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.
"..wheres bush in all of this?"
You have to be a moron to make a statement like that.
SD
The Value of Third-Party Certification
"Press Release Source: Marmion Industries Corp
Marmion Industries Corp (MMON) CEO Further Updates Shareholders on the Company's Position as a Potential Beneficiary of Foreign and Domestic Defense Expenditures
Thursday December 9, 9:30 am ET
HOUSTON, TX--(MARKET WIRE)--Dec 9, 2004 -- Marmion Industries Corp (OTC BB:MMON.OB - News) CEO Wilbert H. Marmion, in an effort to keep shareholders apprised of wholly owned subsidiary Marmion Air Service progress, updates the status of the Third Party Certification for its Wall Mount Units. Marmion Industries Corp announces the completion of the third party certification test machines and are ready to be shipped the first week of January. Once received by the Third Party Certifier, finalization can be expected within 4-8 weeks.
Marmion commented, "this third-party certification will allow us to participate in initiatives with numerous private sector concerns that have a significant need for our type of specialty explosion-proof products and expertise." Further acknowledging the powerful position the third-party certification will afford Marmion Air Service, Marmion continued, "we will be in a position to compete for a number of new contracts both inside and outside of the United States. It truly is a very exciting time in the company's history.""
The Value of Third-Party Certification
Of all conformity assessment procedures that give assurance that a product, proc-ess or service conforms to specified re-quirements (safety, health and the envi-ronment), third party certification providesthe greatest value. Third party certification:
Is independent, Is cost effective, Results in safer and more reliable prod-ucts, Has immediate acceptance in the mar-ketplace, Instills consumer confidence, Distinguishes manufacturers making compliant products, and Can aid in defense of a product liabilityaction.
Each of these benefits is discussed in more detail below.
One of the key distinctions between third party certification and other forms of con-formity assessment is independence. Third party certifiers provide an objectivereview of product safety and performance free from both the economic demands ofthe marketplace and internal companypressures because they have no financial interest in the sale of products. This en-sures that products meet the specified requirements (relating to safety, health and the environment) to which they are being evaluated.
Third party certification is more cost effec-tive than, for example, manufacturer’s self-declaration of conformity or testing andevaluation by the purchaser. This is be-cause manufacturers and purchasers need not buy the testing equipment or hire staff competent to perform the evaluationof the products...(More)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:INyS5Hfn7EAJ:www.us.tuv.com/product_testing/field_evaluations/T...
It took 2 days and 7 partial fills to fill my .0006 limit order. That would indicate there is not to many sellers left!!
JMO
Dave
DAVID LETTERMAN link....
http://walkersystems.net/q/
OT: found this on another board, interesting read...
"TIRED OF ALL THE NAKED SHORTING??
After the week we just witnessed, it has become clear that there is a valiant attempt to drive these markets lower this week. Perhaps it is SHO related to get prices as low as possible so the hedge funds that are rampantly naked shorting can get covered at ridiculously low prices compared to their recent levels.
Of course, the shorts are arguing that some of these stocks have had incredible runs...and they MUST be shorted and they MUST come down. Well my friends, that is total garbage. They didn't go straight up. Many have had great runs, with perfect confirmations along the way. There is no need for these stocks to come straight down.
It really is ridiculous that shorting even exists. All the impropriety that exists in these markets, and I mean ALL of it revolves around shorting, and the misuse of it. People have said that it takes a buy for every sell. Well, that is garbage also. It takes a buy to overcome
fake shares that don't exist plus the actual shares of someone who is really selling. So, it basically takes twice as many shares for a stock to go up as it does for it to go down.
Now, I spoke with Ameritrade at length today. I wanted to clarify the general rules as far as shorting shares. I didn't discuss the actual shorting of stocks. I wanted to know the EXACT specifics regarding the rampant "naked shorting" of the stocks we own. Here is what they told
me:
When you purchase a stock, and your account has a debit balance, all stocks in your account go into a pool of available shares that can be shorted. In other words, any shares that are bought on margin, can also be borrowed against to short a stock.
Therefore, as Ameritrade maintains, irregardless of the number of shares you own over your margin balance, your entire share amount can be shorted against. Ameritrade doesn't create or maintain a market, they only balance the market of those customers they do business with.
