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.
How is it that all those millions in investor cash pissed away; all those grand projections of business and revenue to be gained and added; and all the endless nonsense pawned off on so many genuinely hopeful penny-stock gamblers; and this huckster Rory doesn't even have the decency to simply come out and tell everyone its over....bankrupt...kaput....it was a scam and a hustle all along. Your money is gone and I appreciate you all allowing me to live my best life all of these years on the hopes, dreams and otherwise un-disposable cash from all you delusional mopes. Thank You its been fun. Now I am off to my next scam and an entirely new cast of suckers.
Someone help me out here but my understanding of a Change in Control (CIC) payment is essentially a substantial "bonus" for management of a publicly-held company that has built that company to the point that it becomes attractive and a as a result it gets acquired by another entity (due to growth, success, future potential to produce revenues and profits). It has never been contemplated to be paid out to a management group that so mismanaged a company as to lead it to absolute bankruptcy in which the assets of that company are being liquidated to satisfy creditors. And please, lets make no mistakes here .....this company is bankrupt and its assets are being liquidated to satisfy creditors. On what planet does that constitute a "change in control" and worthy of a big payoff to management for achieving such a feat?? Come on man.......
Dear Mr. Turmelle: So, after you and your cabal of Platinum Partners sycophants and confidantes presided over the "heavily-debt-leveraged" financing that ran IMSC into the ground and its current place in bankruptcy court, you have the unmitigated cojones to suggest to shareholders that we should trust you to now look after our best interest? I wouldn't trust you or your band of criminals and incompetents to find water in the ocean. You threaten us with the notion that your now-federally indicted, ponzi-scheme debtors/partners in crime have saddled us with a $Million a month in interest payments so that we will fold up the equity shareholders committee tent quaking in fear that you and your PP friends will squeeze the last ounce of blood from us turnips so we best take the scraps while we can? I suggest sir, that your sudden desire to look after share-holder interests are, as they say, way too little and way too late. I join with many others on this board in saying I'd rather see you all in Federal prison where you belong even if it costs the last of what you all have stolen from investors.
I absolutely see your logic and probably agree. But I would advocate further that we should not be even contemplating repaying anything beyond the original unpaid principal, but would suggest we negotiate to deduct from that all the interest paid to date and still, because the PP Hedge Fund is in bankruptcy and was likely a ponzi scheme anyway, negotiate a further haircut on the total principal repayment just like all the other debtor-holdings will be doing.
You ask why we think that the Courts would consider our asking that PP investors get screwed more than IMSC investors. I think that you are missing the point that PP investors were lured in (like most ultra-greedy so-called investors in classic ponzi schemes) by rates of return to good to be true. No one should have the right to get back the ROI built into the toxic and usurious deal PP was getting .... 15, 16, 17%, ... 8 cent conversions when the stock was valued above $1.00 etc.... so, like most investors in ponzi schemes .. they should be entitled to and expect to take a haircut vs. what they may have been promised by the white-collar criminals running the enterprise.
Buff: I respect your insight and comments immensely, and have largely read this board over time in order to read what you were thinking at any given time. I do recall, however, that you almost singularly opined from your soapbox for the better part of a year that Bolduc needed to be fired and our only salvation would come from his demise as CEO. Have you had a change of heart with regard to Mr. Bolduc and his stewardship on behalf of shareholders? Or, is he just a little bit better than a cast of crooks more pronounced in their malevolence and personal greed?
Well said. Can anyone put together a draft letter that retail investors can personalize and send to the appropriate Bankruptcy judge and/or attorneys representing share holder interests. I for one, who still hold over 198,000 shares would be glad to send. I am sure many others will as well. I think many of us have come to the conclusion (too late) that this management group (IMSC) are and have been barely discernible from the Criminal enterprise that is PP when it comes to share holder interests and creating long-term company value.
