https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8
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.
You are correct sir, the pic posted of Kruse Dr, does appear to be a 350Z.
What "good things"? New product? New technology? This company hasn't acquired or created anything new since 2013.
Are the Nicobar and Anadaman Island cricket scores coming to Motorola pagers in Mauritius? Is that the new "good things" that are being waited for by long-suffering common shareholders?
Have smartphones now become obsolete so people will be craving to see the latest bowling scores on the Burger King sign?
Please explain the new breakthrough tech that will propel this tired old story?
That's a Lambo, nott a Maserati.
Lamborghini has that distinctive side window shape.
Definitely NOTT a Maserati.
There is no court order requiring Marty to go to DC. Congress is nott a court. There also is no "production" re: Congress as Congress is nott a party to a lawsuit naming Marty in which evidence production would be relevant.
CONgress could GO to a court and ASK them for a court order. Butt CONgress itself cannot issue a court order.
CONgressional subpoena is NOTT a court ordered subpoena.
No it doesn't depend upon the question he is asked. That's wrong.
It only depends upon what he may have to state in an answer.
For example:
Question: "When and with whom did you formulate the drug price plan?"
Answer: "It was on December 24th with Bob and my lawyer."
Problem - he's now admitted that he saw his lawyer on the 24th, which may be a material fact to his pending case that tends to incriminate him.
Let's go on:
Question: "What did you guys discuss on the 24th?"
Answer: "My lawyer told me his advice was to nott raise prices too high or I may be violating an antitrust law."
Problem - Now Marty has blown his attorney-client privilege GENERALLY potentially for ALL communications he had with that lawyer - on all occasions and all subject matters - including his PENDING criminal case and potentially future court and administrative law cases. Even those which have no relation whatsoever to drugs.
I can go on - and on with more examples.
"Evidently the committee has threatened him with criminal contempt"
LOL! Yeah, and I'll bett the sergeant-at-arms will be going to NYC and transport him to DC contrary to the court-ordered bail restrictions too.
CONgress is full such threats. Ask Lois Lerner (which would be my Twitter reply if I were Marty and mouthy).
"(something, something) sound and fury. Signifying nothing."
Hell, I'm in contempt of CONgress. CONgress is contemptable.
If I were Marty and a yapper, I'd Tweet "Lois Lerner" in reply and post it on Cummings' Twitter account.
(Note - I have no idea how Twitter works and I don't tweet, butt I believe one can reply to a tweet and it appears on the other person's twitter page, correct?)
"They could, but he says he will invoke the 5th. Not that it really applies here, his criminal case has nothing to do with raising drug prices."
Pending legal claims and the scope of the hearing are nott the factors in determining use of the Fifth Amendment.
Anything Marty says in the hearing may give rise to entirely new charges or to subject matter that might be useful in either an existing or new prosecution - in Federal and/or state courts. He might incriminate himself to almost anything by answering a question that seems limited to drug prices. He may make a statement that blows his attorney-client privilege broadly.
Marty is exactly correct - regardless of the subject matter and regardless of his current (pending) criminal case, he STILL has the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
"So now will the Congressional committee hold him in contempt?"
How's Lois Lerner doing these days? If she hasn't been held in contempt, there is no basis to hold Marty either.
I am not aware of any mandatory legal authority that requires Shkreli to request the court grant him leave to travel to DC to testify.
Cummings letter simply states that "it is his responsibility to take reasonable steps to comply".
Really? Then have the executive branch, through the US Attorney in the pending criminal case make the motion to the court to allow Shkreli to travel to DC. Shkreli can oppose the motion if he wishes - he can offer a variety of assertions in opposition.
For example, he can state that travel to DC to appear at a highly partisan adversarial hearing in which he believes he would be humiliated - resulting in uncontrollable mental distress that he believes may cause him to violate provisions of his bail - such as an emotion-induced action to flee the country or go underground and avoid appearing for his NY trial. This is an extreme example, butt it would put the court in an odd position of granting leave to travel in the face of opposition from the defendant.
I'm nott aware of any statutory or caselaw authority requiring Shkreli to affirmatively request a leave to travel. Perhaps there is such caselaw - I'm nott a criminal lawyer, so maybe there is such authority. If so, it's odd that Cummings didn't cite that in his letter.
I suppose we'll find ~OUTT in the next week or so.