It makes no difference how many shares are "authorized" by the company for shorting. So, many times when you see the float of a stock trading, it isn't even close because alot of those shares are short shares that don't even exist.
So, this means that all this stuff you may have been reading about setting your limit sells at ridiculous levels or requesting delivery of your share certificates isn't as important as what I'm about to tell you. What makes a naked short...and other shorts start to cover
is when obviously the price goes higher, or when they get called to cover their shares immediately.
When a large amount of people reduce the balance in their account, so that their balance is a CREDIT balance...meaning you have no margin balance...then it creates an immediate deficit in the number of shares
that can be held short. The shorts get an immediate call to cover. Market makers have to cover to eliminate the deficit, or as the new Regulation SHO professes, they will face being listed, fined, and risk losing their license for maintaining short deficits in stocks.
This makes perfect sense in a number of respects. When a market is euphoric, buyers create large margin balances that create excessive shares available for shorting. When the buyers dry up, alot of those shares are still available to short. That is why we can have excessive
downdrafts in a market that has had a huge rally rise.
It also explains why a stock that many people are holding alot of shares of that has had a big run will come under so much pressure. Everyone is buying more on margin to average down, and that creates more shares available to short. Sellers and fresh short shares keep
continual pressure on the stock.
How many times have you seen a stock have a great run, then it comes tumbling down without the breath of holding an uptick? Finally, everyone gives up and tosses in the towel. Well, when that happens, everybody's account is no longer carrying a margin balance and the short shares start getting called to cover. All of a sudden, the stock
starts walking back up with out any interference whatsoever. That is the shorts covering on the shares they shorted against those you bought on margin. They are getting a call to cover immediately.
So, here is the plan. You need to consider doing whatever you can to effect a short squeeze on the stocks you own the most shares of that have had a sizable downdraft of late. If alot of people can immediately get rid of all the crap in their account that isn't performing, or take a couple winners off for profit, then that can reduce your DEBIT balance in your account so you have NO MARGIN
BALANCE. Do whatever you can to get your account with no margin balance so you are playing with ONLY the cash in your account.
Once you do this, make an immediate call to Ameritrade, or whoever your broker is, that you are requesting the shares of your holdings not be made available for shorting. Have them confirm it in writing that they have done so, and also request that the shares that were lent out on your positions be immediately called to cover.
Put your broker in the hot seat. Make them earn their commissions. Don't hang up with them until they guarantee you in some fashion that your shares are going to be called to cover.
As an example, let's say you own 5 stocks and your largest position is 10000 shares. Your account balance is 200,000 and your carrying 250,000 worth of stock. If you can pare off just one, or a little of all of them to get your balance under 200,000, then you immediately
effect a call on all the other shares you own that are being held short by someone else.
Now, here is your job. Take the information I've given you, and hit all the message boards with this information this weekend.
Tell everyone to spread the word....to get back just under their cash level and then call their broker! It should be enough to cause some panic short covering and get some of these MMs to cover their deficiencies now that they are being watched by everybody.
If it pops up on several hundred message boards over the weekend by several hundred people, it could spread like wildfire, reverse these markets next week, and everyone will be back where they should be...and the shorts will be back to losing money once again.
Please, everyone try. All it costs you is a few minutes of your time to try."
From another board
Milverton Capital Corporation
Suite 204 3970 E. Hastings Street
Burnaby, BC
V5C 6C1
Tel: (604) 419 0430
Fax: (604) 419 0431
August 3, 2004
Dear Sir or Madam:
RE: Hamilton Plant
The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was opened in June 1995. The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant operated continuously, expanded and profited until new management in September 2001 shut down operations. When the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant opened in June 1995, Ren J. Branconnier was the president and Chief Executive Office of Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. (Thermo Tech), the Parent Company who controlled the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant. Mr. Branconnier, in addition to being one of the inventors of the patented Thermophilic process used in the Thermo Master Plant, was instrumental in assisting in the design and layout and working with the engineers to ensure the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was a turn key operation. Mr. Branconnier financed through equity all four of the commercial Thermo Master Plants built by Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. Mr. Branconniers work is a success, and the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was at the time and remains today a showpiece of modern recycling.
