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.
Doogrof: Neither. The filing was done by the receiver so that she can use the district court in Florida to go after assets she believes belong to USXP that were not included in USXP when she took over.
She's already done this in New Jersey, Dallas (or Houston?), and Las Vegas (I believe).
virginian: You finally did it? Good for you. I am sorry about all the trash heaped on you while you hung in there.
Good luck.
Hk Fooey: Today's 8K can't be considered bad news - though I wish they'd started down this road a little sooner.
The law office seems to be top notch, and the fact that they took the case on a contingency basis indicates they feel there's a good chance they'll suceed.
Now, let's hope their contingency fee wasn't 90%...
virginian: She already had the judge's approval to sell the subsidiaries. What she needs now is his approval of the actual sales.
And if you read her motion again, it clearly states that the sales were contingent on his signature.
The quicker she got others to take over control of these companies, the less money it would cost to keep them operational.
virginian: She sold them to Sports Express with the full expectation that the judge would be signing off on the deal, which he had previously promised to do when she first brought up the sales.
She's even received 50K of the 100K price from Sports Express.
In the extremly unlike event the judge doesn't sign the request, the sale can be undone.
Anvil/CT: "Also, if the crew is found to be in contempt, does an appeal of such charge stop the hearing by the appellate court on the main two issues (i.e. selling unregistered shares and jury trial)."
Nope. That would be a totally different appeal. It may be entirely possible that RA and Gundy could both still have contempt charges upheld even if the most miraculous of miracles occurs and they win the main appeal, and somehow wind up fully cleared eventually.
They didn't apply to the appeals court for a stay of the judgement's penalties. Therefore, the judge is totally within his rights to attempt to have them repond to court orders requesting info, and to act in good faith toward paying off their penalties, or to show evidence that shows they can't.
An appeal of any contempt charges would probably never be accepted by the appeals court, anyway.
Doogrof: "he is trying desperately to force Tifford to
ask for a stay of the proceedings of his court, which would
automatically put a freeze on the 2nd circuit hearing scheduled for Feb. 25.."
Do you really believe this? Either Bud has no clue as to what a stay is all about, or he is intentionally trying to deceive.
A stay would not impact the appeal process at all. If a stay had been filed, and granted by the appeals court, then Judge Lynch could not enforce any of the summary judgement penalties until the appeal was settled.
So, had an appeal been filed with the 2nd circuit court following the summary judgement, and granted, the following would be true:
RA would still be CEO.
USXP would still be operating exactly as it had been operating.
RA could still be selling unregistered shares to keep up with the 20M+ in annual losses.
The appeals court would be hearing the case by the week of February 25th, at the earliest.
And, BTW, it is far too late in the game for a request for a stay to be filed. It would go nowhere, but even if by some miracle it was approved, the appeal process would go on.
All that would happen after this miracle stay would be RA would not be facing contempt until after he loses the appeal.
All State: Your assumption is correct. She has filed in other jurisdictions, as well, including Florida, I believe.
Without doing so, she'd be unable to lay claim to any assets that may exist in those jurisdictions.
Essentially the filing is just a reiteration of the SEC case and judgement.
virginian: There is nothing made up about that document. It is exactly as it appears in the court record.
The issue may be that the judge has yet to sign it.
It's a motion by the receiver. If you go back through court docs you will find that motions by the SEC, particularly in the case of penalties against RA, Gundy, and USXP, included a section the SEC wanted the judge to sign making their request court approved. The judge did not sign that motion, but eventually came out with his own ruling.
It appears that people, myself included, assumed it had been signed by the judge. Apparently it hasn't.
But your assumption that someone fabricated any part of that document is totally incorrect.
virginian: RA has a responsibility to provided financial info to the court, a responsibility he has been not fullfilling. The 5th ammendment does not provide protection against providing any info, only info that may be incriminating.
There are other issues relating to using the 5th and facing jail time. If the government is providing evidence of what can be construed as a criminal offense, or in this case, an act of contempt, and you chose to take the 5th rather than refute that evidence, what is left for a judge or jury to render a verdict on?
RA is facing contempt charges. He is engaging in behavior that is clearly in contempt of court orders. Pleading the 5th does nothing towards resolving those charges, thus jailing him on contempt charges is not only inevitable, but perfectly legal.
virginian: That's not exactly what he said. He said that there was no way RA could have gone through all the money he got paid, and from the sale of jewelry, unless he had put it all up his nose.
