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.
Medifytrader and Ben88 - that's why that name had a familiar ring to it. Well, I guess we know what her fees were!
Rob C, refresh my memory - who is Gayle Hanlon?
These shares are post-split.
Please, tell us how you know so much about Marani and TLTK? What news of importance have we missed that you found.
Why do you think it will retrace to .05 anytime soon?
Since I took profits, very well. I read a lot here, post some, and have tried to learn from mistakes by myself and others. I'm learning.....;)
Be careful....many of those sells could actually be buys that the MMs have listed as sells. I've seen it happen too many times!
I'm missing something here....is it Howard Stotland, President, STS Systems?
That's what mine shows.
Since the filing is labeled "Amendment" and is only 1 page.....it seems to me that this may be a Name change. Either that or a change in the A/S.
I have not, but then, I don't have the orders nor the pleadings. Once I can get them, then I'll try both google translator and babelfish.
Thanks. I'll check that out.
I can agree with that....a problematic past wouldn't help RH and credibility now.
Do you know if a translated version of the orders or pleadings in the Bio case is available? I checked the website, but my French from high school is mostly forgotten and certainly of no help with legal matters. TIA.
December: you had sent me a PM so that we could talk. Unfortunately, I overlooked it. I tried to email you, but the address wouldn't work - probably some syntax problem with dots and @.
If you will PM me again with your email, I'll respond.
Pacer doesn't include Canadian courts, only American. Used to be free, too.
The tone of your post inferred to me that 1) there was a new law firm representing RH, and 2) a great dissatisfaction with the previous attorney.
...I believe that now that he's got an expanded executive roster as well as top notch legal representation in BCF
But it's possible that you were only referring to the expanded executive roster. Can you clarify?
Actually, the only language translations I normally deal with are translations within the English language, such as medical-to-normal English, legal-to-normal English and the like. Perhaps if I were in Louisiana or near the Quebec border...
....or I could get my sister to translate, since she used to live in Claremont, France.
Cabbage patch, maybe you could translate it for me. What do you say?
Doog, being a lawyer, I'm intrigued by the back-handed stab at the first attorney(s) representing RH....did the new guys come on before or after the injunction?
Btw, do you know where I can get a copy of the case pleadings and orders in ENGLISH to review?
Is that to be expected? I would imagine that would be the normal course, to allow the Marani people to come in....
Downshire Cap is an IR firm that he runs
Doog: Is there any way I can get a copy of the injunctions that were issued that have been translated to English? I deal with these type of things (I just filed a lawsuit, w/ 2 other lawyers, seeking money damages and an injunction; we may need to seek a temporary injunction on certain facets of the case.) and I would like to read it to understand the scope....perhaps I can add something to these discussions through my experience with seeking and opposing injunctions.
I called Banc of America today re: my HBDY shares; they have gone thru the Reorg dept. to their clearinghouse, and have assured me that they will get the physical certs for the broker, and get me my shares in street name for both of my accounts. I was told to expect another 2-3 weeks, but I was assured that I would be receiving the round-up shares.
So, too, will the other B of A customers like me.
Leeder - is CGGP a "threshold" security?
Reg SHO and shorting for CGGP should, and I stress "should" come under control after October 15. That is when the grandfather clause ends, and MMs that are in a fail-to-deliver position for 13 consecutive settlement dates.
This applies only to threshold securities; CGGP is not listed on the list of threshold securities.
Some informative links:
Key points about Reg SHO, including definitions of threshold securities and naked short sales and covering or borrowing requirements.
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm#P82_14908
Current "threshold securities" list:
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/nasdaqth20070924.txt
--Reg SHO Final Rule: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-56212fr.pdf
Thanks to jimmenknee
No, it took over TQWI, which is why I'm really confused about the line of conversation.
I don't object to it, I'm just trying to figure out the connection here and your place in the old TQWI and the spin-off from DVFA after the R/M.
Naivete, which company, DVFA or Taylor Aquaponics?
In my experience, and this is only with American courts, the judge simply rules on the information placed before him/her by the respective parties' attorneys. The judge doesn't go out and independently investigate.
The judge looks at the pleadings and considers any evidence introduced at the hearing....which is usually some live testimony with cross examination.
Then the lawyers each argue their view of what is before the court, and the law they think applies, and the judge rules.
That's why I know there is missing info......if Carini was in the minority on the vote, then the litigation itself could not have been sanctioned by the company. If, however, there was an even split, then it's a race to the courthouse. Sill, there would be a hearing. Perhaps the MCCY attorney didn't get notice, and was not there to argue, and so a preliminary injunction was ordered.
