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.
Rocky, will you pls bring me up to speed because I’m not getting your post.
(haven’t been following the GTEM spin for awhile now)
Why outsource Hotzone deployment by using Trimax as an authorized reseller?
Looks like GTEM just re-negotiating what they already had (Uli and Hotzone tech). What am I missing/not following?
Where's the benefit to GTEM or their SH w/ this agmt?
Would you please post the terms on the orig acquisition? TIA—I know you have everything so well organized and easily retrieved……..
<<Jones "moved on" but it certainly appears that he was asked to do so, not vice versa.>>
very interesting. Please post your sources for your conclusion.
My point was that it is more logical (piecing together what we do know) to assume lack of funds over Jones ineptitude for missed timelines.
<<There are reasons Murch replaced Jones and those may have something to do with Murch's contacts. >> Nice inference and time will tell (+ time running out). At the time of last SH mtg, Jones too seemed pretty sure that Raytheon would become a part of the Sanswire picture....but then he moved on....
Gag me: <<Perhaps Jones over-estimated the equipment, people, etc. Again, Huff was not there all of the time. He relied on the manager in charge and the integrity of the people who worked there>>
Logic fails to support Jones as the scapegoat that some are now trying to paint him….after all, Jones, not the only NASA engineer lumini to have come and gone quietly into the night.
At last SH meeting, Huff spoke warm and glowing of Jones utter commitment to the cause: to the tune of 18hr days and home-made parts. Jones wasn’t doing this due to micro-managing but because he was operating on a shoestring (MHO) and only gave up when the cash gave out (w/o much hope of a new source).
The logical truth is exactly what Jones quoted in last published article (Kelly Cramer’s): And as for how it bodes for the future, Jones says: "The company will succeed with appropriate funding and appropriate resources. If they don't have appropriate funding and resources, it would be very unlikely that this would happen."
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2007-02-22/news/beam-me-up/5
ROCKY301, further in this SEC filing, what "LAW FIRM" are they referring to (CPA's are not law firms):
"As previously disclosed in a press release dated October 6, 2006, the Company's Audit Committee has initiated an investigation into the accounting and financial
reporting of certain business transactions. In connection therewith, the Board engaged an independent, nationally recognized law firm to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the documentation and analyses is sufficient to support the initial recording of certain asset acquisition
transactions, including Sanswire and HotZone transactions and, whether or not the applicable and consistent accounting treatment for the separate and unrelated transactions occurred."
Rocky, much thanks...I get you now. Unfortunately yours words
<The pink status and the unknowns are not the kind of incentive an independent is looking for or wants>
ring true for investors as well. sigh.
Rocky, thank you for your (very) informative posts today.
Would you please expand on this comment:
< Would you assume the liability an independent takes on while trading on the pinks?>
How does pink status affect the outside director liab? Esp since GTEM still required to report while on pinks?
Anyway, it would seem their greater risk re: liab. is looking back, not forward re: possible fault-finding...
And…………….happy B-day, Mide!
nerd86, < So if we collectively focused on the VPN JV something would happen?>
Too ridiculous to answer....but as far as market sentimentality and the influence thereof, I suspect MB have some influence, unfortunately, otherwise why do some posters make it such a “duty” to post so voluminously?
< You can say anything you like as we haven't had a financial statement for nine months.>
True…....but are you saying that officially prohibits GTEM from issuing SH updates that contain any pertinent financial information? Please provide the link.
< Imperically I would say your picked off first base as the company has not diluted the shares at these terrible prices.>
BUT...what makes you so sure they had a CHOICE on this? Perhaps the VC well has run dry at this point in time (as it appeared to be @ last funding)
Here’s what we were OFFICIALLY told:
Sept. 13, 2006--GlobeTel Communications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) announced that it has placed privately 7% Convertible Notes in the amount of $1,075,000
http://investor.globetel.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67726&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=904865&highligh....
THEN
(10/12/06) FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GlobeTel Communications Corp. (OTC:GTEM) today announced….. Mr. Kostro stated, ..” I will also focus in the next week on securing the necessary funding to underpin our plans to restructure the Company and complete key projects already underway. Given the nature of the situation, we will be communicating with our shareholders over the next several days and weeks as these changes take place."
http://investor.globetel.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67726&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=916960&highligh....
