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.
Things might get juicy in court
"He has also been involved in numerous employment disputes and is one of the leading experts in New York on trade secret litigation in the context of employee raiding lawsuits."
Employee Raiding: What are a Company's Rights?
What are a company's legal rights to challenge a competitor's intentional recruitment of one or more key employees, in the absence of any enforceable contractual non-compete restrictions binding upon those employees?
Many courts have noted that the hiring of a close competitor's executive is a usual and permissible practice in any industry. The courts generally have tried to strike a delicate balance between protecting the employer from unfair competition or trade secrets misappropriation, and protecting the employee's right to freely seek employment in a competitive marketplace, without undue restriction. As a result, the outcome of these cases depends on the specific facts in each case, the evidence presented by the parties, and the relative hardship the parties are likely to suffer if the relief sought is granted or denied.
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Where a former employee is not subject to any enforceable post-employment contractual restriction, the employer is required to establish the existence of genuine trade secrets, and the misappropriation of same by the competitor, in order for injunctive relief to be warranted against the competitor.
It is generally recognized under state law that at the termination of employment, an employee may not take with him confidential, particularized plans or processes developed by his employer and disclosed to him while the employer-employee relationship existed, which are unknown to others in the industry, and which give the employer an advantage over his competitors. Such confidential information - - or trade secrets - - includes technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers that:
is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, because it is not known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy or confidentiality.
On the other hand, an employee is free to take with him general skills and knowledge acquired during his tenure with his former employer. Furthermore, while recognizing that a business must be afforded protection against the wrongful appropriation of trade secrets by a prior employee who held a position of confidence and trust, the law generally recognizes the right of an individual to follow and pursue the particular occupation for which he is best trained. One who has worked in a particular field cannot be compelled to erase from his mind all of the general skills, knowledge and expertise acquired through his experience. These skills are valuable to such employee in the marketplace for his services.
To prevail in court, the employer must identify specific trade secrets which are in the former employee's possession and which are at risk. General allegations that the former employee has pricing information, knowledge of distributors or customers, sales information, cost information, knowledge of business strategy or other internal information is usually not sufficient.
For example, in Cincinnati Tool Steel Co. v. Breed, 90 Ill.Dec. 463, the plaintiff alleged that a former office manager/sales manager had misappropriated confidential pricing information, including cost, special discounts and supply information. The court refused to find that the plaintiff had a protectible interest in this information warranting injunctive relief. The former manager had not taken any documents or other material with her when she left the plaintiff's employ, and the court concluded that the fact that the defendant might be able to recollect pricing information that could potentially be used to the plaintiff's detriment while later working for one of plaintiff's competitors was simply too conjectural to establish a protectible trade secret.
Similarly, in Smith Oil Corp. v. Viking Chemical Co., 82 Ill.Dec. 250, the plaintiff alleged that former employees had misappropriated customer lists, customer orders, pricing information, cost information, sample formulas, product formulas, customer correspondence and other special customer information when they left to work for a competitor. Other than the exact formulas for the plaintiff's products, the court held that the information which the plaintiff wanted protected fell into the category of "general skills and knowledge" which an employee is free to take with him when his employment is terminated. The court concluded that the defendants could not be prevented from using their general chemistry or sales skills even if they were obtained or developed while working for the plaintiff, or prohibited from making use of individual items of sales information contained in customer lists or reports which they might happen to recall from their independent recollection. See also Hayden's Sport Center, Inc. v. Johnson, 65 Ill.Dec. 612 (general customer and pricing information did not constitute trade secrets); Midwest Micro Media, Inc. v. Machotka, 32 Ill.Dec. 241, (former employee's knowledge of customer and pricing information too closely akin to his personal abilities and skills as salesman to be considered employer's property).
Compare this with PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), where PepsiCo identified actual documents in the possession of the former key employee, all of which were highly confidential:
Strategic Plan - - an annually revised document that contains the company's plans to compete, its financial goals, and its strategies for manufacturing, production, marketing, packaging and distribution for the coming three years.