I'd absolutely stick to my Fifth Amendment protections - especially if it is an open hearing. Offers of immunity be damned. The Congress cannot grant immunity from state court actions - so there is that aspect of testimony which can be relevant to state court prosecution(s) that CONgress cannot grant immunity for.
Further, there is a serious Constitutional question about Congressional grants of immunity in general, even as to Federal prosecution - to say nothing of tainting the juror pool by such appearance in Congress.
http://volokh.com/posts/1177539284.shtml
Losing money is as easy as falling off a LOGG. Or buying/holding it.
Kwick kwestshuns for Integral:
Corporation A acquires 70 percent of the common stock of Corporation B and 100 percent of the preferred stock that has voting control of Corporation B. Twelve months and a day later, Corporation A (presumably an affiliate or Corporation B based on both control and percentage of share ownership?) wants to monetize their share holdings in Corporation B (a non-reporting corp which remains current in its OTCMarkets information).
1) If Corp A sells any of its shares in Corp B in a private transaction, there is no tacking as Corp A is an affiliate at the time of transfer (even though Corp A's 12 month holding period has been fulfilled) - correct? The purchaser would have to wait another 12 months (assume a non-reporting corp) si o no?
2) After 12 months, Corp A can sell its common shares of Corp B into the market under Rule 144, but it is subject to the volume restrictions as long as it has (a) voting control over Corp B or (b) 10 percent or more ownership of Corp B common stock - correct?
3) Are volume restrictions based upon each class of stock or total voting capacity of the shares held (e.g., the 10% is based on votes or voting shares?) such that Corp A may at some point own less than 10 percent of common, butt by virtue of holding preferred shares still be subject to the volume restrictions for sales of common shares?
Thanks en ante.
"You should do some additional DD on shorting and naked shorting to understand just how easy and frequently it is done."
Uh, yeah, except that statement is pure idiocy; so there's that.
I can verify that I have seen the complete versions of these documents in the original Czech, and there is nott a vowel to be found in any of them.
As far as accusing (directly or by implication) someone of intentionally 'fuzzying up' a document, which is still readable, is itself a rather bizarre assertion.
What would be the motive for making a document harder for read (optically), butt still entirely readable? It would nott accomplish any goal of concealing the content, butt would instead simply generate readers' doubts about the scanner's functionality or the competence of the person operating the scanner. In your mind (according to your post), you deem this an impeachment of credibility. Bizarre!
'Tis such an odd complaint offered to bolster an absurd claim of 'doctoring' or selectively obscuring documents to imply a CONspiracy of deception.
It's nott like somebody intentionally deleted over 33,000 emails that were already subject to a pre-existing Federal (Congressional) investigation and several FOIA requests as well. Or, well, "to wipe it like with a towel or something."
It is an undeniable fact that NTEK is a SCAM.
60,000 non-existent NP-1s which the company claimed "were shipped into the retail channel" in February 2014 - butt which were nott, indeed nott even more than a few hundred were ever assembled is simple proof of that.
Or would you prefer we discuss DaFoley's Royal Capital Group and FS Global Capital front companies to conceal his backdated floorless CONvertible notes and his soaking of the commons with massive dilution while retaining total control of the corporation by using the SUPERVOTING Series A Preferred shares he issued to himself in December 2014?
Or the three AS raises in 10 months, each preceded by the company stating that it had no plans to do an AS raise and did nott see any need to do so - and then approximately TWO WEEKS LATER raised the AS - three times.
Of the total and complete LACK OF ANY AUDITS despite 3+ years of promising same. Or the filing of a fatal Form 15 to avoid SEC reporting requirements.
We can go on with many more examples, butt the point is clear and undeniable:
NTEK is a SCAM.
That is the simple truth.
When little Marty and his lily-white arse hits Federal prison, he's gonna be in for quite the beatdowns. Little young punkass yappers like him are given a comeuppance right quick and hard. There will be a number of guys who will want to make their mark by beating the notorious loudmouth.
Prison will be hard for a guy like Marty - even if he getts a camp. And anything over 10 years getts him into a medium or, at best, a low prison with cells and really nasty folks.
Remember, that even the nastiest inmates gett moved to the camps when their release year is approaching, so even in the camps there are quite a lott of very nasty men with a lott of aggression and who are facing middle age and a low-wage job - they will nott fail to have an opinion about Little Marty's shenanigans with the record album, overcharging for a drug, and generally being an arse.