Sorry it took so long to respond. My pc is crashing……..looks like it now needs a dr call…
I GREATLY wants this co to succeed…but I can’t fool myself to make that happen………my head is still controlling my heart here...and trigger finger.
Anything material needs 8K...and OFFICIALLY we have been given data to assume "material" is now required........ with nothing official to offset that reasoning IMHO.
GLTA
over and out
eqbeck, you've got to be kidding with this: "but the moneys awarded to Raytheon(1.3 billion) for the furtherance of the HAA technology are probably what is funding our R&D at the moment."
How would that be possible w/o filing 8K?
bill77b, as part of your musing here regarding Raytheon: "see the completion at those altitudes in an acceptable time frame"
care to speculate where the $$$ will come from to allow GTEM this further timeframe?
Officially, GTEM does NOT have it--I can say this with certainty......... because OFFICIALLY............ GTEM has NOT .........told us otherwise--and that is ALL that matters in this point in time. If Centerline etc has become the little engine supporting the Co thru these horrific growth pangs, why on earth would SH not be thus updated?
We've now gone from "over promotion" to innuendo...........and the issuer can't be held accountable for what SH choose to read into their PR's.
Notice, however, that the latest "news" blip did take present attention/posting away from the STILL PENDING venture w/ VPN.
Mide, what did you expect from a “professional” who was signing off his e-mails to shareholders with “serenity now.”??
<And all his emails are mostly positive?> ……….. must be from a cpl of our posters that are writing him their sunny missives as often as they post it here…...every day…...all day....night.
<about a Texas resident, reporting on a S Florida venture>..nice “arm’s length”, don’t ya think…..so when the chips fall, he’s just as “innocent” a chump as the rest of us……... how COULD he know what was going on..he wasn't there...
not the same apple cart:
"The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday suspended trading for 35 companies that allegedly benefited from spam e-mail campaigns to hype their thinly traded penny stocks."
from USA Today: http://tinyurl.com/ynv9vp
des7272: "It will take some magic, good luck, time and a steady hand by management to follow thier vision."
Over and above all of that: it will take MONEY.
Will this weekend’s Sans2 test show enough progress to bring new money in? Will the VPN 8K get filed and funded?
Only time will tell……a (heartfelt) GLTA. See you on the other side of the weekend......
sorry it took me so long to reply---got to get off this board for now. Anyway
NO question that VPN the best (possible) deal we’ve had re: REAL $$ behind the interest: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16733254
But the rep’s of our (now prior) associates—and their professed belief and commitment to GTEM-- was (arguably) the major contributor for continued investor support despite repeated performance failure. SH remained because they believed these people had a reputation to uphold. We’ve had a British Knight, a former Italian Ambassador, ex-NASA astronauts/engr’s, Klein and Dumas from the illustrious Rubikon Partners (Its Web site used to state that the firm maintains offices around the world, and that it was founded in 2003 by Kissinger and four other individuals, including his current consulting world partner, Thomas ("Mack") McLarty, Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff). Past posts on this board reflected how well-connected Dumas was to wealth and the people who populate that universe, the “movers and shakers.”
nerd86, I couln't agree with you more:
<<But what ever the situation I will not let money effect my attitude towards life, people and relationships for any length of time.>>
Which is why I usually keep my opinion to myself--well aware the "worth" of opinions. I only feel compelled to post when a poster hammers hard (or repeatedly) w/o fact or entirely discounts other opinions/posters. I suppose my 2 cents is unnecessary there as well...most of the readers here have been around long enough to know the lay of the land.
I WOULD agree with you wholehearedly, nerd86, if it were NOT for the FACT that we have had many "luminaries" in GTE/GTEM's past, who were also wealthy or well-connected to real wealth, who also spoke w/ conviction and intent.....and led to absolutely nothing. In fact, this very fact was the reason most of SH remained....despite execution failure upon failure.
For those who are "90% down" and can still see the glass as "half-full".................sorry, just can't join you there.
