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.
WhatsCookin - In looking over your post to PennyWorld I’m not sure where your coming from. Can I assume that your statement in paragraph 3 of your post 16373 dated 25 January 2011, quoted infra, is no longer a valid concern? The following only supports my position that it is imperative that the relationship between Cetek Technologies Inc. and Cetek Inc, the “wholly owned subsidiary” of Cetek Technologies Inc, be legally established.
From the cited post-
“And a new line of thought that just popped into mind..... I have to wonder if much of the business being done by Cetek Technologies in many states is even legal without a business charter? Perhaps, that is why Cetek Inc is showing up in all these internet searches...that he is operating out of Cetek Inc exclusively, which happens to have a current business charter in New York. If that's the case, what implications does that have for us as Cetek Technologies shareholders? As far as I know, there is no legal document which shows Cetek Inc as a subsidiary of Cetek Technologies. It ceratinly doesn't show Cetek Inc as a subsidiary in the 2006 15c2-11 SEC filing when he moved the incorporation of Cetek Technologies from Delaware to Nevada. And this was the last financial reporting we have seen. This is potentially a fraudulent action, although as we have previously discussed, it doesn't appear that Hilal is trying to hide this relationship, and we are not suggesting it is fraudulent. But it could definitely be a material event that should have been reported to the shareholders.”
I have some other problems with your post but the above addresses the key issue.
bigcue
IF NO RESPONSES -
to Post 16901, 16906 and/or 16903 then I will assume that we have no responses. If this is the case, then please advise that you searched your records and/or mind and found no basis for responding.
PennyWorld - Yes, thank you for the address. He and I are in contact. Thanks again for your help.
bigcue
(cut myself off there) If you have already followed thru on post 16901 and 16903 and have found nothing to report please post a response so stateing.
regards,
bigcue
TO AL SHs
who can send a Private Message please do so by messaging all other SHs, whether they post or not, to respond to my post 16901 and 16903. We need this information. If you have alredy followed thru on 16901 and 16903.
Dr. Larzo Re your post # 16893 - I agree about the SEC. I also believe that the NYS Attorney General may have an interest in this. At this time, I'm awaiting the responses to my posts 16901 and 16903. The issue, in my mind, is whether or not Cetek Inc was, and is, a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Cetek Technologies Inc. If I can confirm this parent/subsidiary relationship, then we, i.e. Cetek Technologies Inc shareholders legally own, in my mind,as much as 100% of all Cetek Inc assets. There are many issues here that is why it is imperative that I receive responses to post 16901 and 16903.
regards
bigcue
TO ALL SHs - By definition, what do you understand the term "wholly owned subsidiary" to mean and what is the name of the source document on which you base this understanding?
ALSO - Does anyone have Roundmots current address, name, phone number, etc by which he can be contacted?
TO ALL SHs IN CETEK TECHNOLOGIES INC - Has anyone, at any time,
ever received a written communication, including via e-mail, from FH in which he stated that Cetek Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of of Cetek Technologies Inc? If so, please advise as to the method (e-mail, letter, or what ever) and, more importantly, the state in which you resided at the time. Please also include what information you have which promped the response from FH.
bigcue
OT - PennyWorld - As I'm not a paying member of the IHUB program I thought I could piggy-back on a response to your PM but that too is a no-no. I had an idea and wanted to bounce it off you first since you've been in recent communication with FH. Any suggestions?
bigcue
PennyWorld - Can you send me a private message to which I can respond?
DrLarzo - How do we find out the number of shareholders? As I see it, part of our problem is the registration of Cetek Technologies Inc. It is not registered in New York State nor is it any longer registered in Nevada. So, where do we go from here?
PS - Re Roundmot - That was when I was posting on Raging Bull.
PennyWorld - DannyD did file a complaint with the SEC. As an aside, I tried to raise the issue of Cetek Inc but got no support. Roundmot more or less denounced me for raising Cetek Inc as a non-issue.
CORRECTION - That post # 16221 should read #16212.
PennyWorld - MOST IMPORTANT - The statement to you by FH regarding the relationship between Cetek Inc and Cetek Technologies Inc confirms (to me at least) the probability of overlaping business interest between the two. I question that relationship to FH on 10 July 2006 (see my post #162621). Your report states that FH said that "...the legal structure as set up by his attorney between Cetek Technologies and Cetek Inc results in us SHs 'owning a piece of the rock' of the subsidiary as well as the parent". While this would be a normal parent subsidiary relationship, FH, in the June 2006 filing, referred to by WhatsCookin,supra, does NOT list Cetek Inc as a subsidiary of Cetek Technologies.
