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.
virginian: On August 30th, the judge put USXP into receivership. On August 31st, he named a receiver.
As far as I am aware, that receiver has full charge of USXP now, although it may take a day or two to let others, such as USXP's bank(s), TA, lawyers for USXP's various lawsuits, know.
JakJak: Thank you for sharing that, but you should be aware there is nothing for RA to review.
The Receiver is a done deal.
Good luck to you.
Thanks anyway. Hopefully someone else is.
Can anyone point me to beatenvalue's yahoo board? I'd love to find out if anyone has talked to RA (or attempted to do so).
TIA...
JakJak: Sorry, I'm a 'basher,' but I'll be gentle with you, and provide you with info about where you can access the info on your own (you'll have a hard time getting any longs to help on this because a vast majority of them won't be bothered with DDing the bad stuff).
You should go right to the source, which is a website that provides access to official information about all federal cases:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
You have to sign up, which is free. But the info you access costs .08 per page, although if you keep your overall charge under about 8.00, I believe you'll never get charged.
After you sign up, and log in:
Select Civil under Courts
Type 1:2004cv02322 in the Case Number field and click Search.
Click the Case Title link.
Click the Case Number link beside RAs name.
Select Docket Report.
In the Sort by field, select the Most recent date first option, and click Run Report.
The official court docket entries for the case will be listed, with most having links to the PDFs associated with motions and rulings.
P.S. RA is not suing the SEC in this case, the SEC is suing USXP, RA, Gunderson, and others. RA did try to sue the SEC, but the District Court Judge in Florida threw the case out, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that Judge's actions. The USXP vs SEC case is dead.
virginian: Nope. This is my first.
Yes, it will be all of that. Glad you'll be able to find a way to enjoy it.
Yes, I understand that. Just wondering why.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?
Here's a link to her bio at the American Bar Association's website (stolen from the Yahoo! 'Un-official' Board):
http://www.abanet.org/careercounsel/profile/litigation/moscowitzj.html
Here's information about the receiver (stolen from the RB board):
Bar Affiliations and Activities:
ABA-White Collar Crime Committee;
Florida Bar-Federal Practice Committee;
Dade County Bar Association-Federal Practice Committee.
Recent Professional Publications:
ABA White Collar Crime Institute Text-2001 on Compliance Programs for Small Organizations.
Recent Professional Presentations:
Compliance Programs-ABA White Collar Crime Institute-March 2001
Environmental Crimes-ALI-ABA Conference-May 2000.
http://www.abanet.org/careercounsel/profile/litigation/moscowitzj.html
It appears that Judge Lynch wasted no time at all in naming a receiver. I haven't checked PACER yet, but the info is also being reported by others (cbeemer on RB, for example).
There is no reason to believe this isn't true.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of August 30, 2007, and upon due consideration of potential candidates, it is hereby ordered that Jane W. Moscowitz, of Miami, Florida, be appointed receiver for Universal Express, Inc. to determine Universal Express's actual financial state, to collect and conserve what assets the company has, and to report its findings to the Court.
SO ORDERED
Dated: New York, New York
August 31, 2007
Gerard E. Lynch�
really775: It appears that you and virginian are talking apples and oranges in regards to settlements.
Virginian's settlement issue is about what should/could have happened before any summary judgement request was filed. Your's appears to be regarding the contempt charge, itself.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oops...
virginian: There is no doubt in my mind that the SEC offered a settlement to RA and Gunderson, as well as to the other defendants. There is no doubt in my mind that RA was not going to accept any settlement, regardless of whether he knew it was the best thing for the company.
There is no doubt in my mind that RA is not a rational person, that he has no concept of anyone, courts or otherwise, being able to find him accountable for any of his actions.
There is no doubt in my mind that at the start of this, had settlements been reached, that USXP had a faint chance, once it rid itself of all the deadwood 'subsidiaries' and the massive corporate expenses, of succeeding.
Very faint.
virginian: Yes, the fines were requested by the SEC, but they are still the judge's responsibility. Although typically judges set the penalties at what the SEC requests, it isn't mandatory that they do so. It is within their power in decrease or increase those penalties.
virginian: The barring of CEO's, CFO's, etc, is standard, and rightfully so. Anyone found guilty of the stuff that RA was found guilty of should be kept away from any further responsibilities. Even when such people settle SEC charges, the barring is standard.
