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.
Near as I can tell, it looks like about 650M of the 700M traded so far was sold at the Bid.
I wonder who had 650M shares for sale at .0004, some in 100M share blocks?
Maybe RA realizes that if he helps NSS cover, he can sell them enough shares to pay the 25M or so in SEC fines...
lifegear: Next time I see him, I'll ask, but I won't believe his answer.
I don't think he realized MJ and Janet would fight the selling. MJ originally did file suit against the sale to Vicarro, but that suit was dropped (not lost) when he didn't follow up on it. I believe the same thing happened with Janet, but I can't find any info about whether or not she actually did sue.
Anyway, he should have kept his deal instead of trying to wiggle out of the settlement, to just have the court enforce the settlement and charge USXP with contempt.
New development in MJ suit: Janet has now filed suit against USXP and Guernsey. They have 20 days to respond.
Mighty: 225M to be exact.
virginian: First, bankruptcy would not affect USXP's stature in the appeals or trial process. The appeal process rests solely on whether the judge made any error in the interpretation of the law, not what the current condition of the company is.
Second, the issue of a trial has to do with the remaining charges against RA, USXP, et al, the charges not previously covered by the partial summary judgement.
Third, USXP was supposed to provide the fines, or at a bare minimum, a bond that covered those fines, within 10 days of the verdict, regardless of whether they would be appealing or not, and regardless of whether the SEC wanted them to pay them then or not. That's part of the legal process imposed by the courts, not the SEC. My reading of the recent filing seems to indicate they haven't put up the bond yet, but that isn't clear. What is clear is that the SEC is seeking to have RA and Gunderson's penalties imposed now. I'm actually surprised that they seem to have waited so long. They could have demanded the imposition almost immediately after the judge handed down those penalties.
Again, the legal process would not be impacted by USXP's status as a bankrupt company. Bankruptcy would not impact their ability to pay for legal fees, assuming the company has actual revenues. In fact, it would reduce the company's immediate expenses as all liabilities would be put on hold.
And removing RA doesn't impact the company's case either. USXP's defense doesn't depend on RA, it depends on their lawyer.
Apparently the SEC is seeking to have the summary judgement verdicts imposed now, instead of waiting for the appeals process to finish. The SEC does have the right to demand implementation while waiting for the appeal. The following is the text from USXP/RA/Gunderson filing requesting that the judgements not be enforced until the whole process is finished.
This info was stolen from the RB board.
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL - Filed Today
************************************
DEFENDANTS, UNIVERSAL EXPRESS, INC., MESSRS. RICHARD A.
ALTOMARE, AND CHRIS G. GUNDERSON'S, MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
Universal Express, Inc. ("USXP"), Richard A. Altomare,
its CEO and director, and personally, Chris G. Gunderson,
its general counsel and personally, pursuant to Rule 62,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the decisional
authorities applicable to the issues at bar more fully
cited below, collectively move this Court for the entry of
its order of stay pending appeal of the final judgment
entered against them on April 2, 2007 [D.E. #179]. In
support of this motion the movants state and aver:
1. This Court granted Plaintiff, Securities and
Exchange Commission ("Commission") motion for summary final
judgment with respect to alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") §§5 and 17(a),
and an alleged violation of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act") §10(b)(5). Final judgment was
entered on the Clerk's docket April 2, 2007. See D.E.
#179.
2. On June 1, 2007, the movants filed their notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. See D.E. #185. The appeal is progressing,
with the appellant's therein having filed with that Court
the necessary preliminary papers required by Local Rules of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
3. During the last status conference between and
among the Court and all of the parties-litigant, the
attorneys for the Commission announced its intention to
proceed to a trial on the merits of all remaining claims
against these movants ("USXP defendants") and all remaining
defendants. Evidenced expected to be adduced during the
trial of the remaining claims may well impact on some of
the findings of the Court which were based upon deposition
testimony referred to by the Commission in its summary
judgment moving and supporting papers.