A posted affirmation of this clamined by FH and a copy of his most recent tax statement to New York State should be a boost to the share price of Cetek Technologies Inc if, in fact, Cetek Inc is doing very well.
Thanks again for your efforts.
bigcue
PennyWorld - Good job PennyWorld. Do you, or ayone else here, have a broker who could respond to a request for the cost of a PR for a company of this size? I find the $125 price tag a little on the high side for a company of this size.
PennyWorld - I think the question re Cetek Inc/Cetek Technologies is important. Having read WhatsCookin's post to you and re-reading his post # 16373 of 25 Jan 2011, especially para 3 of that post, lends credence to the need for addressing the question of who benefits, just FH or FH and the shareholders?
bigcue
Penny _ As an add-on, I strongly urge, whomever speaks to FH, that the caller refers to Cetek Inc vis-a-vis Cetek Technologies Inc. As you know, there is a BIG difference between the two "Cetek" operations; FH owns 100% of Cetek Inc, shareholders have viable ownership interest in Cetek Technologies Inc.
TIA
bigcue
jem1 - Would you mind telling me whether it was Cetek Inc. or Cetek Technologies Inc. that responded?
TIA
bigcue
BTW- What ever happened to DannyD?
Not heard fom for 11 months! See his last two posts (16535 and 16832)
"Just incredible !!
We finally have the good fortune of a SH willing to do some real research on Cetek, make countless calls to attorneys, and any other thing necessary to at least provide some hope for SH.
However that is not good enough for the likes of Bigcue and others who have added nothing but only know how to continually moan & whine.
I have persoannly (sic) spoken to Whatscooking and I can assure everyone he is not Roundamot and I thank God for that.
DannyD"
PennyWorld -
The answer may be in why, after all of these years, FH had to increase the number of trailers by 28.5% (post 16814). Temporary storage for finished products? I hope so.
bigcue
Business Improving -?
Over the years aerial views of 19 Commerce Street have shown 7 trailers along the back of the loading/unloading dock. The same views have shown 13 vehicles parked around the facility. Today, if you go to Bing 3D, you will see the same view; however, if you go to the viewing ladder on the right side of the display you will see an entirely different picture at levels 3 and above. Anything below level 3 will be the same old pictures. Views below the top three 3 levels of the aerial view are unchanged but views of the top three levels will show, not only the seven trailers, but two more along the side of the driveway. These two trailers are between 100 and 200 ft off Commerce street. Further, this time the pictures show only 4 vehicles. So the new pictures could have been taken at differet times or different days than shown earlier.
What has happened is that Bing has improved on their 3D aerial pictures (http://bing.com/maps.aspx?
So, what does this mean? Well, for one thing, Cetek used trailers for storage. Added trailers may mean they just need more storage space for whatever - finished products - supplies -? I don't know. Any thoughts?
bigcue
PennyWorld - Which brings up a question - Just why is CTKH still trading?
PS As we know Cetek Inc is no longer "Inactive" according to the NY Secretary of State.
! addressed this issue over 5 1/2 years ago via post # 11257 when I posted this:
"Dear Mr. Hilal
As you know there has been much discussion on the chat boards regarding the recently released financials of Cetek Technologies.Inc. Most shareholders were surprised at the low valuations of the company following numerous upbeat PRs over the past several quarters.
One question has arisen in this regard and that is the status of your privately owned Cetek Inc. Although the Secretary of State for New York list Cetek Inc. of 19 Commerce Street as “inactive”, there is much evidence to the contrary which supports the probability that Cetek Inc is deinitely “active”. The following facts support this probability:
(1) Dun & Bradstreet - 28 alerts have been issued since March 2004. Three of these alerts have been issued since February 2006.
(2) New York’s JobBank shows Cetek Inc of Poughkeepsie NY has a vacancy for a welder who “must be qualified to read prints and capable of TIG, MIG, and Stick welding.”
(3) The EPA lists Cetek Inc as the primary entity at 19 Commerce Street, Poughkeepsie, NY. According to EPA, Cetek Inc is the “Primary-Name” of the facility site because it “…is the full name that commonly appears on invoices, signs, or other business documents, or as assigned by the state when the name is ambiguous.”