Annual Operating Plan - - a national plan for a given year which guides the company's financial goals, marketing plans, promotional events calendar, growth expectations and operational changes during that year.
Pricing Architecture - - a document containing important and sensitive information about how the company will price its products in the marketplace. Covers both national pricing approach and specific price points for given areas. Includes references to trade channels, package sizes, customer development agreements and merchandising programs.
Attack Plans - - aimed at specific target markets, these plans detail extra funding to support company brands against the competition.
Distribution Strategies - - a document which details a plan to test a new and innovative product delivery system that could give the company a competitive advantage in negotiations with retailers over shelf space and merchandising allowances.
The foregoing were considered trade secrets and the court upheld an injunction barring the former employee from working for PepsiCo's competitor for a period of six months based on evidence that the trade secrets would inevitably be disclosed if such employment was accepted. Without such relief, the competitor could anticipate PepsiCo's distribution, packaging, pricing and marketing moves. As the court put it, "PepsiCo finds itself in the position of a coach, one of whose players has left, playbook in hand, to join the opposing team before the big game."
Also essential to prevail in court is proof that the former employee possesses the trade secrets. Evidence that the confidential information was recorded, copied, compiled or memorized by the former employee, or is otherwise in his possession, is critical.
Unfair Competition
A company may also sue a competitor for unfair competition where the competitor intentionally raids the company and induces the resignations of key employees in order to gain access to the company's trade secrets and other confidential information. It constitutes unfair competition for a competitor to undertake a pattern of solicitation of a company's key employees in order to cripple or destroy its ability to compete, for example, by offering salaries intended not as reasonable compensation but to harm or destroy the company.
Systematic inducement of multiple employees of a single company to leave their present employment is unlawful when the purpose is to destroy a competitor or an integral segment of its business, rather than obtain the services of skilled employees. The very fact that a company targets its recruitment efforts at a single competitor suggests an improper motive, since one company rarely has a monopoly on skilled workers. Evidence that the loss of key personnel will harm the company, and that its rival desired to drive them out of business is important proof in these cases.
Relief
If the company is successful, a court may award the former employer injunctive relief and/or monetary damages. An injunction may prohibit the competitor from employing the company's employees for a specified time period or from engaging in further raiding activity. Damages caused by a competitor's unlawful activity may also be recovered.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.”
-Thomas Jefferson
latest response from Janet at seattle times.
///////////////////
thanks, roger.
i've forwarded this to a coworker from our business department who is trying to enhance what we have posted already.
i know there is a lot of chatter out there about why mainstream media are "ignoring" the story .... problem is that the suit was filed late on a friday, in .d.c. no less, and now it's a saturday, when most newspapers and other media have only the tiniest of staffs, government offices are closed down, and sources -- especially on stories like this -- are especially hard to reach.
but we're trying!
thanks again for your help.
janet
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Janet Horne
Subject: Re: wamu suit follow up
That was quick Good job!
I wanted to send this to you as a follow up to put things into a little more perspective as to what I am seeing.
Paulson Warned Washington Mutual to Sell, Seattle Times Reports
By Joel Rosenblatt
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned former Washington Mutual Inc. Chief Executive Officer Kerry Killinger to sell the thrift to JPMorgan Chase & Co. two months before WaMu failed, the Seattle Times reported.
``Paulson said, `You should have sold to JPMorgan Chase in the spring, and you should do so now. Things could get a lot more difficult for you,''' the Times reported, citing a WaMu executive familiar with Paulson's call that it didn't identify.
Earlier this year, JP Morgan offered $8 per share for WaMu, the Times said. JPMorgan acquired WaMu's branch network Sept. 25 for $1.9 billion after the Seattle-based thrift was seized by regulators, the newspaper reported.
Killinger was surprised by Paulson's call because Washington Mutual had raised $7.2 billion from private equity investors, which WaMu executives believed was enough to survive the mortgage crisis, according to the Times.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJFx58GRVEaU&refer=home
a little more info from the shareholders perspective
http://wamustory.com/
http://wamuqd.com/
http://www.squidoo.com/wamuq
again thanks for listening
~Roger
I called janet at the seattle tyimes looks like she will be running with this. She sounded very interested in this story
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008900364_wamusuit22.html
Washington Mutual holding company sues FDIC
Washington Mutual Inc., the holding company for the Seattle-based savings and loan that became the nation's largest bank failure, has sued federal regulators for billions of dollars.