A disgruntled, skeptical long can't loose. If our skepticism proves right, we unhappily "win"....but proved wrong, we win even greater.
rocky301--only since you asked
What’s hard to understand? We’ve both made ourselves very clear. Had GTEM not issued the last PR and just waited until the JV agmt was finalized/ 8K filed, we wouldn’t be discussing this.
<< Am I correct in saying you have no problem with any of the "facts" to date involving our project with VPN>> YES
<<but you do have a problem with the recent "details" of fact?>> YES, because it just opens the Co to further (unnecessary) speculation and serves no purpose since w/o JV closure the addl details are (we both agree) “irrelevant and moot.”
Since “Globetel and VPN signed the ownership part of the deal which is almost always the most important part”………..GREAT….then 8K should be coming very SOON…then we all can agree it is a VERY good thing.
in Rob's e-mail calling Jones a liar, PERHAPS he was referring to this problem: MORE than 4-6 weeks have passed from the mid-Dec "anchor display" (due to broken wire harness)and Cramer's 2/21 article below w/ the Jones comments.
Therefore, why have we not yet seen Sans2 "powering around on both of its engines, steered remotely." ???????????
<<When I left in September, there were engines in place," Jones says....... >>
<<(GTEM)was preparing for a December 14 demonstration for the media.>>
<<Sands... was told that there was a problem. The stratellite wouldn't be able to fly. The demonstration was supposed to feature a blimp powering around on both of its engines, steered remotely. But Sands was told that during testing of the stratellite, damage had been done to a wire harness — the electrical wire network that would power things like propellers. It was a major setback, Sands says, and it was too late to call off the media. So GlobeTel gamely went through with the demonstration, inflating the airship and sending it up on a tether. "They filled it with helium and sent it up on a rope like a blimp over a car dealership," Sands says in disgust. Jones says that, based on what Sands saw, it was a sign that things have not gone well since his departure. "Definitely, it's a setback. When I was there, it took around four to six weeks to make the wire harness.">>
rocky301,
I agree it wasn't a "re-hash" and I agree it was "a natural progression leading up to the JV final"
but releasing "details" on a deal not yet "binding" accomplishes exactly what....and for whom?
You’re a “facts, just the facts” type of guy (for which we all celebrate and give MUCH thanks). I’m just really surprised
that facts… that may never matter… mean anything to you.
trashboy, not sure what you mean by "What'd I do...go into a coma???" but yes, Heininger departure was confirmed by Co.
Rob said Bob Jones lied?
Rocky, I’ve got to go w/ Mide and Lowtrade on this one.
All your points are true and excellent….but absolutely moot w/o a binding agreement…(would assume that is why the negotiation points of an on-going “LOI” are generally NOT published)
I’m failing to follow your logic here.
Also from this Kelly Cramer article: “"When I left in September, there were engines in place," Jones says.
So…we now find that Jones LEFT back in SEPT—the very SAME month he appears on CNBC (9/05) acting giddy and saying “no one’s laughing now.” Puzzle pieces don’t seem to fit. Wish the journalist would have asked him WHY he’s no longer with Sanswire—and why Heininger gone as well.
Would assume it goes back to this further comment in the article:
Jones says: "The company will succeed with appropriate funding and appropriate resources. If they don't have appropriate funding and resources, it would be very unlikely that this would happen."
It would seem he left—or was let go—due to lack of funding.
Sirius,
We’re WAY too far into this game for mere words anymore---yours or GTEM--- surely you must know that? Despite your daily posts?
What motivates you to post the same things over and over? Here’s the flip side to your constant barrage on the following:
“we do have information from GTEM about what they are up to, so to suggest that no one knows anything is too broad and simply not true” …….
You’ve GOT to be kidding?? (‘nuf said. No long-timers buying this and can’t fathom too many newbies at this juncture)
“your SEC comments are also incomplete and slanted to the negative”………
While yours are always slanted to the positive.
FACT: no one knows what the final outcome will be… but everyone knows it’s NOT a POSITIVE factor at PRESENT.
“it's also true that after 5 months, there has been no Welle's notice”……
O.K: but explain this further. For instance, have you researched the avg length of time between a formal investigation and the notice? Where is GTEM on THAT scale? Point is you haven’t furnished any DETAIL for your conclusion—it’s just your opinion—and Spyster has his (as do we all).
