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.
MOBL Share price can not go any lower, so what are the limitation at selling shares at .0001?
If Mr. Sledge can not account for the MLOG shares, then this needs to be investigated to determine what entity or person has them. Also, there needs to be an explanation as to why the MLOG shares were taken.
After APCC Services won the Supreme Court decision in 2008 to allow it to represent PPS, MOBL should have broken off and hired its own attorney to represent its claims. It could brought the DAC litigation to the FCC and gotten a decision in about year. MOBL could have gotten an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis. By applying the FCC model/criteria, MOBL would have been awarded upwards of $50 million, including the pre-judgment interest. Even if AT&T and Qwest fought it, FCC decision would be the negotiating basis moving forward.
Perhaps so. In the DAC litigation case APCC Services (Board) members make the decision to accept or not accept the settlement amounts offered up by AT&T and Qwest. The question is, were the settlement amounts offered to APCC Services similar to what amounts would be received under the FCC model for payment on outstanding DAC monies owed to Pay Phone Providers. FCC model breaks down the amount owed on the DAC based upon length of dropped/undropped calls. If this model/criteria was ignored, and just a low settlement amount was taken to just get rid of the litigation, then there are problems..
Once APCC Services won the Supreme Court decision to allow it to represent pay phone providers, it likely didn't want to continue paying out the legal fees charged by the hour. So, new attorneys were brought in to be paid on a contingency basis. When that happenend, MOBL's changes of getting a trial and high settlement amount diminsihed. These attorneys were out to settle quickly, and receive their share of the settlement monies. A quick settelement means much smaller amount in monies received for the DAC litigation. Final settlement monies paid to MOBL probably did not cover the $11 million in secured debt owed to YA Global. This is what Mr. Sledge is referring to in his email.
The question is, what about the MLOG shares?? Mr. Sledge should have known about these shares or seen where they went.
Exactly, the MLOG shares should still be on the books. If Mr. Sledge does not know anything about the shares, then shareholders have a problem. These assets were not "secured", so they should not have paid to YA Global to pay down any remaining debt. Maybe Sledge was put in charge to "only" pay DAC settelement fees to YA Global, and nothing more.
MLOG shares today are not worth much, so MOBL's debtors are likely not going to pay all the legal/court fees to obtain these shares. It is just not worth their effort and cost to obtain them. So, the real question is WHO has these shares?
At this point, shareholders here are trying to find out how much MOBL received from the DAC litigation. APCC Services has said that the DAC litigation concerning MOBL is likely complete, and settlement monies have been paid to MOBL. Nothing more is known.
There are many more questions that need to be answered.
I think the Statue of Limitations may have run out for MOBL debtors to take any further action. YA Global has used all of its leverage in collecting on the "secured" assets, but if no other filings or actions are taken againt MOBL, then the MLOG shares should be free from the debtors. If that is the case, then shareholders have some options here to consider.
YA Global was able to force the sale of Close Call America back in 2009 because the assets were "secured" for the debt. MOBL only receieved $2 million in the Auction Sale, which was just terrible for shareholders. I would thought Jay could have found a buyer who would pay more. But, the economy was tanking really bad at the time, so MOBL just got pennies on the dollar for its value.
All monies from the DAC lawsuit were also considered "secured" assets, so they too had to go off to YA Global.
My point made before is that the MLOG shares were not "secured" assets, and therefore YA Global can not just demand them without having to file involuntary bankruptcy.
MLOG share are not worth anything today, if they were sold in an attempt to pay down debt. However, they will be worth a lot at some point in the future when MLOG takes off. I wouldn't think YA Global would bother with the MLOG shares knowing its value today. Someone in MOBL would have to voluntarily give them up for payment on the debt. YA Global could not get to it unless it filed in court for involuntary bankruptcy.
Last correspondence with Jay back in 2010 was that MOBL still had the MLOG shares.