By Seattle Times business staff
Related
WaMu lawsuit
Washington Mutual Inc., the holding company for the Seattle-based savings and loan that became the nation's largest bank failure, has sued federal regulators for billions of dollars.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Washington, D.C., asserts that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) sold the company's banking subsidiary, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) for too little to JPMorgan Chase.
The banking subsidiary was seized in September by the FDIC after Washington Mutual suffered heavy mortgage losses and an outflow of deposits.
The holding company, WMI, is now operating under Chapter 11 protection. Some of its other claims in the suit rely on bankruptcy law to seek the undoing of transactions that were carried out before it filed for Chapter 11.
For instance, the suit says WMI made $6.5 billion of capital contributions" to the banking subsidiary in 2007 and 2008, although one or both of the companies "may have been insolvent at the time." If so, says the suit, "WMI did not receive any value in exchange for the capital contributions" and is entitled to have the transfers unwound.
The suit also asserts that the FDIC or the Office of Thrift Supervision, the direct regulator of savings and loans such as Washington Mutual Bank, induced WMI to infuse new capital into the bank "at a time when such agencies knew or should have known that (seizure of the bank) was imminent."
WMI's suit says that when it submitted its claims to the FDIC before going to court, it received only a "cryptic disallowance." It asserts the agency is obligated by law to address the claims and explain why they are being denied.
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
More Local News headlines...
what does this mean?
Mr. Cancio has established a vast network of contacts
around the world including those who are considered to be "established
industry," meaning the largest and most successful entities such as Sony/BMG,
Sony Music Latin, Universal, Universal Latino, Miramax Films, Tribeca,
Telemundo/NBC, Univision television Networks, Grupo Prisa in Spain, Tota
Production in Italy,Ahora Corporation in Japan.
http://www.secinfo.com/d14JMk.zKq.htm
https://esos.state.nv.us/corps/
But Hugo knows this as he used it on 2/15/2008
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=fNj3APZ6DYfszQIHenp10w%253d%253d
Heads up
FUEGO ENTERTAINMENT
Business Entity Information
Status: Default on 1/1/2009 File Date: 12/30/2004
Type: Domestic Corporation Corp Number: C35749-2004
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 12/31/2008
Managed By: Expiration Date:
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=keAbqFmVdg3myhiwgzE3Vw%253d%253d
That is the translated version of fuego entertainment
fuego is espanolish for fire.
Tell you to go home and get all the unsolicted junkmail you have recieved this week and put coupons for one company into the pre paid envelopes of another company and mail them to each other, forcing them to pay for each others nonsense offers.
he would roll up his sleeves look you dead in the eye and scream about how much of a gem it was. Then dump everything on the saps that listened to his Bull button and started buying.
Great Breakdown! Thank you Carla.
Operating Expenses
The current year's operating activities were more involved since they included the registration costs of going public of $63,382, the development expenses incurred towards the effort to determine the viability of a Puerto Rico station of $39,474, and the impairment of the investment in Havana nights of $57,400. In the prior year, no similar amounts were incurred. Other selling, general and administrative expenses of the current year were in line with the level of expenses incurred in the previous period of 5 months.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336277/000119983507000569/fuegoentertainment_10-ksba.htm
//////////////////////////
from the complaint......
13. Of the total $1,500,000.00 the investors paid to ViaShow following ViaShow’s representations and promises that the investors would be reimbursed with revenues generated by the Show’s performances, Plaintiff Fuego contributed $517,400.00 of this sum (the Fuego “Investment Sum”).
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336277/000119983508000463/exhibit_99-1.htm
////////////////////
now I find out they have painted themselves into a corner with the sec about this viashow as well.
??????