4. In addition, there remains to be decided by the
Court the USXP defendants' request for trial by jury, the
brief filed in support of that request and the motion for
leave to amend the answer and affirmative defenses
heretofore filed by the USXP defendants as a result of the
litigation position advanced by the Commission in its
opposition to the request for trial by jury. Again,
evidence is expected to be adduced at trial may well impact
upon several of the findings of fact made by the Court
based upon the Commission's referral to certain deposition
testimonies.
5. Moreover, and with all due respect to the Court,
in the event the Court of Appeals renders a decision
reversing any of the relief favorably granted by this
Honorable Court in its opinion and order and final summary
judgment, a trial will be necessary on any such claim the
Commission continues prosecuting.
6. The fact that there remains claims that must be
resolved by trial and in the case of the USXP defendants
potential trial by jury, and given the non-final nature for
purposes of due process at least, of this Court's April 2,
2007 summary final judgment, fairness should prompt the
granting of a stay. A stay also should be entered as a
result of the Commission's inability to articulate in good
faith any prejudice that may result to it.
Discussion
A stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment in a
multi-claim or multi-party case is governed by Rules 62(d)
and (h), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Except for the
automatic stay postponements specifically authorized by
Rule 62(d) and (h), supra, the posting of a supersedeas
bond, if any, as may be required by the district court in
its discretion will effectively stay proceedings pending
appeal. The rules specifically provide thusly:
(d) Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is
taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas
bond may obtain a stay subject to the
exceptions contained in subdivision (a) of
this rule. The bond may be given at or
after the time of filing the notice of
appeal or of procuring the order allowing
the appeal, as the case may be. The stay
is effective when the supersedeas bond is
approved by the court.
At the same time, Rule 62(h), supra, provides:
(h) Stay of Judgment as to Multiple Claims
or Multiple Parties. When a court has
ordered a final judgment under the conditions
stated in Rule 54(b), the court may
stay enforcement of that judgment until
the entering of subsequent judgment or
judgments and may prescribe such
conditions as are necessary to secure
the benefit thereof to the party in
whose favor the judgment is entered.
The USXP defendants concede that the act of appealing
the summary final judgment entered April 2,, 2007 does not
automatically create a stay of that judgment pending
appeal. They also concede that Rule 62(d) governs the only
circumstances in which a party may obtain a say of
enforcement of a money judgment pending appeal beyond the
automatic 10-day period provided for by Rule 62(a), except
as is provided for in Rule 62(h). Rule 62(d), however,
does mandate a stay upon the posting of an acceptable
supersedeas. Rule 62(h) allows the district court to
decide the question of supersedeas bond balancing the
equities of the parties and considering the administration
of the case. The district court, therefore, possesses
discretionary authority relative to (i) the amount of the
supersedeas or (ii) whether any supersedeas shall be
imposed as a condition for stay, and (iii) pursuant to Rule
62(h) the entry of a stay where there are multiple claims
or multiple parties and (summary) final judgment is entered
as to one or more of the claims but not all or as to one or
more of the parties but not all. See, e.g., North Penn
Transfer, Inc. v. Maple Press Co., 176 B.R. 372, 375-77
(M.D. Pa. 1995) [judgment for plaintiff on unpaid shipping
charges ordered stayed under Rule 62(h) so that defendant
can challenge reasonableness of shipping rates before
regulatory agency and citing the possibility that immediate
enforcement of the judgment would make defendant
insolvent]. See also, ITV Direct, Inc. v. Healthy
Solutions, L.L.C., 445 F.3rd 66 (1st Cir. 2006).
In the Second Circuit the standards for issuing a stay
pending appeal of a district court decision or final
judgment requires the district court to address the
following:
(i) whether the stay applicant has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits;
(ii) whether the applicant will be irreparably
injured absent a stay;
(iii)whether the issuance of a stay will
substantially injure other parties
interested in the proceedings; and
(iv) where the public interest lies.