Stock, What are your views on the SEC suspenion? I guess there was a risk to holding onto one's position in MOBL. Now we may get absolutley nothing back.
I would like some accountability for what happened to the ownership in the MLOG shares.
At this point, the only real value is the ownership in the MLOG shares. Much can be done if these shares are still on the books. Restructure the shares and then MOBL can moves forward.
If those shares are found, then much can be done with MOBL. For instance, with 65 percent ownership in MLOG's patent infringement, MOBL could re-structure its shares and raise new funds/capital new support of MLOG.
There should be accountability for where the MLOG shares are located. It should be clearly documented on the books. If not, then this needs to be looked into by someone. The shares are not worth anything at the moment, but in the future, they are likely to be worth A LOT. All these companes are now settling with MLGO over the patent infringement.
Yes, Close Call was auctioned off for $2 million. The monies from the fire sale were then paid to YA Global to reduce the debt down from $13 million to $11 million.
Scott needs to find out about whether there are any MLOG shares left. This is still huge value, especially if the other 30 percent shares are converted to make a total of 65 percent ownership. Once this is done, just pay it out as a dividend to shareholders.
Yes, agree with you 100 percent. I am as upset and angry as you are about all this.
So many things went wrong that could have made a huge difference. I don't understand why the DAC litigation didn't go to the FCC for them to make the decision. All other DAC cases that are very similar have gone before FCC with favorable outcome. Try to keep the DAC cases in federal court and then trying to get these high priced litigators to settle the cases in short time was just a terrible decision for shareholders.
Are we the last few shareholders here that have a concern here. Does not seem like many others have an interest anymore. I don't see large sell offs.
The othe factor that needs to be considered here is how much is still owed to YA Global after (all) the settlements were paid to them. If the settlements amounts were more than the $11 million, then the secured debt should be all satisfied. If the settlements were less, than all is probably lost here.
It sounds like he is not sure about the 35% stake in Microlog. The other amounts loaned to MLOG were for services Jay performed for them. He has to know more about the ownership share in MLOG, or at least find out.
Who sends this email? MLOG shares should not have gone to pay YA Global secured debt.
When was the last update you heard this? Was it in months, weeks, or days? Once settlement happens, the monies move fast.
Jay's email jwright22@msn.com bounced back twice? Or did it eventually go through?
Where did you mail the letter? Or did you send it to the email address provided.
Could it be that to-date all the settlement monies were paid to YA Global, but perhaps more settlement monies are still being worked out.
Scott or Tammy Martin need to be clear about the extent there is any additional settlement monies still due.
Do you have Jays and Scotts email/address contact information. I also have a letter ready to send to them.
I believe Yorkville Advisors is referred to as YA Gloabal. They are one in the same. Anyway, the issue here is whether or not (all) the settlement monies were paid to YA Global. There was $11 million in secured debt owed to them.
If this is the case, then the next step is to determine whether there is still any debt remaining with YA Global.
Is the last email you received today regarding the DAC settlements and payments to YA Global, is it from a person who is credible and "in the know about all this?
Then do we conclude that there is a shortfall between the amounts received from (all) the DAC settlements and the $11 million amount owed to YA Global. If so, then how much is this shortfall because this determine whether shareholders of MOBL has any value left.
Why would Jay say that they are still working on part of the DAC case?
Sorry duplicate post.
Sorry, duplicate post.
Did they give any information that settlement amounts (AT&T)were in fact received by APCC from the litigation and paid out?
At least it is confirmed that Tammy Martin is in the know about the end result from the litigation.
Interesting! The response then came from Jay about parts of the DAC suite still being worked on. His response was very vague, and gives us very little to go on. We'll still need to push ahead and find out to what extent these cases were partially or completely settled.
Scott Sledge son of the Late Don is now in charge of company affairs. You have to wonder why Jay is still in the mix here in meeting with Scott Sledge.
Good to hear! Did you hear back from APCC by email? Their response was very vague, and not much to go on terms of whether the case is still in federal court, or dismissed.