4. We note your response to comment 6 in our letter dated March
17,
2006. In the last paragraph on page 15, you state that you are
planning to help produce the Havana Night Club show in Puerto
Rico,
which is not part of the original agreement you signed with
Viashow
regarding the Celebrate Freedom Tour 2005. Please discuss the
limitations, if any, that your original Royalty Agreement dated
March
3, 2005 and amended on September 18, 2005 will have on your
participation in the new production. Also, please disclose the
producer of the new Puerto Rico show. Further, since "there are
no
agreements as of yet for this particular show," please describe
your
basis for stating that you will receive 20% of the production`s
revenue.
5. We note that in your response to comment 3 in our prior letter
dated January 12, 2006, you stated: "there are no affiliations
between Mr. Casavant and the projects being undertaken by the
company, though Mr. Casavant was involved in one of the projects
wherein he hired the company solely as an independent contractor
to
produce a corporate video." Based on the Royalty Agreement you
filed
as Exhibit 10.1 to this registration statement, it appears that
Mr.
Casavant was a co-investor in the Havana Night Club Show-Five City
Tour. Please disclose your relationship with Mr. Casavant
relating
to the Five City Tour.
6. We note that the first paragraph of the Royalty Agreement
states
that you, Hugo Cancio, the UAJC 2005 Irrevocable Trust, and the
MDW
and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust are individually and collectively
referred to as the "Investor." Also, Section 1.1 of the Royalty
Agreement states that the Investor shall pay the Promoter the sum
of
$1.5 million and Sections 1.3(a) and (b) state that you will
receive
20% of the tour`s revenues, but in the first paragraph of your
Plan
of Operation section on page 12, you state that you invested only
$57,400 in the tour. Please tell us why you will receive 20% of
the
tour`s revenue when you have invested only $57,400. We may have
further comments based upon your response.
7. In this regard, it appears that you may be jointly and severely
liable with Hugo Cancio, the UAJC 2005 Irrevocable Trust, and the
MDW
and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust for the $1.5 million investment.
Please disclose if the investment price has been paid in full. If
not, please disclose whether you may be liable for more than the
$57,400 already paid by you should any or all of the other
investors
fail to pay their fair share, any unpaid investment amount accrued
by
you, or your basis for not accruing any amount. In your
disclosure,
please include your consideration of SFAS No. 5 in your
determination.
8. Section 1.1 of the Royalty Agreement refers to a spread sheet
prepared by Prager and Fenton that is attached as Exhibit A.
Please
re-file the Royalty Agreement with Exhibit A.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336277/000000000006018338/filename1.txt
////////////////////
Fuego Entertainments invested $57,400 for which it was
assigned a 20% royalty. The remainder of the total investment was provided by
the other investors. The $1.5 million investment in the Five City Tour was paid
in full at the time the investment contract was executed by the third party
investors, leaving no further liability of payment by any investor. Fuego
received a disproportionate percentage of the royalties based on the fact that
Mr. Cancio happens to be Cuban and a producer and promoter of Cuban acts and
that Mr. Cancio assisted in the preparation, pre-production of the tour,
especially in the presentation of the Miami show, which is the city where Mr.
Cancio resides and has produced most of his live events. The Viashow producer
personally contacted and invited the other investors into the agreement. There
is absolutely no ongoing business or personal relationship between Mr. Cancio or
Fuego Entertainment with the other investors related to the Five City Tour.
There are no plans or expectation of any future business or personal
relationship between Mr. Cancio or Fuego Entertainment and the other investing
individuals and/or Trusts that are parties to the Royalty Agreement and the Five
City Tour.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336277/000119983506000367/fuego_sb2a-10th.txt
/////////////////
so let me get this straight he invested 57,400 and sued for 517,400 and the disproportionate difference is for being cuban?
no wonder the judge threw it out Hugo asked for $460,000 for being CUBAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha you cant make this stuff up!
Actually anyone who took the time to read what is on blackstone would know what happened. Fugo filed suit against Viashow for 517k
fuego filed with the sec that they actually paid 57k
viashow challenged the validity fo fugos statements in the suit and filed a motion to dismiss.
in fugos answer to viashows motion fugo conceded the unjust conversion.
the court granted viashows motion to dismiss on those grounds with prejudice. Meaning Fugo claim was bounced for good reason and they could not bring up the same claim again.