The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant has undergone expansion in plant capacity, for both input and output. By 1998, the initial capacity had grown from 100 tons per day of raw material received to over 600 tons a day. Mr. Branconnier was the driving force behind the success of the Company and remained committed to the process and recycling.
In late 1997, Wayne Hansen, a chartered accountant, joined Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. as the Chief Financial Officer and together with Mr. Branconnier sold the benefits of the Thermo Master Plant to the world.
Mr. Branconniers goal was always to commercialize the Thermo Master Plant and patented thermophilic process and build the worlds largest recycling facility. By 1999, both these goals and more had been accomplished. Mr. Branconnier wanted to step away from direct leadership of the Company to allow him to be free to investigate and research the commercialization of other recycling technologies and other businesses. In December 1999, Mr. Branconnier resigned. However, his belief in the technology continued and he offered his consulting services to the Company as needed.
Mr. Hansen also left Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and moved to Europe and began European Thermo Technologys, PLC which purchased a license for Europe to market and sell the patented thermophilic process.
Given these significant changes, the new management team decided to follow a new direction and focused its resources on licensing new plants, instead of financing and building. This direction required a reorganization of Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.
Following the resignations, Mr. Branconnier with the assistance of several of the companies major creditors including Mr. Hansen, organized a General Security Agreement (GSA), to allow operations of the Company to continue while securing the various parties debts. This GSA proved to be very successful as it granted creditors security and allowed Thermo Tech to complete all required expansions to the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant. Milverton Capital Corporation (Milverton), headed by its president Mr. Branconnier, was also a major creditor and became the sole owner of the GSA after he allowed all other parties to be paid first, relying on his belief in the technology and his willingness to work with the new management on repayment.
Early in 2000, a new group of consultants, with previous experience in Thermo Tech Technologies Inc., formed a new company, Planet Earth Recycling Inc. (Planet Earth). Planet Earth negotiated with Thermo Tech and set-up a consulting contracts with both Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and European Thermo Technologys, PLC to contract-out services. In April 2000, a Master Services Agreement was reached for the Marketing, Construction and Operation of Thermo Master Plants. The following service agreements were signed, ensuring Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. solid operational support:
1) Turnkey Construction Agreement;
2) Commissioning and Training Agreement;
3) Maintenance Service Agreement;
4) Technical Services Agreement;
5) Waste Supply Agreement; and
6) End Product Purchase Agreement.
This change in structure and the contracting out of essential services freed Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. to focus on marketing and selling new licensing agreements.
By September 2000, Planet Earth was operating the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant under contract and was directing the phase II new expansion to bring the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant capacity to over 1,200 tons per day.
In October of 2000, Thermo Tech agreed to a new South Asian License with a company to build over 100 new Thermo Master Plants in the region. By December 2001, this new licensee had blossomed into a company wishing to take over Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and a deal was finalized in January 2001.
Unfortunately, neither the new board of Thermo Tech, the existing board of Planet Earth, nor Ren Branconnier President of Milverton Capital Corporation were able to work together, resulting in several issues developing. Their disputes centered on the existing operating contracts, unpaid amounts to Milverton and a new contract signed in March 2001 and the responsibilities of each party for all matters. This dispute could not be resolved.
By August 2001 Planet Earth was redirecting all accounting and payment issues to Thermo Tech and walked away from operations. In September 2001, Thermo Tech canceled all contracts with Planet Earth and shut down the operations at the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant until a plan to move forward was formulated. Litigation began shortly thereafter and Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. only had two options to move forward with the plant. One, start to operate the plant again itself without the benefit of Planet Earth, the operator the new management was relying on for all know-how and operational experience, or two, contract with a new operator.
An additional issue was raised, and Thermo Tech began to question the continued acceptance of the end product. The end product of the plant had always been an animal feed additive. The process was safe and approved by Agriculture Canada and provided a very valuable commodity for Miracle Feed of Canada, whom purchased all the end product produced. However, global market conditions were changing and continued acceptance of the end product was no longer assured, given the BSE issues in Europe.