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
etc., 728 F.Supp. 924 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), citing Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 2119, 95
L.Ed.2d 724 (1987); De la Fuente v. DCI Telecommunications,
Inc., et al, 269 F.Supp.2d 237, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
The USXP defendants respectfully but forcefully urge
this Court to agree with its showing that their arguments
made in opposition to the Commission's motion for summary
judgment relating to the bankruptcy code statutorily imbued
immunity, the absence of a finding of the statutory good
faith compliance defense with both the provisions of the
bankruptcy code and the plan for reorganization expressly
and specifically approved by the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of New York, at a minimum,
constitute very substantial questions posing issues of
first impression to both this Court and the court of
appeals. In addition, the USXP defendants, will be
irreparably injured in the event its sole director and
chief executive officer since it emerged from the
bankruptcy proceedings 13 years ago, which director and
officer also acted as the managing agent under the auspices
of the bankruptcy proceedings for several years prior to
the bankruptcy court's approval of the plan of
reorganization, will be removed from the day to day
operations of the corporation. His removal also will
threaten the livelihood of approximately 60 employees and
thousands of shareholders. At the same time, there cannot
be any argument advanced in good faith by the Commission
that the issuance of a stay will substantially harm either
the Commission or the other parties interested in these
proceedings. Finally, the petitioners/movants equally urge
this Court to conclude that the continuation of USXP's sole
director and chief executive officer will best promote the
public interest given the substantial strain that will be
imposed on the corporation in the event he can no longer
act in its best interests during the pendency of the
appeal. Since the Second Circuit also requires that the
foregoing requirements be applied flexibly according to the
circumstances of each case Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v.
Republic of Palau, 702 F.Supp. 60, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1988),
vacated on other grounds, 924 F.2d 1237 (2d Cir. 1991),
this Court should impose either a de minimus bond, or,
preferably, no bond whatsoever as a condition of the stay.
Said otherwise, imposing a de minimus bond or altogether
eliminating the requirement of a bond will not unduly
endanger the Commission's interest and ultimate recovery.
In compliance with this Court's Local Rules, the
undersigned certifies that his office has communicated with
counsel for the Plaintiff/SEC, Leslie J. Hughes, Esq., on
June 20, 2007, who has indicated that the SEC does not
agree to the motion to stay and should the motion to stay
be granted does not agree to a de minimus bond.
Conclusion
Based upon the highly controverted facts throughout
these proceedings, the principal factors which must be
addressed by this Court in deciding the question of a stay
all bearing in favor of the USXP defendants, and the
absence of any harm that can be articulated by the
Commission as the prevailing party in the district court,
the stay herein requested should be entered first without
any bond whatsoever or, in the alternative, one that is de
minimus in amount.
Respectfully submitted,
TIFFORD AND TIFFORD, P.A.
ARTHUR W. TIFFORD, ESQ.
Lead Counsel for Defendants
Universal Express, Inc.
Richard A. Altomare and
Chris G. Gunderson
1385 NW 15 Street
Miami FL 33125
Telephone: (305) 545-7822
Telefax: (305) 325-1825
BY /s/
ARTHUR W. TIFFORD
(NY ID-011481)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing was electronically filed this 20th day
of June 2007 to:
John A. Hutchings, Esq. John B. Harris, Esq.
Dill Dill Carr Stonebraker Lara Shaov, Esq.
& Hutchings, PC Stillman Freidman & Schechtman PC
455 Sherman Street, Suite 300 425 Park Avenue
Denver CO 80203 New York NY 10022
jhutchings@... Ishalov@...
jharris@...
Leslie Hughes, Esq.
Julie Lutz, Esq. Marvin Pickholz, Esq.
SEC Central Regional Office Jason Pickholtz, Esq.
1801 California Street, Suite 4800 Akerman Senterfitt LLP
Denver CO 80202-2648 335 Madison Avenue Suite 2600
New York NY 10017
Jason.pickholz@...