As for the fines against the company, well there I have mixed feelings. Much of the financial penalty has to do with preventing a company from keeping ill-gotten funds, which I can understand. The rest, which is fines on top of that, seems excessive to me. I understand that it may be a way of sending a message to board members and other officers at other corporations that turning a blind eye to malfeasance will be costly to their company, but I still find it somewhat troubling that a company must pay such a heavy price for an officer's actions.
It should be noted, though, that company penalties are far less costly in cases where offenders plead out rather than go through a trial they had no chance of winning.
As for the fines being excessive compared to some shorters who have gotten caught, again, in those cases, the offenders took a plea. Had they fought a losing court battle, the resulting penalties would have been much higher.
really775: RA needed to put up a bond that guaranteed that the penalty would be paid if USXP lost the appeal. Otherwise, he risked having the judge rule against any stay of the penalties (which the judge did).
He could have still appealed, but there is absolutely no evidence that he has done anything in the 3 months that has gone by since he filed the 'Notice of Appeal.' I have no idea how much time he actually has to file the appeal, but I seriously doubt he had as much as 3 months.
Doesn't matter much - even if the appeal deadline hasn't passed, he is done as CEO, and Gunderson is out as well. And a receiver has been ordered for the company. That receiver will seek to do whatever it takes to satisfy the company's 21M penalty.
So, RA and Gunderson not only took themselves down, but they have absolutely guaranteed USXP is history as well.
Let me see if I've got this straight - Cyberkey defaults on an 80K debt related to it's NASCAR publication advertisement, and we're all getting mired in a question is to why the company failed to honor its contract with SQUM?
The company has clearly defaulted on one major bill and people seem to be happy to deflect attention from that fact, as if arguing over why SQUM hasn't sued yet (at least in Federal court - PACER doesn't cover any state court actions), is the most important issue.
So, are you guys trying to claim the default that we know was due to non-payment is meaningless???????
Bizarre.
puppydotcom: Apparently he claims he will be seeking a ruling by the Appeals Court that will stay the receivership and the contempt hearing.
Ain't gonna happen. He has no defense and nothing he can say to the appeals court that will have any meaning, if he actually goes through with the request. He had a chance to respond to the motions by the SEC for the receivership and contempt motions. He did file a motion that was supposedly in response to both SEC motions, but his contempt defense rested on claims that were already ruled as having no basis in law in the summary judgement, and the motion he filed didn't say squat about the receiver.
The receiver will be named, and RA will become moot.
janice shell: I think he has a legitimate (but hardly noteworthy) claim to be Universal Express founder.
Established USXP out of the ashes of Packaging Plus services.
But I have a feeling he isn't going to be putting this 'founder' crap on any resume he puts out after the courts get through with him...
Mighty_Mezz: I do hope he destroys all the records - I have no doubt that such an act would make it much, much easier for the U.S. Justice Dept to prosecute him.
Juries are pretty fickle when it comes to crimes they have a hard time understanding. A defendant who goes out of his way to destroy records makes that person's crimes real easy to understand...
lifegear: Excellent. Don't.
puppydotcom: What can I say - It was within his rights to report that comment to Matt.
lifegear: If you consider being called someone who is "easily duped or cheated" a personal attack, then I have no defense. It was not meant as an attack, just a statement about what I believe is happening to you RE RA.
Oh well. If that's the worse you've been called in your life, you are a very, very, very lucky person.
And, of course, I appologize, as frankly, I had no intention of offending you or anyone else for that matter.
Have a good life.
puppydotcom: Here's hoping that a copy of the instructions Lynch gives the receiver will be posted in the court docket.
Alright, I have some questions about what the receiver can do at this time.
Will he/she be able to fire anyone before the report to the judge about the financial/operational status of the company is submitted?
Will that report show up in the court's docket for everyone to see and read?
Will the receiver be able to enforce the filing of the 10K that will be due at the end of this month (frankly, I can't see RA filing one now)?
What would happen if RA interferes with the receiver performing any of his/her responsibilities?
Anyone actually know what can happen now?
fossilman: Only if you think the judge putting the company into receivership is a good thing (not to mention the hearing on October 12th at which time RA, Gunderson, and USXP (by extension) will have to show why they shouldn't be held in contempt of court).
If this is good, this stock will skyrocket.
Virginian: Thanks, but if you're right, that is pretty absurd.
lifegear: Apparently my response to you about the WallSt claims by RA got deleted. That is sad, since nothing in that response was anywhere close to a TOS violation in my opinion.