He wasn't saying RA is a coke freak. He was saying he didn't believe RA was unable to make a better effort towards a good faith effort of paying off his penalty.
Anvil/CT: Great work. All the details anyone needs to know.
Sure sounds like Judge Lynch has reached his breaking point on letting RA and Gundy play things out.
dia duit: They were sold as part of the Jackson collection, but the collection wasn't the Michael Jackson collection. Only a very small percentage of the collection had anything to do with Michael or Janet.
The problem was that the whole collection, including MJ's and Janet's stuff, were stored with a storage company, and the Jackson who was doing that (or his company) went BK, and didn't pay off the storage costs. The BK receiver in that case sold the storage contents, including stuff that weren't the property of the person/company in question.
So, Michael and Janet sued in Las Vegas in an attempt to rectify this situation.
dia duit: Jackson sued for returning all of his own personal property from the collection. The tapes aren't his personal property. They were the property of the Jackson 5 group, which were sold to Vacarro legitimately, as far as I can tell.
He will be getting virtually all of his awards, journals, etc. back. Janet will be getting most of her personal property back as well. This is material that wasn't sold to Vaccaro legitimately, as far as I can tell.
virginian: Exactly. If Talbot refused to do that, he'd be facing some serious negative consequences.
virginian: The minor, minor point is simply a counter to what doogrof apparently believes is going on: That the receiver isn't going to get the master tapes.
Simple as that.
Frankly, I don't care if she does or doesn't because I seriously doubt they have any real value. But I'm somewhat shocked that anyone could believe that RA or his attorney would thumb noses at the judge's request to hand them over to the court.
powerbattles: I strongly suggest you read the 8K filed for TCLL awhile back now. It summarizes the situation, and possible outcomes for TCLL.
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001140361%2D07%2D017136%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2007%5C08%5C23%5C&CoName=TRICELL+INC&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=8%2F23%2F2007&pdf=
dickandbabs: There is the bit about 'in his possession or control.'
Maybe Bud is hinting that RA didn't have any tapes to turn over?
Or, maybe Bud is blowing smoke up beone's ass, as he always does...
Doogrof: So, you're claiming that Talbot isn't going to turn what tapes RA delivered to him to the court?
Talbot in contempt? That's interesting...
konchy bill: Excellent...
Anyone know if they or anyone else they know will be going to the contempt hearing tomorrow?
Some insight into what transpires would be nice, since, otherwise, it will be middle of next week at the earliest before any judgement makes it into the court docket.
Who knows when a transcript will make it into the record, if ever. The transcript of the first hearing only became available as an exhibit in the receiver's most recent court filing.
Hk Fooey: Thanks for your info. It certainly seems to be helping the pps, for now.
Can only cross one's fingers on this...
Doogrof: tia typically means 'thanks in advance.'
You do know that she reported exactly what she was told by the lawyer who was and still is seeking to collect money on the judgements, don't you?
I believe his name is Talbot.
Last night xrayviscion posted part of the transcript from the original contempt hearing. The transcript of the judge's comments following the receiver's remarks are very interesting, at least to me, as he addresses many of the facts, as he sees it, about RA et al. Also, he addresses issues that people have been asking him to look into in this case in emails, talking about why he can't do it, as well as why the defendants probably never raised the issues themselves.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: There is one thing I wanted to bring up, your Honor. I am in negotiations, some more completed than others, on a couple of the other subsidiaries. And, of course, nobody wants to assume the huge liabilities, so people have made proposals to purchase the assets such as they are, like a list of customers, a domain name, and I have made provision, pending your Honor's approval, to sell some of those subsidiaries, to sell just the assets. To me I know that means there is lot of creditors that are going to be left in the lurch. I wanted to present that to your Honor, because those creditors are going to be left in the lurch, this way we are leaving some assets to some of the Universal Express employees.
THE COURT: I understand that will be done in due course. I did want to say just two things about the receiver's report, on the public record. One is that the receiver has documented that at the time she took control of this company, the bank accounts of Universal Express contained less than $100,000, which was inadequate to meet even the next week's payroll. It also appeared from the records of the company, as reported by the receiver, that there were 39 billion shares of stock in Universal Express outstanding. And that, apparently, the only income that had been received of any substance was from the sale of stock. And the most significant outflow, other than for advertising was, as far as appears, to Mr. Altomare. Those are, so far as the receiver has reported them, the financial facts about universal Express.
The other fact about the receiver's report that was of some concern to me, and it became a basis of a motion by Mr. Sandhu, was that the receiver had received various threatening communications from individuals claiming to be shareholders of Universal Express.
