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.
This feels like it has legs...good luck to longs.
I am hopeful that we reach .15 as some people have said they will leave the board...although we have heard that before...
Estimated value of purchase is approximately $3 per share initially and up to $9 by my math. Is this correct?
Link: Hearing still on calendar.
https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber
if it doesn't work type in case number 2016-00191403.
There is no way that TCA would come this far and then dismiss the case when they can get the receivership granted. They will let the hearing go forward and get the Court Order. IF and I say IF there is a settlement, they can always dismiss the case. But as of now, the hearing is still on calendar.
First I am long so don't accuse me of some conspiracy or that there wasn't actually a ruling.
If the debt with TCA is "settled" that is a material event that I would expect MYEC would be required to show us a settlement agreement in an SEC filing. If MYEC paid, TCA MUST file a satisfaction of judgment with the Court so we will see soon enough if it is completely settled or whether we have a payment plan of some sort. But MYEC failed to comply with the last payment plan prompting the TCA lawsuit so I doubt they would agree...I remain skeptical but hopeful.
That the motion was actually ruled upon means that there was no "settlement" unless it was done today. Lawyers are required to inform the Court of a settlement at the earliest possible moment so that the Court doesn't waste time issuing a ruling. A tentative becomes the order of the court tomorrow unless it is argued by the attorneys and the judge changes his mind or it is withdrawn because of settlement it has nothing to do with whether a motion is opposed or unopposed.
Here, I seem to remember in the 10Q a reference to the TCA debt and 100,000,000 shares being set aside to pay the debt. So maybe that is what was used. It does not bother me that he kept trying to negotiate until the end because you should always try to get a better deal. I just hope he is telling us the truth and that financially it doesn't hurt us too bad...
Hearing is tomorrow at 2:00
A receiver's job is to get the judgment paid and is in place when the defendant is hiding assets or disposing of assets. My belief is that the receiver will only be in place to get TCA paid back. Once that happens, the receivership is over. Maybe he can order stock issued or sold to pay judgment? Maybe he can order real estate sold? I am not sure, but I do not believe he is put in place to make sure a company runs at a profit or to make business decisions for the company. I guess we will find out.
Here is the ruling:
2016-00191403-CU-EN
TCA Global Credit Master Fund LP vs. Meecheck, Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Appoint Receiver
Albrecht, Scott R.
**** NOTICE: DEPARTMENTS 53 AND 54 HAVE MOVED TO 813 6TH St.,
SACRAMENTO, CA, 2ND FLOOR. ALL PAPERS FOR DEPARTMENTS 53 AND 54
MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT
THE GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE
AT THIS NEW LOCATION ****
Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P.s unopposed
motion for order appointing receiver to enforce judgment is granted.
This motion was originally set for hearing on September 9, 2016. The Court issued a
tentative ruling denying the motion without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff had not
convinced the Court that a receiver was appropriate at the time. After oral argument
the Court continued the matter to today’s date to allow for a possible resolution.
Since that time, the matter has not resolved and Plaintiff has filed a supplemental
declaration which has convinced the Court that a receiver is now appropriate.
Plaintiff obtained a sister state judgment against Defendants MyECheck, Inc.,
GreenPay, LLC, Bruce Smith and Edward Starrs in Florida on November 13, 2015.
Plaintiff had the sister state judgment entered in California on March 7, 2016 in the
amount of $588,683.79. An additional $18,547.20 has accrued through June 30,
2016. MyECheck, Inc. is a “leading mobile payment system licensor and develops
custom mobile payment solutions for corporations and payment service providers.”
GreenPay, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of MyECheck, Inc. and a mobile
payments provider to the legal marijuana industry. Plaintiff presents evidence that
MyECheck, Inc. filed an annual report with the SEC in June 2016 which indicated that
as of December 31, 2015, it had cash and cash equivalents totaling $5,425 and a
working capital deficit of $2,945,710 and that the future of the company “will depend on
its ability to obtain sufficient capital contributions and/or financing as may be required
to sustain its operations.” It also stated that “we will continue to experience net
negative cash flows from operations, pending receipt of significant revenues that
generate a positive sales margin” and that until it “has achieved a sales level sufficient
to break even, it will not be self-sustaining or be competitive in the areas in which it
intends to operate.” In its income statement released on June 17, 2016, MyECheck,
Inc. indicated that for the year ending December 31, 2015, it had total annual revenues
of $90,000 and operating losses of $1,403,000.
Plaintiff moves for appointment of a receiver pursuant to CCP § 708.620. Pursuant to
that section, “[t]he court may appoint a receiver to enforce the judgment where the
judgment creditor shows that, considering the interests of both the judgment creditor
and the judgment debtor, the appointment of a receiver is a reasonable method to
obtain the fair and orderly satisfaction of the judgment.” (CCP § 708.620.) The
general provisions governing receivers apply to a receiver appointed pursuant to CCP
§ 708.620. (CCP § 708.610.) In California, “a receiver may be appointed
only
as
permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 564.” (
Barclays Bank of California v.
Superior Court
(1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 593, 597 [emphasis in original].) At the outset, it
bears noting that courts have broad discretion in the appointment of the receiver to
take over the operation of a business.
Barber v. Lewis & Kaufman, Inc
. (1954) 125
Cal. App. 2d 95, 99. Receivership, like other equitable impositions, is an
extraordinary remedy.
Hoover v. Galbraith
(1972) 7 Cal. 3d 519, 528. It is available
only under the specific circumstances set forth in the statute for such an appointment
or pursuant to the standards applied by the courts for the granting of equitable relief. A
receiver should not be appointed if remedy less drastic in its nature and scope is
available that will insure to litigants adequate protection.