For the sake of Clarity and to offer me (as a very-long term investor...thats right, investor, not "speculator", who has lost a lot of money on IMSC) some perspective, can someone tell me exactly how much principal has been loaned to IMSC over time by PP and their criminal holding companies .... not including usurious 15% or 16% interest; not including interest on interest; not including insanely-toxic 8-cent conversions, put just "principal". Because, from a moral perspective (I know that has no legal basis in today's world, but it means something to me), I would be curious what might be owed if instead they were only paid back principal plus a common and decent rate of return interest for such debt. After all, the investors in the Platinum partners Arbitrage Fund that is now bankrupt and being liquidated (read Ponzi scheme) were innocent investors just like us who became the victims of PP fraud and they would be likely to get something back in their bankruptcy proceedings, but not necessarily the product of collusion and sweet heart deals. So, maybe everybody taking a hair cut can allow us legitimate investors to ultimately limit our losses. So, principal loaned .....how much?
I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Government in early April, 2015, seeking the release of the "cost per unit" paid by TSA to implant Sciences Corporation under the $162Million IDIQ purchase of B220 explosive trace detection units. Today (September 22, 2016) some 17 months later I finally received my formal response which I have copied herein. The answer being...... We won't tell You.
Don't you love that government transparency.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Freedom of Information Act Branch
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6020
September 22, 2016
3600.1
Case Number: 2015-TSFO-00173
Dear Mr. :
This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated April 06, 2015, addressed to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) FOIA Branch seeking access to a copy of “the bid summary for the 2014 TSA solicitation which resulted in Implant Sciences being awarded a $162 Million IDIQ for its B-220 Explosive Trace Detection Screening units. Specifically the effective cost per unit.”
The processing of your request identified certain materials that are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), which allows for the withholding of records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. Please refer to the Applicable Exemptions list at the end of this letter that identifies the authority for withholding the exempt material, which is indicated by a mark appearing in the block next to the exemption. An additional enclosure with this letter explains these exemptions in more detail.
The rules and regulations of the Transportation Security Administration applicable to Freedom of Information Act requests are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 6, Part 5. They are published in the Federal Register and are available for inspection by the public.
Fees
There are no fees associated with processing this request because the fees incurred do not exceed the minimum threshold necessary for charge.
Administrative Appeal
In the event that you wish to appeal this determination, an administrative appeal may be made in writing to Kimberly Walton, Assistant Administrator, Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement (CRL/OTE), Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, East Building, E7-121S, Arlington, VA 20598-6033. Your appeal must be submitted within 90 days from the date of this determination. It should contain your FOIA request number, (2015-TSFO-00173), and, to the extent possible, the reasons why you believe the initial determination should be reversed. In addition, the envelope in which the appeal is mailed should be prominently marked “FOIA Appeal.” Please note that the Assistant Administrator’s determination of the appeal will be administratively final.
If you have any questions pertaining to your request, please feel free to contact the FOIA Branch at
1-866-364-2872 or at 1-571-227-2300.
Sincerely,
Regina McCoy
FOIA Officer
Summary:
Number of Pages Withheld in Full: 30
APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND/OR PRIVACY ACT
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)
(b)(1) (b)(2) (b)(3) (b)(4) (b)(5) (b)(6)
(b)(7)(A) (b)(7)(B) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(D) (b)(7)(E) (b)(7)(F)
Enclosures
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) FOIA Branch applies FOIA exemptions to protect:
Exemptions
Exemption (b)(1): Records that contain information that is classified for national security purposes.
Exemption (b)(2): Records that are related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption (b)(3): Records specifically exempted from disclosure by Title 41 U.S.C. Section 2101, which exempts from disclosure contract bids, proposals and source selection information.
Exemption (b)(4): Records that contain trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.
Exemption (b)(5): Inter- or intra-agency records that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. The three most frequently invoked privileges are the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege:
? Deliberative process privilege – Under the deliberative process privilege, disclosure of these records would injure the quality of future agency decisions by discouraging the open and frank policy discussions between subordinates and superiors.
? Attorney work-product privilege – Records prepared by or at the direction of a TSA attorney.
? Attorney-client privilege – Records of communications between an attorney and his/her client relating to a matter for which the client has sought legal advice, as well as facts divulged by client to attorney and any opinions given by attorney based on these.
Exemption (b)(6): Records that contain identifying information that applies to a particular individual when the disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” This requires the balancing of the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right to privacy.