Now look at the other suit against viashow that motion to dismiss was denied. due to teh answer to that motion being a sound argument for conversion and unjust enrichment.
now the question to ask is this. why was there such a large discrepancy in what was actually paid to viashow and what was claimed to be paid to viashow in the suit.
There goes the neighborhood.
Na, Thinmans cool. actually most know im just being an azzhole out of frustration. Some get a little over zealous and bark a bit but oh well. Hell even Dan can't argue with much I say. He knows where I stand. Actually today was the first time I saw any volume that wasn't all sales and the 100 share prop up so it looked kinda good. Fingers crossed for more days of real trades.
Sorry when I said free company I meant free country. Also when your finished with that letter could you cc it to my barber and my dentist.
Now thats funny!
I bought a couple of the conspiracy dvd's nada.
Draft away they have nothing to do with me or what I do outside of CMKM. Nothing unethical about making posts on a message board. This is a free company and as far as I know freedom of speach is a right Bush has yet to take away from me.
BTW while drafting be sure to include that I not only post on IHUB, I also post on Politico, USA today, CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, and a few others but those should be sufficient to let Them know how much I like my right to speak freely about my opinions.
Carla I have no bad intentions. I own alot of Fuego stock I have bought and sold this alot I was in Pre ipo at Hugos invitation. Until recently I was in regular communiaction with Dan and occasionally with Hugo. I just dont like what Im seeing lately thats all. and until these guys stand up and do something to prtect shareholder value Ill keep hounding.
but I am making a killing on wamuq lol.
at 5 bux a head minus the kids that should gross about 10k divide that up between sound men 14 groups and teh promotion fees the company should net about 3-4k! thats a profit of .0000088 a share! :0O
Update.
The concert is on
just confirmed, $5 to get in Kids are free! pets welcome. The flyer is in all spanish thats all she could decipher but she gave me a number to call I assume its Hugo. Hope they got the permit. gov offices closed thursday and friday.
Carla this has nothing to do with the company I am on the board of. Nothing shamefull about posting what we find out about weather fuego has gone thru the proper channels to hold a concert. especially since the park officials are unaware of the show as of this morning.
Wonder when they were planning on telling someone about it.
But as you can see the venue is available for booking according to their website so it shouldnt be too hard to get it.
least they could do is get a permit for the function.
Amelia Earhart Park (Hialeah) upcoming concert listings
0 upcoming concerts
Hialeah, FL
US
http://www.songkick.com/venue/2752/amelia-earhart-park-hialeah
There are no events currently scheduled at this venue.
http://www.ticketmaster.com/Amelia-Earhart-Park-tickets-Hialeah/venue/107134?brand=tm&camefrom=CFC_BUYAT_michaelkelly
Today's Events
Tue, Nov 25Skate Park
Tue, Nov 25Mountain Bike Trails
Tue, Nov 25Bark Park
Tue, Nov 25Junior Sailing Program
Upcoming Events
Sat, Nov 29Farm village
ck I say first of all my name is Roger not Rodger. as far as not willing to sell at a low price your right about that one. No one in their right mind would do so. Am I mad about a 9 to 5 not on your life and Im not mad about my 6-11 or my weekend Gig. Im not mad about my consulting firm or my position on the cmkm BOD. My family dosent suffer we do quite well thank you and we will continue to do so. I have never promised anything to my family about the stock market its actually quite a fun hobby. To blame a snake for being a snake is an exercise in futility. And yes the market especially the otc.bb and pinks are all filled with snakes. Im just disappointed that Hugo and Dan felt the need to lie to me personally. Ask Dan about his call to me the day before I was announced on the bOD of cmkm and the smoke he blew up my ass about the Viashow suit before he knew what I really know. I know he felt like a reall jerkoff when that pr came out. How do I know? he called and told me. he tried to clean it up a bit but he did look like an ass.
Now believe what you will but you are way off base with your statements, but somehow I think you know that.