Prison will be very, very hard for Little Marty.
Yabutt here's the reason Tyler is notorious - venue shopping:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20150818-new-patent-infringement-lawsuits-in-east-texas-shatter-records.ece
Another popular venue is the Western District of Wisconsin in Madison, a much, much preferable place to spend six weeks than Tyler, TX (even in winter). These are both popular locales for IP cases - the rocket docket and also favorable jury pools (one low-brow and the other high-brow, relatively speaking).
http://www.law360.com/articles/49923/the-tundra-docket-western-district-of-wisconsin
http://www.michaelbest.com/pubs/pubDetailMB.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=2316
Warshington, D.C. is ~OUTTside the limits of Marty's bail restrictions. He'd have to ask Probation and Pretrial Services and the court for permission to travel to D.C. - maybe Marty simply won't ask and just won't go, claiming that he is barred from traveling ~OUTTside his permitted area per his bail terms.
Welp, in addition to having a nice zoo, Omaha has the best Bohemian restaurants outside of the Chicago area.
So that's a plus for litigating there. Beats the hell ~OUTT of Tyler, TX. Six weeks in a hotel in Tyler - which has at most 3-4 decent restaurants - will make Omaha look like Paris in comparison. (Paris, France - nott Paris, Texas)
And maybe "Adam Carter" is hiding ~OUTT in Omaha ... or Praha.
"And how many other subpoenae"
Just FYI, the plural form is 'subpoenas'. I know your strong background in Latin and Italian may suggest the '-ae' ending to indicate plural form, butt at least in US English usage, 'tis nott the case.
"And would any judge order the clearing firms to comply?"
Who knows? Federal judges sitting in Omaha prolly don't see a lott of securities cases, and this one is particularly a case of first impression (at least to me).
"My certificate is actually hanging on my fridge."
It should be hanging next to the toilet. It's worth less than a roll of Charmin.
OUCH!!! That's gonna hurt!
As soon as the SEC is finished flyspecking the 2008 10-K that Mosky just finished, then SPNG! will immediately uplist to the NYSE and be added to the Dow Jones 30 Industrials Index.
It will be the first $500 BILLION market cap sponge company. Moskowitz and Metter will keep Warren Buffett waiting in the lobby for hours before taking a five minute meeting with him so Warren can beg to buy a 5 percent stake in this sponge behemoth.
As I just explained, those creditors are NOTT the plaintiff(s) in the complaint filed by the $8M financier, so their desire to see that $8M spent on anything that the creditors can then later have as an asset that they might gett a part of as liquidation creditors makes sense - to them.
Without that $8M being spent, the corp has virtually no marketable assets and the creditors will wind up with essentially nothing. So of course they want to gett that $8M spent before the financier(s) gett it back - it's the creditors' only hope to get anything ~OUTT of this dead duck, broke company.
Oh, and you should reread my posts (and their date stamps!) - I've never claimed to be a professional investment advisor. Butt I am a professional business/commercial lawyer with many decades of experience in this exact geographical are and business area.
Dude, in commercial/business law, frivolous lawsuits are filed by top AmLaw200 firms all the time simply to gain commercial leverage screw up a pending IPO or other financing, etc.
It is also pretty common for the defendant to counterclaim with malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims - which virtually always fail.
Because it's damn, damn hard to PROVE that a lawsuit lacks any merit whatsoever and was filed with malice for an intent other than a belief that the plaintiff has a viable claim. Very, very rarely will such counterclaims prevail.
Which is why these vexatious lawsuits are filed all the time. All you need is the tiniest shred of a claim, even though you know it's boolsheet, to survive a counterclaim of abuse of process and/or malicious prosecution. Usually the only times such claims prevail is when there is a smoking gun found - like a stupid email from the company CEO or chairman to someone (nott subject to the attorney-client privilege) saying "we know the lawsuit is boolsheet - our lawyers told us there's no way we can win this but we've filed it anyway".
For the same reasons, you'll often see motions for Rule 11 sanctions in these types of commercial litigation - and these motions will virtually always be denied except in the most egregious contexts and usually also requiring a red-line smoking gun admission (e.g., am email or such).
It is fairly easy to cook up a variety of 'colorable' claims which have no real chance to succeed, butt also are very difficult to PROVE are an abuse of process or malicious prosecution.
I am simply explaining to you the reality - as a lawyer with AmLaw200 experience, in the Bay Area, in this exact market sector.