“GTEM has not sought additional funding through dilution or otherwise”…
True, thus far; but like all-things GTEM, there are many possible scenarios for this story ending. So yes, it IS true that “no one knows anything” at this point---and yet----what could be more important for an investor to know??? Are you SPECULATING that their “existing and new initiatives” have presently produced a positive cash flow? From the last filed 10Q, we (only) know the Co speculated they had sufficient funds thru 12/31/06; so new mgmt cost-cutting—and the paltry VC $$ since 2Q gets them to EXACTLY where? (Another important UNKNOWN). (but hey, it’s all-good, right?)
Last –and MOST important: your oft-repeated “Mexican JV” You’re using words the PR did NOT. The 1/31 “VPN” PR specifically used the following verbiage: <GlobeTel's Mexican Test Network Accepted by VPN de Mexico, ALLOWING Both Companies TO Finalize a Joint Venture>...and…... < said Pablo Peralta, CEO of VPN de Mexico S.A. de C.V. "We look forward to establishing a long term working relationship with GlobeTel Communications to build HotZone networks throughout Mexico."> which clearly denotes (after GTEM-typical scrutiny required) that a JV binding contract has now become a POSSIBLE work-in-progress. QUES: what’s your latest target date for the 8K filing before you conclude the intent failed to become reality? QUES #2: IF this JV fails to materialize, what do you think the odds are for add’l VC?
Over and out. (we’ve already all formed our own opinions---and that’s ALL they are---until GTEM ACTION proves them out). Please drop the “you’re either on GTEM’s side or you’re a basher" mentality. Fact is we SH have more than PAID the price to express our displeasure unequivocally and w/o apology to anyone.
More deductive reasoning (and admittedly pure guess) is the SEC is busy “following the money” trail. Since the cast of characters includes a whole slew of foreigners (RU “investors,” past and present board members), would assume it will NOT be a quick investigation.
Review the list of AMEX charges again—these are not your “garden variety” exchange transgressions. While it IS true that an AMEX de-listing does NOT auto trigger a SEC investigation (as Rocky pointed out), SURELY this TYPE of exchange allegation, following a FAILED appeal, WOULD trigger a formal SEC investigation ; good Lord, if not then, WHEN?
The following charges imply fraud—so who benefited—would assume that is exactly what the SEC is now determined to find out…………………
(i) failure to make timely, accurate and complete disclosure of material corporate developments, as well as engaging in a pattern of issuing materially misleading and overly promotional public disclosures; (ii) failure to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission reporting obligations by filing incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate information in its public filings; (iii) failure to provide information to the Exchange; (iv) providing materially false and misleading information and statements to the Amex staff hindering its investigation of the Company's compliance with Amex listing requirements; (v) acting to interfere with the operation of a fair and orderly market by issuing public statements not warranted by the Company's affairs that were intended to affect the price of its common stock; (vi) association with an individual with a history of regulatory misconduct that rises to the level of a public interest concern; and (vii) serious internal control weaknesses that rise to a level of a public interest concern
thank you, Pagan. I entirely agree...and that's what my post was all about (I thought the moderator would take the issue up w/ whoever makes the decisions of this sort).
Anyway, from the ensuing posts, I'm feeling even more empathy for the moderators.
MODERATOR: If you allow Miguellara's present auto. signature on this board, then how can you (justifiably) delete responses to it? Bear in mind that my reply was NOT personally directed to Miguellara.
Not a criticism..I respect the personal time and effort you give to this board and I thank you.
Glo, from your prev posts all these many mos., I consider you to be trustworthy and w/o agenda. May I (re) point out what some others are choosing to ignore, for whatever reason.
Re-read the verbage fr (last) 10Q below and note the following:
GTEM has an “AGREEMENT” for “Initial Network Installation” (50% cost pd up-front)…..and “once the initial test area has been installed and deployed, VPN will evaluate the network and, upon acceptance, will pay the balance due of $225,000.” That’s what we got—that’s what’s official—Stage 1 now established/done.
Stage 2 underway now “for the purposes of setting forth the terms.”