Exemption (b)(7)(A): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information…could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
Exemption (b)(7)(C): Records containing law enforcement information when disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” based upon the traditional recognition of strong privacy interests ordinarily appropriated in law enforcement records.
Exemption (b)(7)(E): Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
Exemption (b)(7)(F): Records containing law enforcement information about a person, in that disclosure of information about him or her could reasonably be expected to endanger his or her life or physical safety.
I value it at 1 share of L3 for each 50 shares of IMSC....you do the Math!
$2.75; June 3 at 4:20 p.m.
It all seems to be geared to the "Major Transaction"......
That is the most profound post I have seen in a long while. It sums up the plight of all us long-term, loyal investors. I hope the Board reads it and does the honorable thing.... sell this company and allow us to at least break even or make a modest little return on our investment for all these years of anxiety.
Could someone please author a message that is thoughtful, responsible and factual, which at the same time makes clear the pronounced level of frustration and anger that all of us long-time, legitimate investors feel right now addressed to this management team that we can all sign and individually send to them so that rather than all whining on this board we can use our collective time to something potentially more productive?
Someone Please explain to me how, when the company had no sales to ECAC, no TSA IDIQ announcement for $162M or even for $42M; the same clearly-toxic debt; and quarterly revenues typically in the $1.5 to $3M range The stock price could hit $1.84 and today knowing that they have real orders for over 2,000 QS B220 Units since November 2014, the stock price is F@%king 65 cents? I have been long in this dumpster fire for over 5 years now and losing all hope. Any reason I should walk back off the ledge? somebody? anybody?
Everybody Drop it already with the insider stock buying! Buffalo is spot on...Why would the BOD have their money go directly to Platinum/DMRJ. When those blood-suckers are removed, you will see insider buys and not before.
I have never seen volume so light....any thoughts? Did the DMRJ well run dry?
This latest PR was both interesting and clear in its message. It wasn't about $1.2 Million in shipped sales, that is no longer worthy of a PR. No, the whole point of this was the sentence stating that"The ramped up manufacturing capacity" is allowing them to keep up with selling and shipping to all manner of traditional (smaller) customers while at the same time fulfilling the shipments to both the TSA IDIQ order and the EU-dominating airport orders. So, we always talked about their likely capacity to manufacture a maximum 200 units per month, any thoughts or speculations as to what current production runs look like? anyone tour lately? Oh, I guess the chief tour guide (Glen) is gone now.
For Those who want the definitive, final word on the TSA price paid per unit for the B220 under the IDIQ -- I suggest you all contact (571) 227-2300 or foia@tsa.dhs.gov to ask that case number 2015-TSFO-00173 (as submitted on April 6, 2015) under the Federal Freedom of Information Act be processed more quickly in the interests of many more interested parties beyond the single party submitting the request (Me.) The specific request was for the price per unit paid by TSA to purchase B220 bench-top explosive trace detectors under the $162Million IDIQ issued to Implant Sciences Corporation. TSA FOIA Branch Officer attorneys, Teri Miller and Amanda Deplitch have a statutory responsibility to release this information to the public. Unfortunately the law does not limit the time they can take in providing the release of such information.
And the choir sings Amen!!!
Scooter: thanks for your research and due diligence. I do have a question though. Is it your understanding that the 1170 units referred to in that power point is the same 1170 being delivered by IMSC from June-Nov. 2015? or, is it referring to additional units? Also, the 85 units for baggage? who is purchasing and where are they to be deployed? Thanks again.
I want desperately for this company to be wildly successful. I also want to send this management a message that loyal, patient long-suffering investors are tired of the mushroom treatment. My first instinct is to vote my 165,000+ shares as a NO on additional shares and options, but I also worry that this Board could be forced to do even more desperate things in the absence of this authorization. Can someone objectively help me with the pro's and con's .... NO snarkiness....No attempts to manipulate for personal trading reasons....I just want objective thoughts to genuinely help me make this (difficult) decision. Thanks to all.
iToro: I do appreciate your enthusiasm and your sincere efforts, but if other longs are like me, (I now have every possible disposable (and otherwise) dime to my name tied up in this stock and can't buy any more if I wanted to) their hands are tied. I actually added another 36,550 shares at an average .68 over the last 2 weeks ( I have never sold in 5 years) in order to bring my average down just below $1.00. I absolutely agree with you and others that the Board and top management need to buy stock in this company. I own CRDS (smaller cap than IMSC) but there the Board and management have purchased and now own 24% of all shares outstanding and while they are also not profitable, do not rely on debt, but rather issue periodic stock offerings (always well-subscribed including by insiders) to avoid toxic interest and conversions......