Harry H. Wise, III, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
770 Lexington Ave. 6th FL
New York, NY 10021
hwiselaw@...
___________/s/____________
Arthur W. Tifford, Esq.
markbloor: Frankly, I seriously doubt that any covering is needed for this stock, but a more important question is this:
Yesterday, over 500M were bought at .0005, and there were 8 MMs on the ask all day. Today, we've got 10 MMs on the ask.
Who is selling all these shares at .0005? And why, with all the buyers at .0005 is the number of sellers growing, not shrinking.
Mighty_Mezz: Yup.
lifegear: On contempt? July 15th, I believe. Something is going on with Janet Jackson which is probably being handled at a different time.
Hard to follow exact timeline as it seems there's a different session every other day, but it does look like it's pretty much wound down regarding MJ. Settlement is being enforced; USXP is being held in contempt.
The court docs in the MJ suit identify 25 items that were held out of the auction for use in the settlement reached with MJ that allowed the auction to go forward. However, there are a few MJ items that did not get any bids during the auction, that clearly were not available either (multiple absentee bids for each item). Why were these items removed from the auction? Also, other non-MJ items that had multiple absentee bids did not have any action during the auction itself, yet were still closed out for the minimum 100.00 bid.
MJ items (it should be noted that RA’s PR about the auction results claimed that Guernsey’s held out 30 items without his permission – 25 items were actually held out under court order, and below there are 5 MJ items that clearly were also held out):
13: Michael Jackson Awards for "Thriller" and "Eat It"
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118893845)
16: Bad Gold Record Presented to Michael Jackson
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118893868)
25: Michael Jackson Platinum Award, 1979
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118893950)
42: Michael Jackson Gold Award, 1979
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118894196)
593: Michael Jackson Epic Record Display
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118898563)
Other items that appear to have been held out:
12: Jermaine Jackson's "Sugar Daddy" Gold Single, 1971
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118893840)
14: Tito Jackson's "USA for Africa" and Other Awards
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118893855)
51: Jacksons Platinum Sales Award, 1980
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118894286)
821: Janet Jackson's School Notebook
(http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=52935&item=320118896134)
Also, the following item was originally listed on eBay as part of the auction, but disappeared from the auction before the 4th session occurred:
948: Janet Jackson Address Booklet
P.S. There are a few items that got 2 absentee bids that I did not list above, because I’m not sure if it was possible for two people to make the same absentee bid, and the items seemed to have little possible value, IMNSVHO.
lifegear: No. The items that appear to be in dispute are anything that can be considered personal property. It would be a stretch and a half to consider master tapes as personal property.
Newest court stuff in MJ suit, and it couldn't have gone worse for RA, including, but not limited to the fact that court ordered USXP in contempt and set for Contempt hearing, and required USXP to pay plaintiff's attorney fees and costs for at least two court sessions, as well as court costs for those two sessions:
- Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Attorney Fees and Costs AWARDED for today and 05/30/07 matter.
- Janet Jackson's motion to intervene granted.
- Court ordered that Barlan Enterprises is dismissed (apparently from the suit), and the Court to control all the items.
- Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Attorney Fees and Costs AWARDED for today (6/12 hearing) and 05/30/07 matter;
- Court permitted inspection of the other items at the warehouse.
Also, there are refs to court actions taken in NY and NJ that aren't explained in detail, but these actions are what brought on the contempt charge. Apparently, based on info in the 6/8 court order, RA is using those court actions to try to get out of the settlement he made in the Nevada court. That really pisses of a judge.
But the court did directed Counsel to give the items not in dispute to Universal.
For the exact text of the minutes for the 6/12 court session, go to the following link, and search for Michael Jackson. Then select the USXP case, click Calandar in the left column list, and Yes in the top entry's Minutes entry.
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/SearchPartyOptions.asp
virginian: The fact is USXP ships via FedEx and they take 7-10 days to deliver to Europe (the same amount of time FedEx takes). That's the facts and will remain the facts. If pointing that out is anti-USXP, then you really should reconsider your opinion of the company's chances of surviving, never mind thriving.