I also plan to contact APCC later today by email. Hopefully I can get more detail about the DAC case.
Called APCC earlier today, but was not able to get someone to pick up. I assume the email for Jay Wright went through?
Contact information for APCC Services
APCC Inc. 625 Slaters Lane, Suite 104 Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703.739.1322 * Fax: 703.739.1324
APCC, Inc. Staff Directory
Bruggeman, Evelyn 237
Account Manager, APCC Services
Collins, Dan 225
Corporate Counsel
Nichols, Willard R. 234
President
Shareefy, Helly 231
Office Manager & Database Administrator
Sterman, Deborah 226
Chief Financial Officer
Here some dated contact information for Jay Wright. I used the email to contact him years ago, and he did respond back within the day. The phone number listed below is not in service, but he may still be using the same email.
For more information, contact MobilePro CEO Jay Wright at (301) 315-9040, e-mail: jwright22@closecall.com .
For investor relations information, contact Frank Hawkins or Julie Marshall, Hawk Associates, at (305) 451-1888, e-mail:
info@hawkassociates.com . Detailed information about MobilePro can be found at http://www.mobileprocorp.com . An online investor relations kit including copies of MobilePro press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.americanmicrocaps.com .
Any monies from the DAC settlements will first be paid to YA Global to pay down the $11 million in secured debt. Any monies remaining will be available to MOBL. Some other questions are
a)how much were the DAC settlements in total from Sprint, Qwest, & At&T?
b)how much was taken out for attorney fees?
c)how much of the settlement was left, and paid out to MOBL?
d)Who at MOBL received the remaining settlement monies?
This article is dated back in 2010, but states that Jay Wright was Chairman of Microlog Corporation MLOG. I don't know if he is still in this position even though he left MOBL.
DUNEDIN, Fla., April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Vought Defense Systems, Inc. (Pink Sheets: VDSC), a provider of UAV systems and other solutions for the United States government, announced today that Jay Wright has joined the company's board of directors and will be serving as a consultant to the company.
Mr. Wright brings significant experience in the government contractor space to Vought Defense Systems. In 2002-03, he was chief financial officer of TAMSCO, a $115 million revenue government contractor, which he helped sell to Engineered
Support Systems of St. Louis. He was a founding shareholder of Chesapeake Government Technology, a government contractor which merged with Widepoint Corporation, an American Stock Exchange listed public company, in 2004. He is currently chairman of Microlog Corporation (OTC: MLOG), a provider of software
solutions to U.S. military medical hospitals and state governments (www.microlog.com). He also serves as chairman of Kingdom Development Company, a company in the K-12 online school industry, a board member of government contractor Clear Government Solutions (www.cleargovsolutions.com) and as
chairman and chief executive of Mobilepro Corp., a telecommunications provider. Mr. Wright started his career as a mergers and acquisitions attorney at Foley & Lardner in Chicago and Skadden, Arps in New York and then worked as an
investment banker for Merrill Lynch. Mr. Wright graduated from Georgetown University with a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, summa cum laude, and earned his law degree from the University of Chicago where he was awarded an
Olin Foundation Scholarship in Law and Economics.
Jay Wright CEO of MOBL in 2009, reported that the amount expected from the DAC lawsuit was to be $50 million. This amount was to include pre-judgment interest. In the April 2008 Supreme Court Oral Arguments, a figure of $200 million was discussed in their oral arguments. That was back in 2008....
Here is some of the language taken from the those oral arguments-
The assignee is bringing the lawsuit for the most pragmatic of all possible reasons. Mr. Phillips wanted to talk a lot about discovery, and Justice Kennedy and I believe Justice Souter asked why is this lawsuit in Federal court instead of before the FCC.
There are good answers to those questions. The discovery in Federal court, the discovery available in Federal court, is more
appropriate to -- is more necessary in a large case, a $200 million case like this one, than in a relatively small case --