Given the various issues relating to the end product, the new management decided to lease out the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant to a new operator that would operate as a fertilizer or soil amendment operation. This approach had always been envisioned by Mr. Branconnier, given the abundance of municipal sludge available. They arranged a new lease and operator in May 2002.
The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was moth balled, although the operator has kept the plant in minimal operational mode without processing or receiving waste for safety and permitting reasons.
During this period new management has not operated the facility but has obtained a new sludge permit, in the name of and owned by the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant facility.
In January 2004, the outstanding litigation between Thermo Tech, Planet Earth and Milverton was settled and as a result, Milverton obtained control of all the assets of Thermo Tech including the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant.
Milverton, and its President Mr. Branconnier, are ready, have begun work to re-start the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant and have put together a team with Thermo Master Plant, know-how, operational experience, raw waste experience and end product knowledge. We are using our wisdom and are working with Mr. Hansen of European Thermo Technologys, PLC to further everyones goals.
Our team has the experience and record of accomplishment in operations from 1995 to 2000 to ensure another success in both the existing Hamilton Thermo Master Plant and all new facility using this patented thermophilic technology.
Our team is ready to move this desperately needed solution forward to help save our world, currently drowning in waste.
Copyright © Milverton Capital Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Here is a recent court case settlement that I found.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:
664847 B.C. Ltd. v.
TT Land Development Inc. et al
2004 BCSC 356
Date: 20040316
Docket: L033482
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
664847 B.C. Ltd.
Petitioner
And
TT Land Development Inc., Milverton Capital Corporation and
Aarzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada Inc.
Respondents
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman
Oral Reasons for Judgment
March 16, 2004
Counsel for Applicant, Milverton Capital Corporation
Robert B. Rogers
Counsel for Respondent, Aerzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada Inc.
Paul W. Schwartz
[1] THE COURT: The respondents Milverton Capital Corporation and Aerzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada appear on this application to determine the priorities between them in respect of the proceeds of the sale of land at 11611 Twigg Place, Richmond, B.C.
[2] While there are a number of procedural defects affecting the application, some of which were initially the subject of objection by Aerzen, the parties have now agreed that, the priorities issue having been fully argued, the court ought to determine the matter on this application. I will accordingly treat this application as if it were an application for direction as to which of the parties holds priority over the proceeds of sale.
[3] The factual background is somewhat complex. In the final analysis, however, the issue is whether a crystallized floating charge over the land registered in the personal property registry but not registered against title to the land takes priority over a judgment registered against title.
Factual Background
[4] Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. is a company engaged in the development of innovative processes to deal with waste. The corporate structure of Thermo Tech Technologies and its subsidiaries is complex. For the purposes of this application it is sufficient to recognize that Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. is a subsidiary of Thermo Tech and that TT Land Development Inc. is a subsidiary of another related subsidiary of Thermo Tech.
[5] TT Land Development held title to land at 11611 Twigg Place. It is common ground between the parties to this application that, while not indicated on title, the land was held by TT Land Development in trust for Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. It is not, for the purposes of this application, necessary to determine how the beneficial interest was split as between the parent company and the subsidiary.
[6] Milverton Capital Corporation was the major financier of Thermo Tech. In March of 2000 it entered into general security agreements with Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. and Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. These agreements gave Milverton a floating charge over all of the companies' assets, including real property. The general security agreements were registered in the personal property registry on March 17th, 2000.
[7] Milverton also held additional security over the subject land. It held a mortgage on Richmond Bio Conversions' lease on the property and also held an assignment of rents and an option to purchase. These three charges on the land were properly registered against title. The principal amount of the mortgage of the lease was $13,170,475.49. The expiry date of the lease was April 2005, although it was renewable.
[8] Aerzen supplied certain equipment to the Thermo Tech facility and in November of 2000 Aerzen registered a charge in respect of the equipment against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions in the personal property registry.
[9] In the fall of 2001 Thermo Tech became insolvent. It was unable to meet the demands made upon it by, among others, Milverton. It is alleged by Milverton and not disputed by Aerzen that the floating charges held by Milverton crystallized at that time. In December of 2001 Milverton commenced an action against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, seeking to recover almost $8 million owed to it.