But, I don't think that's likely. Do you know when the action was first filed by Bio?
That is so incredibly important. If the Board of Directors voted to go with MCCY and Carini was in the minority, then what the hell is going on at Bio, and how could the MCCY attorney screw that up?
If Bruno had a majority vote, then the MCCY attorneys clearly should have used that, as Carini's actions are ultra vires and void.
That means that the actions by Carini are without authority and not santioned by the company. I cannot believe that was the case; otherwise, the injunction should never have been granted, absent a royal screw-up by yje MCCY legal counsel, especially since there ARE adequate remedies at law for those kinds of actions, and the judge would not, then, grant a TRO.
It would really help to have the pleadings in English for me to understand why the injunction was granted.
There are too many things not adding up.
Insofar as Bruno owning the patent in the US, that would bode extremely well for MCCY if there is an agreement to license the tech in the US. What about in Mexico? Brasil? Europe? Asia? I can't even suggest an answer regarding the patent rights in those places, as I just don't know patent law. But, if Bruno owns the IP rights, he can sell/license them to whomever he wants.
Has anyone asked Bruno about his Bio relationship? Even if he is a 50-50 owner, he still owes fiduciary duties to the company, and can't just take the SDS technology with him if there is a disagreement with Carini. If Bruno did that, he probably acted in a fashion contrary to Bio's best interests, and may well have violated his fiduciary duties.
That's probably why the TRO (temporary restraining order) was issued. So, Bruno has to play the corporate game differently, and probably should seek to dissolve Bio. But, he can only do that if he owns 50% or more.
IMO.
David: I'm confused.....if Bio was the patent applicant, then wouldn't Bio own the patent? I'll be the first to admit I don't know patent law - I'm not that kind of lawyer, which is a legal specialty with a separate bar exam to pass - but, even if Bruno joins MCCY, if he does not own the patent, then, even though he may be the inventor, if he did not retain intellectual property rights in what he developed that Bio patented, then MCCY cannot use SDS without Bio's permission.
Now, if Bruno developed something ELSE, that doesn't incorporate Bio's patent, and kept the IP 9intellectual property) rights to himself, then HE is in the driver's seat. We would then have a completely different story.
What's the cut-off date for buying? It looks like October 20, 2007.
The benefit is if you sell your 3499 shares (leaving you with 501,) you'll get more value overall than if you simply hold now. If you hold now, all you'll have AFTER the split is 500 shares, the same as you'd have if you sell all but 501 before the split.
Has Spartan traded the first share yet? Last time I checked, their volume of sales here with Ptel was....ZILCH!!
Damn...I don't know if I should be happy or sad that I was left off that list!! lol!
Probably!!! Let's ride this train a little while longer. I'm looking for Les to call me back next week, anyway.
I think the answer might be "Yes". He works at Downshire Capital......posted earlier that he had something like 2,000,000 shares here that were his...
Okay, besides the pump, what facts do you rely on to support your unbridled optimism?
I've just heard that "news any day now" phrase so often that I don't care to even see it.
Why is news due next week? Who told you there would news? What day? What kind of news?
....If you can't answer those questions, don't bother posting the comment in the first place.
Reg SHO and shorting for MCCY should, and I stress "should" come under control after October 15. That is when thge grandfather clause ends, and MMs that are in a fail-to-deliver position for 13 consecutive settlement dates.
This applies only to threshold securities; MCCY is listed on the list of threshold securities.
Some informative links:
Key points about Reg SHO, including definitions of threshold securities and naked short sales and covering or borrowing requirements.
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm#P82_14908
Current "threshold securities" list:
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/nasdaqth20070920.txt
--Reg SHO Final Rule: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-56212fr.pdf
Thanks to jimmenknee
Argyll, do you have the fax number for the court? I'm not familiar with the Quebec court system. TIA.
It would have been nice to know there was a battle that had been joined, with Bio coming out on top a few days earlier and that another ruling was imminent. These rulings, or rather, the fact that a suit had been filed and rulings were expected, is significant....something that shareholders have a right to know, as those things can materially affect the investment decision. (Yeah, I know - that's EXACTLY why RH did NOT mention them).
The teaser of the PR was, imo, intentionally worded in a vague manner, but RH should have been MUCH more forthcoming.
I hope you are right.
davidam, can you post the pleadings that have been filed, or is there a link?
No, it doesn't mean anything, because the granting of ANY injunction is made by a judge, before the case is fully developed, before discovery is completed, and often solely on the basis of legal pleadings filed with the court. Sometimes there is testimony, but it is NEVER a full-blown trial when a preliminary injunction is being considered.