitute Counsel, a request agreed to by Monarch's Counsel.
Document #50 10/11/2012 Filed by HLNT, Motion for continuance (a delay).
Document #51 10/12/2012 Order by the Judge denying HLNT's motion for filing an amended answer, and for denying Motion for substituting counsel and for denying the Motion for continuance.
Document #52 10/16/2012 Filed by HLNT, HLNT's response to the Summary Judgement filing by Monarch.
Document #53 10/16/2012 Filed by HLNT, HLNT's Brief in support of its response to Monarch's Motion for Summary Judgement.
Document #54 10/16/2012 Filed by HLNT, appendix of evidentiary material (Not available to view online.).
Document #55 10/23/2012 Filed by HLNT, Motion for Summary Judgement in dismissal of Monarch's Complaint.
Document #56 10/23/2012 Filed by HLNT, HLNT's Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgement for dismissal.
Document #57 10/23/2012 Filed by HLNT, HLNT's appendix of evidentiary information filed in support to its Motion for Summary Judgement for dismissal (Not available to view online.).
Document #58 10/30/2012 Filed by Monarch, Response to HLNT's Motion for Summary Judgement for dismissal.
Document #59 10/30/2012 Filed by Monarch, a Motion to further supplement its Motion for Summary Judgement due to HLNT's response to Monarch's Motion for Summary Judgement.
Document #60 10/31/2012 Order by the Judge for HLNT to respond to Monarch's Motion to file an appendix to its Partial Summary Judgement Motion against HLNT for the value of the notes.
Document #61 11/06/2012 File for HLNT, HLNT's response to Monarch's Motion to be allowed to file an appendix to Monarch's Partial Summary Judgement Motion.
That brings the Walters Case up to date, which has been very active. An interpretation will be given in the next post in this series.