You have the right to believe what you want to believe, no matter how outragious those claims may be by a man who has never backed up any of his claims with facts, and has been proved wrong time after time.
I am anti-RA, and have nothing good to say about him. I have on several occasions in the past stated that I believed USXP had a remote chance of making it if RA was out of the picture. However, that is no longer possible, now that a receiver has been ordered.
You also have the right to chose not to believe anything I say, though you'll have a very hard time finding anything I say is inaccurate or untrue.
So, do us both a favor: Stop asking me questions about anything, since you obviously don't really want my answers, or even if you do, you obviously don't value any of my responses to any of your questions.
Good luck to you, you really, really, really will need it.
P.S. There is absolutely no evidence that USXP owns any part of Universal Jet. The contempt filings included correspondence between the SEC and RA regarding perceived inaccuracies or discrepancies in the USXP reports. One of those discrepancies had to do with how Universal Jet's repayments of a loan was being handled. RA mentioned in his response to that particular item that as of the end of March, he was still negotiating the purchase of UJet. Odd, since he had been claiming for months before then that the purchase had been done.
virginian: RA has been blatantly lying about everything for years, if not for his whole life.
I know that is something you don't want to believe, but it is what is.
I'm happy that you have little at risk now, and I sincerely hope you are not considering putting more at risk based on anything RA has ever said or will ever say.
needdiamonds: Based on the premise that you apparently believe people would risk felony charges by doctoring the ruling before posting it, I suspect that you would also have doubts as to the authenticity of any PDF document that someone posts that you can access, so I highly recommend you get a copy for yourself from the court's records, using PACER.
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
You'll have to sign up for an account, but that costs nothing. You will be charged .08 per page that you access using PACER, which would be about 2.80 for the document in question, BUT you will never be billed if you don't exceed about 8.00 in charges.
When you sign up for PACER, select to search Civil courts. In the search page that appears, scroll down to New York and select Southern. Identify Universal Express as the party, and hit return.
From there you can review lots of stuff, most importantly, the Docket report which provides links to PDF compies of the motions and rulings, including the one you are trying to verify.
lifegear: I reported what was discussed in the MoneyTV (and, thus in the two radio venues): A summary of his PR on the SEC guy and the suing the landlord.
That's it. Everything. He didn't even get asked to summarize USXP's business. Just two very brief summaries of two PRs everyone has read already.
RA is way too funny. Went and listened to the MoneyTV piece, a show that will be rebroadcast on Business TalkRadio as its moneyrap segment, and he spent about 20 seconds summarizing his Thursday PR, and about another 20 seconds summarizing his Wednesday PR (suing the landlord). Most notable quote, "I like to think we are not a litigious company."
I broke out laughing when he said that.
Somebody took a dump...
USXP finally got around to filing an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding the Nevada court's ruling in the MJ case in favor of MJ.
Seems like RA can only win cases by default, where the defendants don't bother to show up...
LoanStew: Nice find. I searched for the product using your info. Here's the link to the website for that product. As you noted, that company's USB flash drive looks like the one from Volvo, they offer branded neck straps, and Volvo is listed as a client.
http://www.usb-flashdrive.co.uk/category.html?cid=23
Robtff: What is that search supposed to reveal about the USB drive accessory available from Volvo? I tried your search and could find nothing relating to this issue at all.
Here's a link to the website for the product LoanStew mentioned. Note that the brandable USB flash drive looks like the one from Volvo, they offer branded neck straps, and Volvo is listed as a client.
http://www.usb-flashdrive.co.uk/category.html?cid=23
Any link to relevant info from Sequiam Sports would be greatly appreciated.
TIA...
Reseller Mike: It's actually a Volvo company accessory, not just Beechmont. See page 15 in the following pdf:
www.volvocars.us/NR/rdonlyres/28DC6196-A276-4F75-BE4D-2D31B664B102/39615/AccessoryCatalogR43.pdf
That said, this 256MB USB memory stick bears no physical resemblence to any flash drive currently shown on the company's website, and there are many manufacturers of such devices that specialize in adding company logos to their products.
And there is no way, from the available info, to prove or disprove any claims as to who does or doesn't supply it to Volvo. Nor do we have any idea how many of these flash drives Volvo sells or will ever sell.
I suspect very few. How many branded accessories do you have for the car you drive?
Dr Worm: Whether a business, or a commodity, I have the 380K shares at .0076 waiting to see what happens. If you're right, I do very, very well; if the worse-case scenario, I'm out another 2800.00 and change.
Let the games begin...