[10] In March of 2002 Aerzen commenced action against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, having not been paid for the equipment and having found that the equipment had vanished. Aerzen included TT Land Developments Inc. as a defendant, alleging that it held property in trust for Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions. In October 2002, in an unopposed summary trial, Aerzen obtained judgment against the three defendants in the amount of $240,215 plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $44,716.20. It registered the judgment against the subject property on March 20, 2003.
[11] In December 2003, the petitioner sought to purchase the subject property and commenced its proceeding seeking approval of the sale. In February of this year Milverton discharged its charges against the property, purportedly without prejudice to its rights against the proceeds of sale.
[12] The sale went ahead. No attempt was made to allocate a specific amount of the buy-out of Richmond Bio Conversions lease as opposed to the fee-simple interest. Aerzen was not involved in the negotiations preceding the sale and at no time did it agree that Milverton's charges against the land would be preserved against the proceeds of sale.
[13] Aerzen subsequently removed its judgment from title on the basis that proceeds of sale equal to the amount of its judgment would be held in trust pending determination of the priorities. I am advised that the net proceeds of sale are, in round numbers, about $530,000.
Analysis
[14] I am satisfied that both Milverton and Aerzen have valid claims to the proceeds. The general securities agreements that Milverton entered into with Thermo Tech and with Richmond Bio Conversions clearly granted it a floating charge over real property and that charge crystallized by late 2001. For its part, Aerzen obtained a judgment against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, which judgment was registered against the subject property in March of 2003, several months before the property was sold.
i. The Lease of the Mortgage
[15] In terms of title to the real property, Milverton argues that the registration of the mortgage over the lease gives it priority over the subsequently registered judgment of Aerzen. I cannot accept that proposition. The lease and the fee-simple remainder are separate interests in land and Milverton's mortgage over the lease cannot be treated as if it were a charge on the fee-simple. Only the portion of the purchase price attributable to the lease can be said to be secured by the mortgage.
ii. Effect of Registration in the Personal Property Registry
[16] Milverton also argues that the registrations of the floating charges in the personal property registry should be treated as if they were registrations against the title to the land. In this regard it relies on Section 203 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, which provides that the personal property registry established under the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 359 is the proper office for the registration of an uncrystallized floating charge. Section 203(10) of the Land Title Act provides that "priority between crystallized floating charges that charge the same parcel of land must be determined by the date of registration [in the personal property registry]."
[17] In my respectful view, these sections do not assist Milverton. We are not here concerned with priorities between two crystallized floating charges. Rather, we are concerned with the priority between a crystallized floating charge and a judgment registered against real property.
[18] Section 203(6) of the Land Title Act allows for the registration of a crystallized floating charge in the Land Title Office. That registration is provided for precisely because registration of the uncrystallized charge in the personal property registry does not result in that charge’s priority over subsequent charges registered in the land title office. Section 44(7) of the Personal Property Security Act and section 29(3) of the Land Title Act make it clear that, with the exception of priorities among crystallized floating charges, registration in the personal property registry does not assist the holder of a floating charge in terms of priority over other charges registered in the Land Title Office.
[19] I must treat this case, therefore, as one in which Milverton's security registered against title to the property was limited to security against the leasehold interest. Aerzen's security was registered against the fee simple interest.
Priority of a Registered Judgment as against Unregistered Charges
[20] Notwithstanding that Milverton did not register its crystallized floating charges against the land, it is my view that those charges take priority over Aerzen's registered judgment.
[21] Counsel for Milverton cites the case of Andrekson v. Peerless Pipe and Equipment (1982), 139 D.L.R.(3d) 556, a case in which our Court of Appeal held that a floating charge took priority over a registered judgment even though it was assumed that the charge did not crystallize until after the registration of the judgment. The court held that until a judgment creditor takes steps to execute against land, its charge does not take priority over a subsequently crystallized floating charge, even where the floating charge has not been registered against the land.
[22] The case at bar is a stronger one than Andrekson in that the floating charge in this case crystallized prior to the registration of the judgment. It would seem, therefore, that Andrekson would be controlling.
[23] It must be recognized, however, that Andrekson concerned a judgment registered under a system in place before the changes that occurred on October 31st, 1979. Under the old system, judgments were registered in an alphabetical list in the Land Title Office rather than against individual properties. Andrekson also predates, of course, the Personal Property Security Act.