As I see it, Cetek, Inc. is merely a private company which may be performing some contractual functions for Cetek Technologies Inc and is being paid for such services. One such service is the lease of space at 19 Commerce Street for $5.00 per sq ft. The question is what other possible contractual obligations are there between Cetek, Inc. and Cetek Technologies, Inc.? If there are in fact contractual relationships between the two, it is important for the shareholders to know that such contracts exists and what do these contracts require of each company. For example, is Cetek Inc the contracting entity with customers/vendors, or what have you, and Cetek, Inc in turn subcontracts to Cetek Technologies, Inc. for contract performance? If so, I consider this to be a straightforward business relationship between the two. I just want to know if there are such a contractual relationships by Cetek Inc on behalf of Cetek Technologies Inc. and, in turn, contracts between Cetek, Inc. and Cetek Technologies, Inc.
I believe this issue should be addressed as soon as possible and most certainly before the shareholders meeting. In any event, an early response would be appreciated."
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. There are two separate companies involved; the one owned by FH (Cetek Inc) and the other, Cetek Technologies Inc, a public company owned by its shareholders.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-259818986.html
Following the overview of this June 2011 study is the Table of Contents. Cetek Technologies Inc is listed under Section 1.4 Key Global Players.
Still in Business - Dutchess County Clerk
3/25/2011 - Cetek Inc pays $516.25 to New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
3/25/2011 Cetek Inc pays $100.00 to New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
6/20/2011 Displaytek Inc pays $488.23 to New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
Danny - Re your post # 16531 - I believe that post clearly sums up your insight into the issues we SH have with Hilal and Cetek Technologies.
Re "You (meaning bigcue) sometimes make grammatical errors and misspell words." You mean like "buusiness" as in line two of paragraph 3 of your post #16526?
WhatsCookin - You seem to have a great deal of historical knowledge regarding Roundmot, especially for someone whose alias was born 8 Sept 2010. As for you writing style, the only writing style I know of similar to yours is Roundmot's. Maybe it would help to know what your alias was on this board prior to lasT Sept. TIA
Hello brg88tx - You too recognize the similarity in verbosity.
CORRECTION - line two of my post should read "..implies.." vice "..applies..".
WhatsCookin - glad to see you are still on this case. In re to your post to Pennyworld, I believe your statement ".. and Cetek has a piece of property worth at least half a million dollars.." would be more correctly stated if you said "..Cetek Inc.." vice "..Cetek.." as your statement applies that our Cetek Technologies Inc has this asset. Unfortunately, this property is not our asset; it belongs solely to Cetek Inc.
regards,
bigcue
geoly31- Do you recall if it was Cetek Inc or Cetek Technologies Inc? TIA
WhatsCookin - Thanks - An additional reason to question the controlling factor in the subsidiary Cetek Inc.’s relationship with the parent, Cetek Technologies Inc., is EPA’s “Facility Detail Report” which considers Cetek Inc to be the “Primary Name” at 19 Commerce Street. The report states: “Description: The public or commercial name of a facility site (i.e., the full name that commonly appears on invoices, signs, or orther business documents, or as assigned by the state when the name is ambiguous”. Does this mean that Cetek Inc does all the billing for Cetek Technologies Inc.,? If so, what else does Cetek Inc. do on behalf of Cetek Technologies Inc.? I think we should look into this. The EPA report no longer is on the internet, at least I can't find it. I'm sure EPA's region 2 has it somewhere in their system.
Another source to consider is Dun & Bradstreet’s notification to client bigpickin6a, as posted by bigpickin6 in Raging Bull board post # 172521 of 15 Jun 2006, that “Since you enrolled the company on March 12, 2004, we have issued 28 Alert(s) for Cetek Inc”. That’s just shy of one Alert a month! Perhaps we have a current poster with a D&B account who could look into this for us.
So, which company is maintaining the financial records and just how do they keep the records for the private company (Cetek Inc) and the public company (Cetek Technologies Inc) separate?. In my opinion this is all the more reason to include Cetek Inc in this matter.
WhatsCookin – I’ve read through the SEC response to my FOI A request. I don’t think it contains anything pertinent to our current effort. A number of the 21 pages are generally repetitive so it’s not very “awesome”.
Aside from the FOI Act request, your very fine post #16465 addresses all of the issues I can think of under your “current thinking”. However, I am wondering about Cetek Technologies Inc operating under a “revoked” charter the past several years. Do you know if Cetek Technologies, Inc has a legal requirement to maintain financial records during this period? And if they don’t, is there a method for examining the financial records of Cetek Inc without having to get a court order?
WhatsCookin - I have a 21 page response to my FOI Act request.