My dear fellow....Mr. Shiloh was being sarcastic....there is no official word on TSA shipments.
You are absolutely correct. It would seem a third grader, let alone professionals in the marketing sector, would jump all over the opportunity ( in light of the TSA story on Failure to detect the threats posed by our own planted security officials) to tout the advantage of IMSC B-220's tested and re-tested reliability in comparison to its competitors high "false-alarm" rates. The press would eat up the narrative of a small American company out-teching its larger European rivals and point out the fact that none of the problems came from IMSC products (since none are yet deployed) but the solutions certainly can come from them.
I've been thinking further about this distribution deal in China and the "up to $5Million", and I actually have to wonder if the reason for the "cap" is actually that with a $162M TSA IDIQ and European back-log they actually have to self-limit sales because of manufacturing capacity. If you don't have the product or can't deliver it in a responsible time-frame you probably shouldn't "sell" it. Wouldn't that be the grandest of ironies after all of the other problems we have endured. Someone tell me I am wrong......please.
Yeah, that's what I make of it as well....so why the $5M limit? Heck, let them sell $500M if the Chinese want to buy? Unless they have given them a rather incentivized commission for the first $5M..then they want a new deal (at a lesser commission) once the market is established.
Buff. I value your opinion and know you won't sugar-coat the response. So, let me pose you this question? Lately, many posters on this board would suggest that the company (Mcgann, Liscouski et al.) doesn't care about retail shareholders....meaning they don't care about the share price. Yet, I struggle to comprehend how or why someone with Mcgann's history, track-record, and resources (as well as can be said for Liscouski)would be putting all their time, energy and considerable credibility into an exercise that would pay them the salaries they are currently receiving. It would certainly seem like they are in this for a big ultimate pay-out? doesn't that mean an end-result where share prices are dramatically higher? and can they get the big pay-off without general share-holders also reaping the benefits?
Eyes.... I agree with you that the call was positive and I was, in fact very impressed with Liscouski. I am also a frustrated long who is in the hole by $50,000+ and I have a very hard time with his answer that DMRJ isn't responsible for "all" of the selling. Maybe not "all", but certainly enough so that it is very clearly the root cause of the stock price decline. So, rather than give Bill Clinton-like answers, why not be more forthright in stating he recognizes the debt is a big problem and that he/they are focusing on a capital restructure so that shareholders (past and future) will see an end to the dumping of 8-cent converts at badly-depressed prices like 70 cents a share.? I think we are simply asking BL that (in his words) show that shareholders are more worthy of currying favor with than your toxic lender.
to both kidneybeans and eyesontheprize, excellent summaries --you both characterized the substance of the call exceptionally well. I have personally been very down lately, but this call was a huge pick-me-up. I am very impressed with Liscouski -- this guy will likely solve our capital structure problems and is appropriately strong, decisive and articulate, while being diplomatic and tactful. Mcgann has not just "a" plan, but the right plan and is focused in a way bolduc was never going to be. I own 139,000 shares and am in the hole (on paper) well north of $50,000, yet today I am feeling substantially better the ship is headed in the right direction.
Is anyone else wondering why the majority of the BOD is leaving, without explanation, only to be replaced by members of the management staff? With all of the outstanding debt, no board members would be representative of (or seemingly tied to)either BAM or DMRJ? How is this happening, and why now? 89+M shares reserved to pay off principal and interest to DMRJ? Hell of a nice return on investment. A share price that's dropped by nearly 60% since they received certifications -- for this we should give them substantially more in the way of stock options as reward? I am so weary of this company and its seeming disregard for long-term retail investors that I just want to curl up in the fetal position and whimper softly, lest my free-fall into wholesale sobbing embarrass me in front of my colleagues.