I can certainly understand why shareholders would be upset, given that all of this money has poured into the company, and the company has never showed any profit. Never, as far as appears, given anything back to anybody but Mr. Altomare. Why they should be upset at the receiver, it seems to me a little bit mysterious, to the extent that there is no money there, after these investments were made. That's not the fault of the SEC or the receiver or the Court. That's got to do with how the money was handled by Universal Express and its officers. But I am concerned at any threat made to officers of the Court acting at the Court's direction. And those communications have been turned over to the United States Marshal Service for whatever investigation they think is appropriate. It is also worth saying in that regard that I have received a fair number of communications from people who purport to be shareholders of Universal Express, many of them are strong supporters of Mr. Altomare and believe that he has been treated unjustly in these proceedings. I don't know, of course, I just get the mail order, in this case the electronic mail, I don't know who they are really from or just what they are really thinking. It's just what has been conveyed to me. Some of them are from detractors of Mr. Altomare, who urge a stronger action by the Court. I just want to make a couple of things clear. First, everything that I have received personally has been what I regard as perfectly appropriate expressions of opinion by the people expressing the opinion. As I said before, it is a free country, people are entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to express their opinions, they are entitled to communicate those opinions to public officials, including Judges. None of those communications were things that I regarded as threatening or inappropriate, or violent or nasty, or anything. They were people expressing what they thought. Quite different from the communications that were attached to the receiver's report.
However, I think it is important to say on the record, both with respect to the parties and with respect to members of the public, that a Court, unlike other public bodies, unlike Congressmen or politicians, is not in a position to respond to or to take action based on what are, in effect, letters to the editor. I am not influenced, I can't be influenced. My oath of office prohibits me from being influenced by what the general public thinks. I can't take action on accusations or complaints or positions that are taken by members of the general public, and not taken by parties in this litigation. To the extent that Mr. Altomare, or any other party to the case, has complaints about the rulings of the Court, or has positions to take with respect to this litigation, they are here, they are represented, they are entitled to make whatever arguments they want to make to the Court. If they don't make an argument, as far as the Court is concerned, the fact that some member of the public thinks they should make that argument, or the fact that some member of the public believes there is some legal theory that the Court should take action on, I am sorry, but that's just not my business. I will not be influenced by such communications, m not allowed to be influenced by such communications. However, to the extent that the parties to the case do not take certain positions, I should think that a reasonable member of the public would draw an inference from that as to the merit of that position. And if there are conflicts of interest on the part of any party to the case, well, all of these litigants have very experienced, very sophisticated lawyers. And if that's a point they want to make, or something they want to bring to the Court's attention, they are entitled to do it, if they don't do it, I don't have anything to act upon. And members of the public who maybe think I should, might want to reconsider whether their information is accurate, if the parties to the case don't pursue such issues. I think it speaks volumes with respect to what has taken place today, that various defendants, including Mr. Altomare, had the opportunity to present any testimony or any argument that they wanted to make with respect to the SEC's showing, or with respect to the receiver's report, or anything else that's in the record of the court. And the record is what it is as to the positions that were taken here today.
Now, I think the only person that leaves me to have concerns about is Mr. Gunderson. And Mr. Garvey have, I think, maybe the -- we have a date for further proceedings with respect to Mr. Altomare, maybe we should put Mr. Gunderson's case over to the same date.
MR. GARVEY: Yes.
THE COURT: And that will give you the opportunity to speak to your client and assess his situation, and decide whether any applications are to be made on his behalf, or how he should respond to the August 30 order. Ms. Hughes, am I right that, roughly speaking, Mr. Gunderson stands in the same position today, vis-à-vis Universal Express, as Mr. Altomare? That is to say, that the receiver, having taken over, he is no longer affiliated with Universal Express -- maybe something needs to happen, I don't know whether the receiver has fired him or whether he has resigned, Gunderson.
MR. GARVEY: He is no longer working for the company.
THE COURT: Once again, I think, Mr. Garvey, you will assess where you think things stand. I think it would be helpful for all concerned, for Mr. Gunderson not to wait until the 11th hour of the next deadline to discuss with the SEC what, if any, showing is going to be made of compliance, or objection to the Court's order, or whatever else is going to happen. So that maybe we can – we will be in a better position to resolve that situation one way or the other in January, rather than to have that get put over for 60 days because it is a last-minute development with respect to Mr. Gunderson. But I think that matter will also be put over till January 11. Is there anything else that we need to do here today?