[24] In examining other cases, I am satisfied that an unregistered floating charge takes priority over a registered judgment, at least where the floating charge has crystallized prior to the registration of the judgment. In Yeulet v. Matthews (1982), 133 D.L.R. (3d) 399, Low L.J.S.C. (as he then was) reviewed the issue of the priority of registered judgments over chronologically prior unregistered charges. He undertook an extensive examination of the jurisprudence on the matter in British Columbia. Citing Jellett v. Wilkie (1896), 26 SCR 282, he noted that, despite the existence of a Torrens system, a judgment creditor can only sell the land of a judgment debtor subject to all charges, liens and equities that the land is subject to in the hands of the judgment debtor. The judgment creditor can take no greater interest in the land than the judgment debtor holds. Low L.J.S.C. noted that section 20 of the Land Title Act provides that an unregistered instrument is ineffective "except as against the person making it."
[25] Section 20 of the Land Title Act preserves the effect of an unregistered instrument as against the property owner. The judgment creditor, therefore, who can attach only the interests of the judgment debtor, cannot take priority over an existing charge on the property even if that charge is unregistered.
[26] Like the slightly later Andrekson case, Yeulet was concerned with a judgment registered under the old system rather than a judgment registered as a charge against a specific parcel of land.
[27] Shortly after Yeulet, however, in Woollends v. Woollends (1982), 41 BCLR 357, Cowan, L.J.S.C. (as he then was) affirmed that a judgment registered against specific land of a judgment debtor pursuant to the Court Order Enforcement Act attaches the interest of the judgment debtor subject to all charges, liens and equities to which the land is Subject in the hands of the judgment debtor. This will be so even if those charges, liens and equities are unregistered.
[28] Woollends concerned a judgment registered against a specific parcel under what is now Section 86 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 78. Noting the wording of what is now Section 86(3)(a) of the Act, which provides that judgment forms a lien and charge on the land "to the extent of the judgment debtor's beneficial interest in the land," Cowan L.J.S.C. held that the decision in Yeulet v. Matthews remained applicable to judgments registered after October 30th, 1979.
[29] More recently the Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion on somewhat different facts in Martin Commercial Fueling Inc. v. Virtanen (1997), 144 D.L.R. (4th) 290.
[30] In the case at bar, Milverton's floating charges had crystallized prior to the registration of Aerzen's judgment against the land. While the crystallized charges were not registered in the Land Title Office, they were valid charges against the judgment debtor's interest in the property and the registration of the judgment did not serve to give Aerzen any greater interest in the land than the judgment debtor had. Accordingly, Milverton's security ranks ahead of Aerzen's in attaching the proceeds of sale.
[31] It appears to be common ground that Milverton's crystallized floating charges secure several million dollars worth of debt. In the circumstances it would appear that all the net proceeds of sale will go to Milverton.
[32] Milverton will have the costs of this application on Scale 3.
“H.M. Groberman, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice H.M. Groberman
These Oral Reasons for Judgment were released on March 16, 2004 from the Vancouver
FYI: Satelite Radio Device..
Scott Bryan's (CEO of Synosphere) United States Patent Application for "System, device, and method for receving satellite radio on a handheld computing device"
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FP...
Suggestion: When in a position that you’re unsure of, you should exit and stay on the sideline until you are sure.
Also, please stick to the fact and not innuendos! This is not RB!
Cheese for your Wine...
"Ken Schilling, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, "Today is a monumental moment in the history of iBIZ Technology Corp. We can proudly look back on the last several years knowing we survived industry downturns and a depressed share price."
Schilling further commented, "Rebuilding our business has been a slow and arduous process; however, today iBIZ Technology Corp. is now well positioned to capitalize on our core strengths. Accordingly, with a capital structure which will not be impacted by dilution as a result of paying down debt with common stock, this is an exciting time for iBIZ and it's shareholders. We look now to the future with planned growth through increasing generic sales revenues with an exciting product offering, as well as adding revenue through acquisitions and mergers."
alltheway, what do you get out of todays 10QSB?
Re:Not sure anyone noticed but the last PR..
I forwarded the info. to Mr. Norris.