The 6/7 AGREEMENT clearly states “Upon the acceptance of the initial test area, VPN and the Company intend to proceed with the agreement’s joint venture arrangement” (note “intend to proceed” and JV “arrangement” NOT “agreement").
And this verbage (below) affirms the above reasoning to me: “Since the joint venture arrangements are contingent upon VPN’s acceptance of the initial network and other factors, there can be no assurance that the anticipated revenues will be realized.”
Geez—it clearly states there are “other factors” involved in the decision to go forward w/ th JV “arrangement.” The acceptance of the initial network was the first hurdling block, but OBVIOUSLY there are other factors at play as well b4 GTEM obtains a JV AGREEMENT.
“On June 7, 2006, the Company entered into an Initial Network Installation Agreement with VPN de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“VPN”) exclusively for the purposes of setting forth the terms”
On June 7, 2006, the Company entered into an Initial Network Installation Agreement with VPN de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“VPN”) exclusively for the purposes of setting forth the terms whereby GlobeTel Wireless will install an initial wireless broadband network in Mexico utilizing its HotZone Wireless technology. GlobeTel will install an Initial Test Network in an area not to exceed 10 sq. km. VPN has paid a $225,000 deposit to GlobeTel as 50% of the initial cost of the network. Once the initial test area has been installed and deployed, VPN will evaluate the network and, upon acceptance, will pay the balance due of $225,000, which is anticipated to occur during the three months ended September 30, 2006. In the event VPN determines that the network does not operate in accordance with its expectations, then the $225,000 deposit will be returned to VPN by the Company.
Upon the acceptance of the initial test area, VPN and the Company intend to proceed with the agreement’s joint venture arrangement, which provides that VPN will pay $5,000,000 to the joint venture for the next stage of implementation, which will call for an installed area of no more than 100 sq. km. The same payment terms will apply whereby VPN will pay a 50% into the joint venture with the balance due at completion and acceptance of this stage.
12
Since the joint venture arrangements are contingent upon VPN’s acceptance of the initial network and other factors, there can be no assurance that the anticipated revenues will be realized.
I don't see any negative to it at all.
I think it's great--it's down 'n dirty time.
We've got (bonafide) big-time money at the door and they covered the cost on the $450m pilot test because they agreed it proved what they were looking for.
GTEM doesn't have the binding contract/$$$ YET (hence current pps)...
but IF they don't close the deal THIS time, what excuses are left? This has got to be GTEM's telecom end-game, right?
Let's hope all our expectations are finally beginning to materialize because I don't see any "wiggle" room on this one.
squ1dk1d, thanks much for this. You appear to know much about the TA universe and your prior posts suggest that your mkt calls re: GTEM have been above avg. (it’s a given that I know nothing of TA)
My biggest surprise/confusion on your prior posts is that you sold no shs in the recent run-up to .70’s –more than dbl your cost. You explained that you’re looking for a lot more, but your choice seemed entirely contrary to your mkt skills—and more like a “noob” decision I’d make.
Even if your TA analysis projects further upside, didn’t you anticipate any re-trace in your projections?
TIA for an explanation—just seeking clarification (+ further ed)!
why do you ignore the text which immediately follows it:
"Since the joint venture arrangements are contingent upon VPN’s acceptance of the initial network and other factors, there can be no assurance that the anticipated revenues will be realized."
(above text from the last 10Q--see post 63258)
What part of "and other factors" are you not getting?
I'm done w/ this thread on the significance of the 1/31 PR.
Fact: No matter how many toys you accumulate in the end, they ALL stay behind..... The ONLY debate is whether it will then matter HOW you got them.
Sirius,
I'm wrong about alot of things (my entry point on GTEM comes to mind) and this means NOTHING to me "I have spoken with Rob Bleckman about this."
The only thing I can absolutely guarantee you is that I have no agenda here (a morbid fascination would perhaps sum it best).
I really do hope you've connnected the right dots-- I highly doubt it--but I'll be more thrilled than you if I'm wrong. Sorry---words just don't do it for me anymore...............
Nils, I enjoy your posts and the info you bring to the board but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I find the reasoning in your reply to be illogical (JMHO and as I stated, time will tell) .