RA is USXP at this point. When RA is finally deposed, slimming the company down to just LE and the luggage found part of the company, getting rid of the massive overhead of the 'corporate' operations would give USXP a chance, slim to none, but better than they have right now.
Facts are facts: USXP is a middleman between its customers and other shippers. Anyone can cut out the middleman and get the same service for a cheaper price. It doesn't take much for someone using LE to figure that out when FedEx shows up every time they do.
freefallindz: Next business trip, ship your luggage by FedEx. That's what USXP does.
As for foreign travel, if you want your bags to be in London, USXP takes 7 to 10 days.
freefallindz: You really don't know? That's pretty funny, particularly if you own this stock.
RA, Gunderson, USXP, all found guilty of charges contained in a Partial Summary Judgement, with additional charges to follow (SEC wants to have the additional charges handled by another Summary Judgement, while RA is fighting to have them handled by a jury trial).
RA barred for ever serving as a director or officer of any publicly traded company again, as well as being barred from having anything to do with pennystock offerings.
Gunderson also barred from having anything to do with pennystock offerings, and he has been suspended at least temporarily from acting as an attorney in any SEC action.
USXP fined about 21M, RA fined about 3M, Gunderson fined about 1M.
All of the above are on hold pending the results of appeal being filed (appeal filing process just started last week).
Looks like USXP, Gurensey, or both are facing contempt charges in the MJ suit. Back on 6/8, the judge ordered them to produce 25 items that had been held aside from the auction as part of the agreed settlement with MJ. Also in that same filing, the judge ordered them to provide evidence as to why they shouldn't be held in contempt of court based on NY and NJ court actions they've apparently instituted that apparently are attempts to get around the settlement they had agreed to in her court. Go to the following link and search for Michael Jackson, and select the USXP case. Then click 'pages' in the Performed column for the 6/08 entry:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/SearchPartyOptions.asp
While your there you'll notice that the most recent entry for 6/14 is for a Contempt Trial to be held on 7/16.
You go, RA!!!!
lifegear: Nope. It's an amended return reporting the OS at the end of the quarter in question.
clubstuttgart: The new filing is an amended version of the 10Q for the quarter ending 12/31.
According to the filing, it was done to handle some SEC requests, and no change to the financials were involved.
Haven't been able to figure out what the changes were, but I did check and the financials are still the same as the original 10Q.
markbloor: How are they doing that? Seems to me there is a lot of trades going off at .0005, and with the bid/ask now at .0004 x .0005 (at least at the time of this post), the only way they could hold it down would be to sell at .0005 to all comers.
Not a very cost efficient way to cover considering they'd probably have to short the .0005 shares.
I had previously note that there were a few Janet Jackson items that did not sell during the auction that show multiple bids, and one item that was completely missing from the 4th session. I postulated at the time that Janet Jackson may have been included in the settlement, but had no direct evidence of that.
Well, a "NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF POSSESSION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PENDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION" was filed by MJ, although the document identifies the notice is filed by Janet Jackson, an individual plaintif in intervention. Clearly she is also trying to claim items that were included in a settlement.
Another very interesting filing is a court order directing the defendents, in very scathing remarks, to appear in court with the settlement items, and identifies the 25 items by their auction catalog numbers. All 25 items identified are MJ items, only.
For info on these new entries, go to the following link and search for Michael Jackson:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/SearchPartyOptions.asp
Second item down is Janet's filing (click on page in last column to read the first page. I can't find a way to get more than the first page to display).
Click on page for ORDER REQUIRING APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS filed on 6/8 for info about defendants needing to bring the items to court.
The settlement gave MJ the choice of 20 items. The settlement began to fall apart back just as the auction started as RA and MJ disagreed on whether he could pick 20 auction items (from a list of 58), or 20 total pieces (if a listed item included 2 pieces, it counted as 2).