The people that are here know me, for the most part they know my personality they know my drive and conviction. They know what Im about. Your tirade is weak to say the least. Even if you people dont like me they know one thing about me and that is I always search for the truth. no matter what.
ok I will take a look at your last post and quote it
"I will no longer reply to your post. You have now become insignificant.
Wish you the best"
so did you lie?
Yes I work in a Hospital among other things. and what would I know about managing a business?
I know quite a few things as I do, I have, and I will continue to do so.
As far as "Taxes paid read the filings?" I did, did you?
from the 10K
"DELINQUENT INCOME TAXES
Neither the federal nor state income tax liabilities, as revised, of $15,985 for the year ended May 31, 2005, have been paid as of May 31, 2007,. Accordingly, estimated accrued interest and penalties of $3,906 have been provided as of May 31, 2007 as “other liabilities” on the accompanying balance sheet.
The state income taxes payable for the year ended May 31, 2005 have not been paid as of May 31, 2008. Accordingly, estimated accrued interest and penalties of $884 as of May 31, 2008 have been included in “other liabilities” on the accompanying balance sheet.
as far as the CEO having his personal money in here where does it state that? oh you mean the deferred compensation?
Or is it the capital that he paid himself thru ciocan or from the sales of sunflower publishings stock that he reinvested?
Or was it th money in Viashow that Hugo never really put in?
from Cancios 8k about suing Viashow.
"We contributed a portion of this amount, totaling $517,400."
from 10K about what was really paid to Viashow.
"The current year's operating activities were more involved since they included the registration costs of going public of $63,382, the development expenses incurred towards the effort to determine the viability of a Puerto Rico station of $39,474, and the impairment of the investment in Havana nights of $57,400. In the prior year, no similar amounts were incurred. Other selling, general and administrative expenses of the current year were in line with the level of expenses incurred in the previous period of 5 months."
so he is suing for return of 517,400 when he only put in 57,400?
why is that?
could it becasue Old urbie paid the rest?
As far as protcting his company. lets see we have had settlements without disclosing the terms to the shareholders.
We have has convicted felon pump and dump stck promoters that have recieved 475k shares of Fugo for absolutely no reason at all. except he was supposed to pump the stock up for a run. which he dumped on the market illegally when the beatles pump started and made it hit a buck.
Then we find out that the beatles music cant be exploited and fugo got paid something but we will never know what that is.
we have a 65 page pump prospectus written by a disinterested third party but this disinterested third party is a hedge fund manager that actually used to be on th ebod for fugo. Then we have a hege fund as an institutional investor hedge fund manager that has nothing else in his history accept another company at the same virtual office that used to be involved in Dan's latest SEC run in GMCC. This AES capital never existed until 10 days before it bought up a bunch of fugo stock and they dont appear in any other stocks out there.
this company has had luny tunes on contract for 2 albums a year for 5 years we are well into year 2 and have not herad a friggin note yet.
Hugo sold counterfeit conspiracy dvd's almost 4 years ago and nada.
hell they supposedly own 3.5 million tracks and havent produced 1 penny of revenue.
the website has a poll about the features. from poll daddy.com
only 6 friggin votes in a month??????????
lmao
simply phukkin amazing Dan tell Hugo to pay his damn bills!
How about using some of those undisclosed "mutual satisfaction" settlement dollars to pay the back taxes and the lawyers that got you the settlement. since you wont disclose it to your shareholders the least you could do is make sure we dont bleed to death. friggin bums.
You can buy this stuff?
"If you cant be an athlete, be and athletic supporter"
maybe we can all pitch in and buy this new ir firm some viagra seems he always pops off and rolls over after 2 strokes and we have to sit here listening to the company snore till next time.
cue Annie please
Thats what Im talkin about make some noise.
like the alphatrade i had up? thats why I was so surprised when I logged into my brokerage account because the trade didnt hit the tape.