A.G. Col Co. v. Superior
Court
(1925) 196 Cal. 604, 613.) “[T]he appointment of a receiver may well result in
serious injury to the name and good will of a solvent, going concern, and...if there is
any other adequate remedy, which is less severe and which will protect the rights of
the parties, a court should not take the drastic step of appointing a receiver.” (
In re
Jamison Steel Corp
. (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 27, 36.) Appointing a receiver is “so
dangerous an expedient that it should be done only in case of the greatest emergency
and where, without such appointment, irreparable injury will unquestionably result.” (
Golden State Glass Corp. v. Superior Court
(1939) 13 Cal.2d 384, 393.)
Plaintiff argues that it appears that Judgment Debtors are on shaky financial ground
and there is an immediate threat that the assets may be hidden or harmed as a result
of the financial state.
Since the initial hearing, Plaintiff has filed a supplemental declaration detailing that it
has discovered that Defendants have recently transferred real property in Nevada,
California, and possibly Hawaii from their names to an entity entitled “1
st
Base Trust”
for no consideration. (Supp. Segal Decl. ¶¶ 9, 20.) The transfers were just prior to
and soon after Judgment Debtor Edward Starrs, the manager of Judgment Debtor
Greenpay, LLC and CEO of Judgment Debtor MyECheck, Inc. was scheduled to
appear for a debtor’s examination. Mr. Edwards failed to appear for his exam and a
bench warrant was issued.
Under section 708.620, “a receiver may be appointed where a writ of execution would
not reach certain property and other remedies appear inadequate.” (Leg. Comm.
Comment to CCP § 708.620.) Considering the supplemental declaration in connection
with the original papers, the Court concludes that the appointment of a receiver is
appropriate given that not only does it appear that the Judgment Debtors are on shaky
financial ground but also because it does appear that there is an immediate threat that
assets will be dissipated if a receiver is not appointed. Indeed, it appears that assets
are already being dissipated in an attempt to avoid enforcement.
The motion is granted.
The Court appoints Kevin Singer as the receiver. Mr. Singer shall file the oath
required by CCP § 567(a). In addition, the receiver shall post a $10,000 undertaking
pursuant to CCP § 567(b).
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to immediately provide
notice to Defendants of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing,
in person or by telephone, in the event Defendants appear without following the
procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
The Court will sign the propped order once the undertaking is posted.
The Court granted a Receivership.
MYEC did not even oppose the Motion for Receivership. Maybe MYEC thought it would be worked out, but it apparently wasn't.
Not sure what it will mean for us longs.
Best of luck to all
I agree. The article is powerful and well written...until it targets a poster on a message board. Even if true the sidebar discussing the merits of a message board poster weaken the article and the author's credibility. I believe it would have been better without it and the price would have reflected more positively. However, think big picture and the big picture is the article does accurately portray ELTP's bright future and accurately reflects the current pipeline. The more publicity the better in the long run. Even with the "discount" for the sidebar it is still an awesome article and hopefully one of many written about this great company.
Good Luck Aqua. I ran it two years ago. What an incredible race!
Enjoy the 2 million people that will cheer you on.
May be a silly question, but is the recent spike in volume and price attributable to EPIC's conversion of shares? or are their shares automatically transferred to them at the agreed upon price?
Looks like we paid 10 million for andas
Pursuant to agreement, we will pay 142 million shares of stock or merely pay the money back interest free (See below from filing). Given this arrangement, I think NH will choose shares which convert at $.07.
Item 2.01 Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets.
On August 1, 2013, Elite Laboratories, Inc. (“Elite”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), executed an asset purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Mikah Pharma LLC (“Mikah”) and acquired from Mikah a total of 13 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) consisting of 12 ANDAs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) and one ANDA under active review with the FDA, and all amendments thereto (the “Acquisition”) for aggregate consideration of $10,000,000, payable pursuant to a secured convertible note due in August 2016 (the “Note”).
Elite previously purchased two ANDA products and has a development agreement with Mikah (please see the relevant disclosure in the Company’s Annual Report on form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013).
The products referenced in the approved ANDAs require site transfer approval with the FDA. Elite will submit filings to the FDA for each of the products for the manufacturing site transfer. The Company believes that the site transfers qualify for a CBE 30 review with one exception, which would allow for the product manufacturing transfer on an expedited basis. However, the Company can give no assurances that the site transfers will qualify for a CBE 30 review or on the timing of these transfers and the timing is dependent on the FDA reviews. The approved ANDAs include pain, antipsychotic, hypertension, antihistamine, bariatric, and muscle relaxant products. Of the thirteen products, two products are in markets where there is only one other generic competitor.
The Note is interest free and due and payable on the third anniversary of its issuance. Subject to certain limitations, the principal amount of the Note is convertible at the option of Mikah on and after the first anniversary of the date of the Note into shares of the Company’s Common Stock at a rate of $0.07 (approximately 14,286 shares per $1,000 in principal amount), the closing market price of the Company’s Common Stock on the date that the asset purchase agreement and Note were executed. The conversion rate is adjustable for customary corporate actions such as stock splits and, subject to certain exclusions, includes weighted average anti-dilution for common stock transactions at prices below the then applicable conversion rate. Pursuant to a security agreement (the “Security Agreement”), repayment of the Note is secured by the ANDAs acquired in the Acquisition.
If you read the bio-tuesdays interview with Gerry Treppel he states:“We had to start over from scratch,” Mr. Treppel recalls. “In less than two years, we’ve launched seven new products, and an eighth is going into production for a launch in a few months. These products have gained market share and are growing.”
So it would seem that Naltrexone is a few months away. But I do like that they have gained market share and are growing!
Well typically it is not good. I was hoping for some info/spin that made me feel better. Hopefully it is nothing more than a real personal reason.
I am new here but have been reading for years. Thanks for all the information over the years.
Ram Potti resigned. Thoughts?