MR. TIFFORD: Just a minor cleanup, your Honor, three points. One, may I look forward to your Honor's order formally allowing my withdrawal from the case?
THE COURT: With respect to Mr. Gunderson?
MR. TIFFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Right. Sure. If you want a written order I am happy to --
MR. GARVEY: I have paperwork here today, if you will so order it, that will be fine.
THE COURT: If you got an order, I can sign it.
MR. TIFFORD: Yes, sir. The second point I must mention, the subject of flight risk, both Mr. and Mrs. Altomare's faith kind of preclude their sojourning to Dubai for the remainder of their lives, or anything in which they would have anything but a very limited visitor's visa, if ever. In my subtlety is a sufficient message for all concerned. Second, Mrs. Altomare, I believe, has shown remarkable courage and support in agreeing to abandon property right under the Florida law. She should be commended not questioned. Third, as far as the money is concerned, the figures announced as being fixed were fixed, they were not a proposal. I am going to deliver the $30,000 check as ordered by the Court.
THE COURT: I did assume that, Mr. Tifford, that that was something that was going to happen. And I also, maybe the word proposal was ill-chosen, I take it, I assume the good faith of you and Mr. Altomare with respect to marketing the apartment and everything else. Why i referred to it as a proposal is that the most tangible parts of it, the biggest numbers that were mentioned in your discussion are things that are contingent by their nature. I suggested some possibilities as ways of making them less contingent, but that's really up to the parties to discuss. We will find out in due course what happens in that regard. Similarly, with respect to the flight issue, certainly, as I said, have no basis at this point for believing that assets are fleeing abroad or people are fleeing abroad, or anything like that. Ms. Hughes mentioned that possibility. It is entirely fair for you to respond and refute that. But one way or the other, it goes over my head, it is until and unless. And this is one of the things that may or may not show up in January. Uuntil and unless I have further information suggesting that there is -- there are assets disappearing, or there are other assets that aren't being attached, but they should be, or that there has been some falsehood or some concealment, it is what it is. And we will find out more by January as to whether, as I said, Mr. Altomare is in a position to demonstrate that he has, in good faith, done his best to comply, or whether the SEC is in a position to demonstrate that he is deficient in some way, or the Court should take some action, or whether, we don't even have to hear about it because everyone is satisfied by that point. So I appreciate why you say what you say. I think you have every right to say it. But I just want to assure you, it is not, at some level, necessary. okay. Thank you all.
-----
OCR Transcript 10-12-2007
So, is there anyone here who thinks that it is a coincidence that the judge set 1/17 as the surrender date for the tapes, which is the day before the contempt hearing update to be held on 1/18?
It should be very interesting on the 18th when RA fails to deliver on the 17th...
virginian: I'm no legal eagle, but I'd have to say I have some grounds on which I can disagree with that assessment (but I really cannot agree with a belief that RA and Gundy have any chance of this happening).
USXP's guilt is based on essentially being in cahoots with RA and Gunderson. It could be that if they are eventually cleared of all charges, it could also be argued that USXP is therefore not guilty, as well.
However, there is a major problem with this argument. The three people who were buying the unregistered shares, and who were included in the SEC suit against USXP et al, have all plead guilty. As co-conspirators with USXP, in essense, USXP is still guilty.
But none of this will come to pass.
virginian: Only some shareholders, the ones who believe that RA has claimed the tapes as his own in an attempt to benefit the shareholders, and that those tapes have great value, considering the ownership of any of the jackson stuff is up in the air.
What is a better adjective for such shareholders?
Do you believe RA claimed the tapes as his own in an attempt to benefit you?
You beat me to it.
Thanks.
Right from the judge's order on the master tapes:
"It will perhaps be of interest to those deluded shareholders who continue to believe simultaneously that Altomare has their interests at heart, and that the Master Tapes are an extremely valuable corporate asset, that the materials are in fact tied up in litigation such that Universal's ability to realize any value from them is currently limited, and that Altomare has insisted to the Receiver in writing that the Master Tapes, whatever their value, are his personal property and not an asset of the corporation."
Comliments of xrayviscion on another board:
01/11/2008 275 ORDER granting 266 Motion for turn over the Master tapes to the Reciever on or before 1/17/08. (Signed by Judge Gerard E. Lynch on 1/11/08) (pl) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
-----------------
Doc 275
OCR
ORDER
GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge:
On December 10, 2007, the Receiver moved for an order directing defendant Richard A. Altomare to turn over the Jackson Recordings Master Tapes Collection to her, for the benefit of Universal Express, Inc. ("Universal"). The motion will be granted.