14:53:15 100 0.07 + OTCBB
14:49:12 1500 0.05 - OTCBB
13:27:51 100 0.07 + OTCBB
13:25:30 5000 0.04 - OTCBB
11:12:00 100 0.07 + OTCBB
10:47:27 4000 0.06 - OTCBB
10:42:36 2500 0.06 - OTCBB
09:31:57 100 0.08 + OTCBB
09:31:15 8500 0.04 OTCBB
alphatrade the trade aint there.
cant be too sure whats up I do know the transaction didnt hit the tape.
11/03/08 9:31 AM EST Buy 1600 FUGO Executed @ $0.04
a little suprise for me this morning when I opend up my account.
wonder why this transaction isnt represented on L2 under time and sales.
according to Fugos filings its 5% and aes aint listed.
ITEM 11. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT.
The following table sets forth, as of May 31, 2008, certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock by (i) each director and officer of the Company, (ii) each person known to the Company to be the beneficial owner of 5% or more of the outstanding shares of common stock, with such person’s address, and (iii) all of the directors and officers as a group. Unless otherwise indicated, the person or entity listed in the table is the beneficial owner of the shares and has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares indicated. The total number of issued and outstanding shares as of May 31, 2008 is 39,476,020.
Name of Beneficial Owner Shares Beneficially
or Name of Officer or Director Owned ** Percent
Hugo M. Cancio
Director/President
Treasurer/Secretary 19,250,000 48.76%
Ciocan Entertainment Film & Music Group, LLC * 5,500,000 13.93%
Total Director/Officer/
5% Owners 24,750,000 62.70%
* Hugo M. Cancio is the controlling shareholder of Ciocan Entertainment Film and Music Group, L.L.C. which owns 5,500,000 shares of our common stock.
** Includes stock options granted of 250,000 shares granted in January, 2008 and reported herein on a fully-diluted basis as if all share were to be exercised.
so aes was in om gmcc too?
The SEC inquiry has yet to finalize however GMCC has recently received authorization from our legal firm in the SEC inquiry to recommence the efforts of REMAT Systems, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of GMC Holding Corp.). The company can now begin to explore the opportunities, which have been presented since the SEC inquiry began. Again, the company cannot comment further on the inquiry due to the lack of information and communication with the SEC.
REMAT is assembling a Board of Directors, Advisory Board, Executive Management Team, and an independent R&D team to further REMAT technologies and product line.
GMC Holding Corp. has retained AES Financial Advisors, a New York based firm to assist in the non-technical aspects of this process.
GMC Holding Corp. would like to express its encouragement with the favorable outlook of the company's direction. We believe there is reestablished momentum and a stronger vision for the direction of REMAT Systems, LLC.
The company thanks you for your patience and understanding and we hope to continue with favorable news in the coming months.
Any questions in regards to this letter or any other company information please direct them to Dan York. dan@gmcholdings.com or phone 214 675-2531.
http://www.gmcholdings.com/
actually if its santelli he should be filing form 4's as well since he is supposedly a holder of 8.8% of the fully diluted o/s until he does I would think its probably someone else. I mean the filing aes ever bothered to make in its history is the aquisition of the 8.8% of fuego. hell almost like he dosent do anything at all except hold fuego.
In fact if you look at this filing (which is the only filing he ever made) you will find that it was made feb 19 2008 for a transaction that occured on jan 10 2008. now go to internet archive and take a look at when Mr Santellis website aescapital went live jan 19 2008
see it was just a parked domain with no hedgefund attached. until mr santelli showed up getting fugo shares.
http://www.aescapital.com/" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.aescapital.com/
Instruction 4(b)(v). transaction code P
Means private transaction
now who would have 275k shares with a cost basis below .06? That Hugo could buy from?
Storm I am on the BOD of cmkx. What we are doing has been laid out in detail in all of the court documents posted on the CMKM site. When we go to court again it will be posted in short order. Thats aabout all I can say, except as you know we as shareholders were robbed by past management and their affiliates. We as new management and the BOD as well as the advisory board are trying to recover what was stolen from the company and return it to the company. That mission statement has not changed. things here are a bit different than the recovery efforts being persued in CMKM diamonds. Remember that everyone outside of Mark that is involved now are shareholders fighting to regain what was stolen from the shareholders to return it to the company so that we can move forward.