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.
Hi all..long time no see. Life got busy and I gave up penny stocks a few years ago. I didn't have time to baby sit them. I've had some idle cash sitting in my account since then, so decided to pile into this pig again, haha. Lost my shorts on the ride down a few years ago. I figured at this level, it's either going to zero, or will find a way to monetize assets, which should turn out to be worth more than it was sitting at last week. I got back in at .006's. Good luck everyone...
Ideas? Who are the majority shareholders now? Let's ask the judge to strip all shares of pbls from the 3 amigos and their associates and put them back in the treasury. (Do they still own shraes?)
As shareholders, we own the shell. Then we give the shell to some upstart real estate company, green technology company, etc, with the restriction that any reverse split includes both treasury shares and outstanding shares. In 10 years we might be worth something. Something is better than nothing.
Xylan, Can you give me the short version of what's going on here? I haven't looked at this POS for over a year but noticed in bouncing around on my yahoo favorite stocks list. The sad part is, even if this gets back to a penney I'd still need a 3 banger from there to get back to break even!
Thanks and best of luck.
IMO, they will do a huge RS but leave the OS where it is. That will give them hundreds of millions of shares to sell. RS never works unless they announce some huge (verifiable) deal at the same time. Otherwise, they will just sell shares until they hit the limit again. Those that think the price can't go any lower will find that 100,000 shares bought at .0003 will turn into 1 share worth $30. Then after PA issues all the shares he can, the price will be right back at .0003. So you end up with 1 share worth .0003 instead of the 100,000 at .0003 you started with.
That's what happens when you issue stock and put the proceeds in your personal account. There isn't enough money left to pay the bills, so you get sued for nonpayment.
We need to find out if an attorney has gone through all the stock issuances and traced where the cash went. I think we all know where it went, but it would be nice to see an official audit trail.
We will never see any monetary reward but jail time for PA and associates would be good. It's called securities fraud and this case will be in criminal court, not civil court.
$2 per share? One way to get there would be for PBLS to start buying back shares if/when they get settlement funds.
Not sure why yahoo is showing the news icon for pbls.**
Yahoo is showing news but last year's capital restructuring pr is the only thing showing up.
Post of the year.**
Viki,
Technically, a company defaults on its notes by skipping interest and/or principal payments. Once that happens, the note holders hire attorneys and claim the company has 'defaulted' on its debt obligations, then the company heads to bankruptcy court to either negotiate a settlement with note holders or, liquidate.
With regard to PBLS, they may not have any notes outstanding, or they many have already reached an out of court aggreement with any note holders.
What we are witnessing now in the courts, is the process where everybody with a claim against PBLS is asking for judgement. Technically, an all equity firm can never go bankrupt if the owners decide not to shut the doors. The value of the equity just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
If PBLS were a large corporation with lots of bonds issued and PBLS stopped making interest and principal payments then the bondholders would file suit and PBLS would go through bankruptcy court. Then, assuming PBLS had viable income, the court would help 'refinance' the debt so that debt holders would get repaid. Stock holders would see their shares bascially become worthless. PBLS would issue new stock to raise cash but the old shareholders would not get a piece of the new stock, unless they paid market price for it. Apparently, either PBLS has no major debt holder, or, the company has no viable future income to make it worthwhile to reorganize. It appears the only currency that PBLS has is shares and they have very few unissued shares remaining. It seems to me that the most likely outcome is that PBLS does a reverse split, then uses the newly available shares to payoff money owed to settle all these suits. (Assuming PBLS decides to continue to operate.) The only alternative is that the lawsuit against the bank is settled in PBLS favor and there is enough cash to pay off creditors and resume 'normal' business operations, and in the most optimistic case, buy back some shares. Agree? Disagree?
If Gustav takes out the townhomes will PBLS receive an insurance payout?
Gustav will take out the cotton ball.**
Why would Progase have to make royalty payments? I didn't think Progas did any mineral(oil) recovery/exploration and so wouldn't have any leases or royalties to pay. I thought Progas was more of a middleman in the distribution of natural gas.
Ask him how/if he is getting paid.**
A capias is a warrant or order for arrest of a person, typically issued by the judge or magistrate in a case. A capias may be issued in different forms. A capias is commonly issued for a failure to appear in court. A capias may be based upon an affidavit alleging personal knowledge of the offense. It must state:
The name of the accused, if known, and if not known, must give some reasonably definite description of him.
It must show that the accused has committed some offense against the laws of the state, either directly or that the affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe, that the accused has committed such offense.
It must state the time and place of the commission of the offense, as definitely as can be done by the affiant.
It must be signed by the affiant by writing his name or affixing his mark.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/capias/
I think they meant 'certs' the breath mint.**
I'd headbutt him.**
If I was owed money I certainly wouldn't take PA's word that he will pay me after the settlement.
All these claims against pbls are good news. Once word got out that pbls had a strong case and would recieve a cash settlement, everybody decided to make a claim against the company so they could get their piece of the settlement. How's that for an optimistic spin?
Can anybody explain to me why the price of a stock with a 2.5B+ OS goes up 30% on 145,000 shares? That's about 1/2 of 1/100 of the OS. .005%. Maybe somebody is getting ready to run us higher.
Got it. Thanks!**
But you don't have a link? Which paper? Most papers are online these days.
How do you know it's from the Q3 '07?**
WE HAVE INCOME!! You can't owe taxes if you don't have income.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals,
First Circuit, is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for
consideration of Phoenix's request for damages for wrongful
sequestration.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT.