So, believe whatever you want. It's a free country. Feel free to remain dead wrong. I'm just explaining reality here, nott belief systems.
You have every right to persist in being wrong on this. Nonetheless, that will remain wrong.
Ummmm ... except the real creditor who/which wants their $8 million back are the financiers who were defrauded by Shkrelia and the company and induced with lies to wire that $8 million to the company.
So the BK judge ain't gonna do squat in releasing those funds until that claim (actually a complaint) is first dealt with by the court.
All creditor claims are subordinated to this pending complaint, and so are the wishes of all creditors other than the $8M financier(s) (the $8M financier(s) is/are nott technically creditors, they are contract-tort claimant(s)).
The number of shares is irrelevant when the underlying corporation has zero fundamental value and is in bankruptcy which will, at best, result in cancellation of the commons, and most likely will convert into the Chapt 7 liquidation just as the prior management (Herb Cross and the prior BOD) had planned.
1.2 million shares of ZERO is worth as much as 1.2 BILLION shares of that same ZERO.
One can cut that ZERO into as many pieces as one wishes and each slice will remain worth exactly ZERO based on the lack of any underlying fundamental value or net assets (net of debt).
Better call Keker.
Marty's only hope is to try and cut a plea deal to minimize how LONG his prison stint is gonna be.
He'd better call John Keker and plead for John to take him on as a client, then follow John's advice and instructions to the T and see what kind of deal Keker can cut for him.
That's the best free advice anyone can give him: Call John Keker!
Randy Goatse, gimme a call, bro. I'm waiting to hear from you. I can move that $309 BILLION in gold you claim to have.
All those guesses are wrong. The correct answer is: NOWHERE.
Giddy Up will be available where it has been to-date: nowhere.
The Whispers concerts will NOTT be featuring any Giddy Up tastings.
First Giddy Up product shipment will be Neveruary and the shipment will be sent to Nowhere.
It's nott even a fugazi - it's a non-gazi. A ghost beverage that exists nowhere and a CONtainer that is nothing butt an Adobe Illustrator graphics file.
That is all.
These are facts, nott guesses.
If Marty has so much loose cash, why did he have to put up his E*Trade account to make a measly $5M cash bail?
Why couldn't he have posted a cash bond?
Would have been smarter than freezing an account that, at the time, had an alleged value of $45M to meet a paltry $5M cash bond.
It makes no difference at all that Marty owns 70 percent of common.
In the majority of corporate Chapt 11 BKs, the common stock doesn't even gett a vote on K judge almost always overrides them and approves a plan if the other creditor classes approve it (note: common stockholders are nott true creditors, they are only the lowest class of unsecured default 'creditors' who are entitled only to whatever is left after a Chapt 7 liquidation pays off ALL real creditors in full - the commons would gett whatever crumbs were left over - which there are usually none.
So, Marty can't "reject" any reorg plan, and even if he could and the judge didn't override that class vote, the result is that the reorg plan fails and the BK would likely proceed to a Chapt 7 liquidation.
KBIO common is fundamentally worth exactly ZERO here.
"Chances are high everything will be different with this one."
Why? On what basis?
And what exactly will be different?
It will be available where it always has been: nowhere.
"when Giddy Up is Launched"
This will nott happen in anyone's lifetime.
Oh yeah, baby. The floorless converters are now eligible to convert into the FLOAT and dump upon issuance.
Czech the 13-Ds and you see they're now teed up to convert and dump in dribs and drabs - running the floorless convertibles DEATH SPIRAL and Chucky Scimeca's little snake oil skin creme pennyscam int DaDirt.
Goldman delivered - they just didn't comply with the requirement to locate before executing.
No outstanding 'naked short' position was retained and held for any substantial period - they, like Penson, simply didn't check for the borrow before execution. They still ultimately delivered with at most a very minor delay, if any.
I was at Woodstock too - Woodstock, IL - and I went to Harvard, which is ony a few miles away (Harvard, IL). They're both about equidistant from nearby Hebron, although the Intifada in Hebron never really took off.
"a group that had the means to short ( any stock) where I was able to not have to locate or pay any borrowing costs"
And WHOM do you think can do that? Even MMs have to meet the T+3 delivery requirement. So WHO are you believing can sell short (for more than a few days) before having to deliver the shares?
And exactly HOW do you propose that works without showing up of the FTD list?