The Receiver's motion documents the history of the transaction by which Altomare and/or Universal acquired the Master Tapes. Although the original purchase contract reflects some ambiguity as to whether the purchase was being made by Altomare personally or on behalf of Universal see Ex. 2), any such ambiguity is rendered irrelevant by a later document by which Altomare clearly assigns any interest he may have in the materials to Universal (see Ex. 4). In any event, although Altomare, through counsel, refused the Receiver's request for the materials, he has not responded to the motion in the time allotted, and thus apparently no longer contests the Receiver's right to obtain the materials.
Nothing in this Order in any way purports to adjudicate the extent of Universal's rights to these materials as against members of the Jackson family or any other third party, a matter which apparently is in litigation before another court. (See Ex. 5.) The Court simply holds between Altomare and Universal, any rights to the Master Tapes that were obtained through the November 21, 2006, purchase agreement are the property of Universal, and not of Altomare. It will perhaps be of interest to those deluded shareholders who continue to believe simultaneously that Altomare has their interests at heart, and that the Master Tapes are an extremely valuable corporate asset, that the materials are in fact tied up in litigation such that Universal's ability to realize any value from them is currently limited, and that Altomare has insisted to the Receiver in writing that the Master Tapes, whatever their value, are his personal property and not an asset of the corporation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted and Richard A. Altomare is directed to turn over the Master Tapes to the Receiver on or before January 17, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
January 11, 2008
GERARD E. LYNCH
United States District Judge
beone: We'll see. Obviously I believe in a different result.
Wow - somebody just sold less than 32,000 at .0001.
Bizarre.
Stolen from cbeemer on another board:
Judge Lynch has ordered the "Big Dick" to turn over the MJ Master tapes by Thursday january 17th.
From the order:
"Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted and Richard A. Altomore is directed to turn over the Master Tapes to the Receiver on or before January 17, 2008."
Dated New York, New York
January 11, 2008
So Ordered:
Judge Gerald E. Lynch
Wow - somebody bought 52,500 shares at .0002.
Rock on...
virginian: What if I wanted to drive the point home?????
p.s. You're assumption was correct. Didn't notice, but I've had this problem with IHub posting before. Thanks.
Also two docs from 1/9 documenting 102K+ in payments to Gunderson from 12/2006 to 8/2007. Clearly the man was worth at least that.
The docs also include photocopies of other payments made by the company by check, but not sure why...
Whole new set of SEC docs supporting the SEC advising the Court that Altomare and Gundy have not complied with subpoenas issued last August requesting financial info. Basically, the SEC is asking the court to give them 5 days from the 1/18 Comtempt hearing to comply, if not begin fining them $5,000 per day each and then convene a hearing 14 days later for the purpose of incarcarating them both until compliance.
There is also a full, 56-page transcript of the 10/12 contempt hearing, and related matters. Unfortunately, it is a series of scanned docs, and I don't have the means of converting to text. This transcript can put to rest all the Bud stories as to what went on at that hearing, one way or the other.
I'm sure someone will begin to convert at least some of the docs to text using an OCR app and post them somewhere soon...
Interesting - Someone is willing to pay .0025 today. A little of 550.00 worth, so far, has been sold to him/her...
wiffenproof: There is a comment in the docket entry for the extension Talbot was granted that stated that the appeal could be heard as early as the week of Feb 25th.
If all the stars align just right, maybe...
12/21/07 Order FILED GRANTING motion for extension by Appellant Richard Altomare, Appellant Chris Gunderson, endorsed by Joy Fallek, Administrative Attorney, on motion filed 12/7/2007. Before: Hon. Ralph K. Winter, Circuit Judge. "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant`s motion for an extension of time to file the joint appendix to December 20, 2007 is GRANTED. Also Appellant`s and Appellee`s briefs in final form shall be filed on or before January 8, 2008; the appeal may be heard as early as the week of February 25, 2008." [Entry date Dec 27, 2007] [YL]
Mighty_Mezz: Not to mention that if RA was selling shares in good faith of the supposed BK permission to sell those shares from the Employee Stock Option plan, why did he report the shares sold as having been issued for 'future consulting services' and the money received from those sales as 'future stock rights'?
Why didn't he report the sales, all of those sales, as income from shares sold?