Remember this:
GlobeTel Announces Letter of Intent with Marcatel S.A. de C.V.; Commercial Alliance Will Provide Wireless Communication to 20 Cities in Mexico
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 7, 2005--GlobeTel Communications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) today announced that it has signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) to provide wireless telecommunication services in up to 20 cities throughout Mexico. The LOI was signed in conjunction with its wholly owned subsidiary, GTCC de Mexico S.A. de C.V., its Mexican partner, BTC S.A. de C.V., and Marcatel S.A. de C.V., a Telecom Mexican corporation located in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon.
Low, your sky: "After a very important execution PR today!"
vs
MY sky (from 6/16/06 PR) "GlobeTel Wireless has pilots either in progress, concluded or in the advanced planning stages in China, Ghana, Republic of the Congo, Japan, Germany and a second pilot in Mexico for Grupo IUSA."
It's a fact that despite having reached the "desired result" with the first pilot in Mexico, for Marcatel S.A. de C.V., we failed to close a subsequent contract.
On our second Mexico test pilot, this one for VPN, we did better: the TEST was successful enough for them to agree to cover the COST.
Is it a foregone conclusion that (now) a JV contract w/ VPN will follow? Some seem to think so--but it didn't w/ Marcatel. Certainly the PR today leads us to think so--after all, it incl. quotes from VPN too, not just GTEM. Well, at one time GTEM and the RU investors spoke in unison too...all for naught.
A LOT remains to be seen.
Time will tell. GLTA
sirius, I suggest you re-read what we DO have.
Your "We have a filing showing exactly what VPN put down on this 1st phase of the Mexican Hotzone deployment
($5 million)" is completely false.
What VPN put down was $225,000 that was REFUNDABLE IF the test pilot failed to meet THEIR expectations. 2 qtrs late, (since 10K said acceptance was anticipated by 9/30) we found out from today's PR that the TEST PILOT DID meet VPN criteria (whatever that was) and so the refund is out and they will/have pd the BAL of $225,000 on the pilot.
Your "today we have a pr stating that VPN has accepted it AND plans on deploying Hotzone throughout Mexico" is right---PLANS ON----there is NO JV agreement with VPN to proceed---only the continued expectation of one; hence, today's lukewarm mkt reaction.
From today's PR: " Allowing Both Companies to Finalize a Joint Venture"
from (last) 10Q info posted by justfrank: "Upon the acceptance of the initial test area, VPN and the Company intend to proceed with the agreement’s joint venture arrangement"
JV agmt NOT closed to-date from anything we're privy to....THAT would have been the big news for today.....
thanks much for the reminder. So what do we know for sure? We don't have to return the $225,000. The acceptance acknowledged today means an addl. $225,000 pd or coming.
No signed, sealed and monied JV agmt to-date w/ VPN....but the possibility that one is forthcoming....... So we'll continue to wait...........
it's just legaleze, w/ all parties covering their respective bases..............and we won't know who the smart one is (was) until all the dust has settled................
"I had a chilling thought: in capitalism, the most
fundamental building block is trust."
I'd argue that the cornerstone to capitalism is morality--w/o the supporting culture of a sound "moral majority," capitalism degenerates into greed; this, I fear, is what we are seeing in American commerce today.
Trust the mgmt of GTEM? Based upon what?
Siriuslyrob,
Since you like to repeat this post re: Sedona and naked short sales, allow me to point out significant differences between GTEM and Sedona.
UNLIKE GTEM, Sedona (from your post):
(qualified for and was on) “the Nasdaq”
Currently trades on OTCBB, not pinks.
(prior to the PIPE/shorting):“recruited a new chief executive.... Within a few months he had lined up the debt, scored a distribution deal with IBM and landed 65 bank customers.” (customers...a foreign entity to GTEM. Blue chip alliances...well, GTEM does have Blue Horizon in their universe. LOL..while choking).
(has obtained current financial backing vs GTEM SH in total dark @ present): “Sedona has survived, barely, by taking a $1.5 million loan and equity investment from an outside investor, a Louisiana real estate developer named David Vey. "I was a little bored," Vey says, "and this seemed like an exciting endeavor." He since has increased his stake to 43%.”
“Sedona sued these companies and other defendants in federal court in New York; the case is pending.” (plaintiff, not the defendant).