If they can't or won't clearly lay out their plan to deal with the convertible debt, I will vote no.
On April 6th I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to the TSA seeking the per-unit cost (for each B-220) of the winning bid resulting in the IDIQ to IMSC. Today, I followed up, believing that the response was taking too long. the following was the response I received.
Good afternoon,
Case number: 2015-TSFO-00173
Your request has been received in this office for processing. Due to the increase in number of requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. It is the TSA’s practice to assign requests to one of the two tracks based on the complexity of the request. Requests within the tracks are processed in the order in which they are received. Your request has been assigned to the complex track. At this time we anticipate an additional six months for simple and one year for complex to complete the processing of your request, based on processing time of similar requests. This message contains all of the information we are able to communicate to you at this time in the process. If you would like to contact us to narrow the scope of your request, please contact this office at (571) 227-2300 or foia@tsa.dhs.gov. For future status inquiries, please visit http://www.dhs.gov//foia-status and type in the case number listed above.
Thank you,
Freedom of Information Act Branch (FOIA)
Office of Civil Rights, Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement
Transportation Security Administration
FOIA Main Line: (571) 227-2300 ~ FOIA@tsa.dhs.gov
cid:image001.jpg@01C9C3FF.278F0150
While the stock performance is tragic, that comment is genuinely funny .... I giggled ever so slightly.
You know I am sick of this... "platinum is just getting what they are owed, it's not their fault" crap. When credit card companies try to charge 25% its usery and against the law....when the loan sharks or the mafia hit you up for 100%, we know its illegal, but when Platinum gets 800% or maybe more its there God-given right to greedily steal all that money from the little retail investors who have , year-after year, put there hard-earned savings into a vulnerable albeit-legitimate and truly remarkable American success story. This management team damn-well better figure out how to deep-six these blood-suckers from platinum and lay-out that strategy soooooooon!
We had this toxic financing when we hit $1.80 a share -- with "promise & hope", but little else. Yet today following a $162M IDIQ; an 1170 unit order against that IDIQ; two big non-TSA orders out of Europe and likely multiple more to come ---we are making a 52-week low hanging at 70 cents. The most reprehensible manipulations I have ever seen in the market and the frustrating thing is there appears little good explanation as to why.
I'd like to pose a question that I am sure one of the erudite posters on this forum will be capable of answering with some level of certainty. So, having myself spent nearly 30 years as a local government Manager, I know that virtually anything I am involved with in municipal management (and similar statutes exist at the Federal level)can be accessed by any citizen through the Freedom of Information Act or Acts (FOIA). Short of information that is attorney/client privileged or containing individual health data, social security numbers, or similar "protected data", I have the legal obligation to release it upon written request. This goes for any and all bids submitted in a sealed bid or rfp process, and if there was some data that was protected it would be redacted but all else still released. There is nothing protected about financial data in bid submissions and in fact, the release of such info. would be the perfect example of the reason for the FOIA -- that is to hold government accountable for the efficient spending of public resources for value received. Hence to make a long introduction short, couldn't anyone submit a written request to TSA (a government agency) to receive all bids submitted under the ETD solicitation won by implant so that we could once and for all know if the 220 has been purchased for $18,000 a piece, and I can take my losses and move on; or, was it $52,000 each and my investment actually holds promise. They could redact any possible technology secrets or security -sensitive matters, but plain old arithmetic would have to be released. Am I completely off base here? maybe Mcgann and TSA don't want us to know, but don't we have the legal right to know?
Buff: As an incredibly long-suffering (with the emphasis on suffering) retail shareholder, I would love to "turn the heat up" on this management team to begin to care about value to retail investors. How do you suggest we go about doing that?
If this is how Liscouski improves marketing with a laser focus, I for one, am not impressed. This is not a Bid, it is a Contract. And the most important part of what this PR should have been/said is that effective today, we have shipped "x" units out of inventory.
Also, is the term "sniffer" proprietary to IMSC, or can others call their devices "sniffers"? And, are we talking about the 150 handhelds in this case? Can anybody lend their thoughts?