At least some items were kept out of the auction above and beyond the 20.
Seems that the what's and item issue still is unresolved. Don't have any idea exactly which ones were held out (except for 10 items that disappeared from the second and third sessions). But it is clear that there were at least 40 items that didn't sell during the auction that if they were available would have gotten some serious bidding.
All I can tell from the info available at the court site is that the whole thing has gone terribly wrong. Latest entry is something by Guernsey that appears they are trying to keep the items set aside for MJ.
Stay tuned. This will be going on for a long time to come...
Apparently the settlement with MJ is a total mess. It is difficult to figure out exactly what is going on, but as of yesterday, nothing has been settled. MJ has moved to have the court enforce the settlement, while Guernsey's is trying to do something about it.
Go to the following site, type in Michael Jackson for the search and see if you can figure out what the hell is going on, 'cause I can't:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/SearchPartyOptions.asp
About 150M in trades went off over past couple of minutes, all at .0005. Didn't look like one seller today, like yesterday, but I don't have realtime trade reporting so hard to tell.
Mighty_Mezz: Yep. 350M so far in essentially 4 trades at .0005:
100M, 50M, 100M, and 100M.
dal111: Actually, 150M - went from 97,453,395 to 247,453,395, all at .0005.
Two trades: One for 100M, the other for 50M, about 1 minute apart.
Somebody dumped a few shares.
tomvlasic: Sorry, there have been only two extensions, not three. The first was for 60 days, most recent for 30 more. Puts the current indictment date to first week in July, not August.
tomvlasic: You're expecting action too soon. The government had 30 days to indict, originally, which was the first week or so in April. There was a 30 day extension granted. That moved the indictement deadline out to first week or so in May. Then there was an additional 60 day extension granted, moving the deadline out to July. Now there's been an additional 30 day extension, moving the deadline out to August.
The date that the extension was filed isn't the date that it takes affect.
barryinla: Don't know if you are right about the insiders doing the buying, but clearly the insiders are totally responsible for where the stock is right now.
Normally I don't think reporting a stock one owns to the SEC is a good idea, but in this case, I, for one, want to thank you for the effort.
I don't think anything will come of it, but sometimes it helps to do something, anything rather than sit and stew...
nsearle: I'm now way past amazed to blown away. I cannot believe anyone would buy at these prices when the company provides absolutely no info at all.
Yet someone has bought over 700000 shares over the last two days at .03.
Here's hoping that they know what they're doing, because none of us here do...
The only agency that can halt this is the SEC, and they announce those suspensions loudly - and it would be reported by pinksheets.com, other sites.
Nobody else on the planet can suspend trading in a grey market stock.
pappi: Very simple: The prices buyers are willing to pay do not match the prices sellers want.
We don't know exactly what that means: It could mean there are no buyers at .0002 or higher, or no sellers at .0008 or lower.
The notice of appeal was sent to the second circuit appeals court on 6/1, and posted on the lower court record on 6/5.
So far the actual appeal document is not posted.
An electronic copy of all court docs in the case has been sent to the appeals court, in case they actually want to hear the appeal.
And, no, I have no idea how long this whole process will take.
lifegear: Yesterday was the deadline for filling the appeal. I have no idea how long it will take for the appellate court to return a copy of the appeal application to the lower court, or how long it will take for the lower court to post that info to its court docket.
But he, usxp, gunderson, newhouse, all had to have filed their appeal by yesterday.
lifegear: I'm not sure, but he probably has the right to appeal to the supreme court. Don't know how much time he'll have to do that.
It is also possible that the judgement can be implemented even though he can still appeal one more time. Read somewhere that the SEC can require implementation even if appeals are pending.
Still aways to go on this one.
Divine Madcap: That's my point. With the CEO admitting that fraud occurred, but it wasn't him, pretty much damns Cyberkey's case.
In the eyes of the SEC, any fraud committed by a companies officers (and a comptroller is an officer), is fraud committed by the company.