CONCUR BY: WEIMER
Phoenix's president, Paul Alonzo, testified he entered into
discussions with Craft in 1998 or 1999 about building a dredge for
Phoenix. Alonzo also testified he purchased the dredge and shaker
box from GFI, not Pearl River. He stated GFI agreed to finance the
equipment Phoenix was buying. At that time, he stated he received
10% of GFI stock and gave Steve Blackburn, the president of GFI,
and Ron Blackburn Phoenix stock. As of November 21, 2001, the
Blackburns were on the Phoenix board of directors, but the same
was not true with regard to Alonzo and GFI. [Pg 14] Alonzo testified
he was aware GFI was selling Phoenix the same dredge and
appurtenances identified in the November 23, 2001 correspondence
in which GFI purchased the equipment from Pearl River. Although
Alonzo never specifically testified where the equipment was located
at the time of Phoenix's purchase, he acknowledged delivery of the
equipment by Pearl River to Phoenix's Louisiana plant.
Phoenix countered
that nothing in section 9-316(a) or (b) supported FNB’s argument that section 9-
316 only applies when a third party purchaser lacks knowledge of a pre-existing security
interest. Phoenix was correct, but only because section 9-316(b) is not a priority rule.
Section 9-317(b) governs priority. For once, albeit unwittingly, FNB had made a plausible
argument under revised Article 9. According to section 9-317(b), a purchaser only
takes free of an unperfected secured creditor if the purchaser purchases without knowledge
of the creditor’s security interest.
But, the court agreed with Phoenix. “The Legislature did not qualify [section 9-316] to
entities without knowledge of pre-existing security interests.” Furthermore, (and infifiled financing statement or FNB’s interest. All Phoenix knew was the equipment was
located in Mississippi when it purchased it from GFI.
Finally, the court noted Louisiana had enacted a non-uniform version of section 9-317(b).
It deleted the reference to “without knowledge.” In Louisiana, a third party’s actual knowledge
of an unrecorded interest is immaterial. “Proper filing is alone dispositive.”
The court acknowledged the impact of its decision on lenders. Nevertheless, the court
was comfortable because its holding implemented the principles the Legislature had
adopted regarding re-perfection. FNB’s failure to re-perfect its security interest resulted
in its becoming unperfected, and it was deemed never to have been perfected against
Phoenix.
Although the details are muddy, the moral of the section 9-316 story is clear. A clause
in a security agreement prohibiting a debtor from disposing of collateral is not 100 percent
failsafe. Debtors have been known to violate the terms of their security agreements.
The creditor must monitor. And the monitoring creditor needs to understand the
new rules of the game. Under revised Article 9, a debtor’s location is a term of art. It is
technical. Section 9-307 defines where a debtor is located for purposes of the Article 9
choice-of-law rules. Party A, incorporated in Delaware, could sell equipment collateral,
to Party B, a store across the street. If Party B was incorporated in Wyoming, the sale
would trigger section 9-316, even though physically, the equipment just moved across
the street. The sale would involve a transfer to a person who became a debtor who was
located in another jurisdiction.
Phoenix responded that: 1) revised Article 9 had deleted the phrase “after removal;” 2)
the deletion reflected a change of the law; and 3) revised Article 9 controlled.
The court agreed with Phoenix. “To hold otherwise would require us to ignore the wording
of [section 9-316(b)] and call for the interjection of language not contained in the
statute. Phoenix was a purchaser located in a jurisdiction other than Mississippi, i.e.,
Nevada. Title transferred from GFI to it.” The court’s reasoning here was a little skimpy,
probably because it was not comfortable with former Article 9, or revised Article 9.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The First Circuit Court of Appeal, Louisiana, found that appellant secured creditor's security interest lapsed because of its failure to timely re-perfect its security interest in Louisiana. The creditor appealed.
OVERVIEW: The supreme court noted that the propriety of the creditor's sequestration could be reviewed to determine whether there was any merit to the second aspect of intervenor third-party possessor's motion, namely, a request for the award of damages should it be determined the writ of sequestration was improvidently issued. The supreme court found that the possessor's pleading constituted an intervention and its contradictory motion was a proper procedural vehicle to urge the dissolution of the writ of sequestration. The possessor's purchase from another third party did not occur in Mississippi. The possessor was a purchaser located in a jurisdiction other than Mississippi and there was a transfer of title ownership to the possessor through the third party's sale to it. The creditor did not make a showing that the possessor knew or had knowledge of the recorded Mississippi security agreement, only that the equipment was located in Mississippi at the time of its purchase from the third party.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the possessor's request for damages for wrongful sequestration.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 'plan' appears to be to let all the lawsuits against PBLS play out with PBLS losing all or most, and then hope PBLS wins the big suit against the bank? Are there any potetnial sources of revenue at this point? And if so, are they protected from lawsuits against the company?
What does the judgement say? Win? Lose? Cancel?
More damages caused by the bank.**
The bid is too low for sellers and the ask is too high for buyers. We need something positive to get the buyers to change their minds. How about a PR that PBLS dumped the III's?
Sounds like you are actually a penney flipper rather than a sand and gravel guy.
He wrote down his take-it or leave-it offer. I had the same dream.
PBLS is set up perfectly for a momo play. I don't know if today's trading was somebody buying in/adding, or possibly a momo group testing the waters.
The share price moved up pretty easy on a few thousand dollars worth of trades. Seems like a momo group that would bring in tens of thousands of dollars could easily drive us back up to 3 cents.
If this starts to move and we get some attention on the momo boards then who knows how high we might spike. There are obviously a lot of shares issued, but they don't seem to be available for sale.
Mgmt is UP-BEAT, we are BEAT-UP.**