Look at USXP - The company got fined just about 21M, yet the CEO who committed all of the infractions got nailed for about 3.5M.
I don't think the government appoints lawyers for defendants in civil cases, but I don't know that for a fact.
As for Plant's interest being the same as Cyberkey's, that's not clear. From what I can gather so far, IMNSVHO, Plant's main defense is he saw no evil, heard no evil, said no evil. Apparently he is claiming that fraud was perpetrated by someone else.
If that is truely his defense, then Cyberkey has no defense. If any fraud was committed by any officer, and that includes his previoulsy identified scrapegoat, Cyberkey is guilty. Period.
So, if nobody is claiming that no fraud occurred, what defense has Cyberkey got?
BTW: Monday is the deadline for RA, Gunderson, and USXP for filling their appeals. I'm 100% sure those appeals will be filed.
What will happen then, will be copies of the appeal will be sent back to the court and entered into the court record.
Then, as you all know my opinion is, the appeals court will reject the appeal out of hand. IMO, 99.99999% that will happen. The .00001% chance they actually chose to hear the appeal is so that they can b' slap the lot of them.
It will be interesting to read the appeal papers. I'm sure we all are looking forward to seeing what points of law the appeal claims the judge got wrong.
I don't think there is any chance the Judge won't grant the extension.
I just finished reading the pdf for his motion. Interesting is that he now apparently has at least three lawyers, RAMFJORD, ELLIS, and RILEY (the one who filed the motion).
Also interesting is that the motion states the Cyberkey is vigorously seeking representation. How hard is it to find a lawyer to represent the company? And does the fact that Cyberkey has no lawyer have any affect on the June 2nd deadline to file a response? I'm not sure, but we'll all find out soon enough.
Thanks for your work on this.
One other interesting piece of information in that article, RA clearly identifes his reporting of amortized deferred compensation as having nothing to do with deferred compensation, and everything to do with the sale of unregistered shares:
Of the $18.9 million net loss Universal Express had during that period, it booked $12.4 million in amortized deferred compensation due to issuing those securities.
Also:
Altomare said those capital-raising securities were filed with the SEC, but not approved by the agency. (Right, sure he did.)
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2006/12/18/story4.html?page=2
The following article was published shortly after RA 'bought' the Jackson collection. It is based on conversations with RA and Vaccaro. Based on its proximity to the original purchase, and the fact that info is provided by both Vaccaro and RA, I'd say that the info is probably as close to the truth that we'll ever know.
It has some very interesting information in it about the collection, about the purchase agreement, and other stuff:
Jackson 5 mementos up for bid
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2006/12/18/story4.html
According to this story, RA bought the collection from Vaccaro's son. (A little strange, since clearly Henry Vaccaro is still the one involved, and not his son.)
Altomare plans to auction off most of the items - save for 14 unreleased Jackson 5 songs from the 1970s that he wants to release as a record. (He does mention master tapes as part of the collection, but says nothing else about them - no emphasis at all on any real value for the master tapes.)
The collection could fetch between $40 million and $50 million, Altomare said. (He began hyping this right out of the box).
Vaccaro took over the warehouse through legal proceedings after the Jackson family failed to pay a $60,000 storage bill. Michael Jackson sued him in California federal court for $10 million, but the case was dismissed in January because the King of Pop didn't pursue it. (Interesting - indicates why RA settled with MJ - MJ didn't lose his suit, he just didn't follow through on it, thus it would have been dismissed. The ownership, at least of the MJ items in the collection, was never settled in court.)
Universal Express paid $150,000 up front and will pay $66,000 a month to the seller until the $5.8 million is paid off, he said. (I wonder how many more of the 66K per month payments Vaccaro will actually see.)
Universal Express and Altomare filed a federal lawsuit against the SEC over the naked short selling issue, but that case was dismissed. Although his first appeal was rejected, Altomare vows to bring it back before a judge. (RA finally admits that his suit against the SEC went nowhere. He has yet to file a new suit.)