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.
Feeback was once a Director of MVBY.
He and Wiswall both worked for Coca Cola.
Jessica Smith Wiswall
2316 Bennington
McKinney, TX 75070
214-923-0200
Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas BA Advertising w/minor in Art 1995
1995-1997 TLP Partnership, Dallas TX Advertising Executive, Frito Lay Account
1997-1999 Coca-Cola Bottling Co of North Texas, Dallas, Texas, Key Account
Marketing Manager
1999-2004 Stay at home Mom
2004-2007 My Vintage Baby, Inc. President/Director/Head Designer
Jeff Welsh, CPA, Director, Treasurer - Shares helded NONE (No compensation)
8420 Bayham Dr.
Plano, TX 75024
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, BBA in Management and BS in Accounting
1993-1999 GS Roofing Products Co., Irving, TX- Plant Accountant
1999-2000 Stanley Tools, Farmers Branch, TX-Cost Accountant
2000-2001 Sanmina LP, Carrollton, TX-Sr. Cost Accountant
2001-2006 PrimeSource Bldg. Products, Carrollton, TX -Accounting Manager
2006-Present Brandt Engineering, Dallas, TX-Controller
Robert Feeback, Director - Shares held 4,000,000 Restricted (no compensation)
1980 to 2000: Held various positions in sales and marketing at The Coca-Cola
Company
You're right, now is the time to get out.
From 2008 Annual report(3/9/09):
The following table sets forth certain information regarding sales of securities during the past two years up to the date of this filing, issued under Securities Act Rule 504:
Date of Offering Investor Price (per share) # of Shares
June 26, 2007 Regus Invest. Group,LLC $0.070 500,000
June 26, 2007 Bellatalia, LP $0.070 500,000
June 26, 2007 Wynn Industries, LLC $0.070 1,000,000
July 16, 2007 Regus Invest. Group, LLC $0.070 1,000,000
July 16, 2007 Bellatalia, LP $0.070 1,000,000
July 31, 2007 Regus Invest. Group,LLC $0.070 1,000,000
July 31, 2007 Wynn Industries, LLC $0.070 1,000,000
July 31, 2007 Bellatalia, LP $0.070 1,000,000
Sept. 10, 2007 Barclay Lyons, LLC $0.350 300,000
Sept. 10, 2007 Perlinda Enterprises, LLC $0.350 300,000
October 10, 2007 Barclay Lyons, LLC $0.300 150,000
October 10, 2007 Perlinda Enterprises, LLC $0.300 150,000
October 18, 2007 Mazuma Holding Corp. $0.150 266,667
December 19, 2007 Bellatalia, LP $0.070 1,000,000
December 19, 2007 Regus Invest. Group,LLC $0.070 1,000,000
January 7, 2008 Bellatalia, LP $0.070 928,571
January 7, 2008 Thomas Wade Invest.,LLC $0.070 928,571
June 14, 2008 TJ Management $0.050 296,875
June 26, 2008 TJ Management $0.066 378,787
July 10, 2008 TJ Management $0.041 606,060
July 21, 2008 TJ Management $0.029 862,068
July 25, 2008 TJ Management $0.026 961,538
August 8, 2008 TJ Management $0.021 1,200,000
August 26, 2008 TJ Management $0.025 1,000,000
September 19,2008 TJ Management $0.180 1,388,888
October 22, 2008 TJ Management $0.0090 2,777,777
December 10, 2008 TJ Management $0.0050 5,000,000
January 5, 2009 TJ Management $0.0025 10,000,000
January 23, 2009 TJ Management $0.0020 12,500,000
February 5, 2009 TJ Management $0.0010 25,000,000
From June 26,2007 until Feb.5,2009, MVBY sold shares for
$1,640,000.
7 million shares were sold for .07 when the market price was
between .61 and $1.48. Sounds like they gave the store away.
At today price the new billion shares will only raise $700,000. OF course with all that dilution the share price will drop to what???
It didn't happen on the first R/S, so why would it happen on the next one???
Any way the girls control the commons vote thru their one prefered share.(read the Filings).
Did you mean Larry Paradise was CEO of Shareholders Advocates??
I believe you missed this paragraph on the website:
* Shareholder Advocates, L.L.C. is a shareholder in every "corporate clean up" and does not guarantee the future value or outcome to any stockholder. In most cases stockholders will be diluted from a reverse stock split, issuance of shares or both.
It appears that they have.
Rumor has it that the Dorroughs have retired.
The 3 she has are DEAD.
Steve:
Don't forget Jayme's birthday on the 23rd. Maybe you should buy her a new shell. lol.
I don't know, but am I the only one on this board with a BRAIN?
It does prove Dorrough knew about the hijacking and did nothing. IMO.
I guess you missed thjs one too, not so old.
BTW, you still did not answer my question. IN YOUR OPINION, why would Amanda buy 5 cents worth of BHUB stock?? TIA.
Mr. Rick Strattan
CTD Holdings Inc.
27317 NW 78 Avenue
High Springs, Florida 32643
Re: CTD Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the "Company")
Dear Mr. Strattan:
In furtherance to our engagement letter with the Company dated May 7,
2004, as executed by you on May 21, 2004, this letter shall serve as our
instructions to issue the aggregate of 343,137 shares of the Company's common
stock which are compensation for the services being rendered to the Company in
accordance therewith as follows:
Name and address No. of shares
Steven T. Dorrough 171,569
610-AE Battlefield Street
Suite 184
Springfield, Missouri 65807
Ella Chesnutt 171,568
6200 Devon Drive
Columbia, Maryland 21044
Sincerely,
/s/ Steven T. Dorrough
Steven T. Dorrough
<PAGE>
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
You're joking.
Workforce Systems Corp.
By: /s/ Ella Boutwell Chesnutt
-----------------------------
Ella Boutwell Chesnutt,
President
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this
Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the
capacities and on the dates indicated.
/s/ Ella Boutwell Chesnutt Director May 22, 1997
- --------------------------
Ella Boutwell Chesnutt
/s/ Jayme Dorrough Director May 22, 1997
- --------------------------
Jayme Dorrough
Sorry, forgot to include this in my reply to pennypusher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Bloodworth Family Genealogy Forum
Re: Bloodworth-Boutwell in Mississippi
Posted by: Ella Chesnutt Date: June 14, 2000 at 12:18:17
In Reply to: Bloodworth-Boutwell in Mississippi by Bert Boutwell of 763
My grandmother was Ella Bloodworth Boutwell; she died in 1955 in McLaurin; her husband was Hugh Everett Boutwell, born in 1882; he died in McLaurin in 1948. I hope this helps.
I assume you know who Ella Chesnutt is.
Question: Why would Amanda Boutwell buy 5 cents worth of BHUB stock????
That's the problem with the penny boards. Most people are here for the play. They KNOW the DD is bad, so they don't bother doing any.
Ella BOUTWELL Chesnutt: Jayme's old partner and at one time a Principle in YUCATAN.
Art, you disappoint me. I thought you would like to tell everyone who Amanda Boutwell is, perhaps lead a discussion of why the Dorroughs hid their knowledge of the hijacking.
What I disclosed is not illegal, so why send it to the SEC?
Or maybe the Dorroughs planned on dumping the Yucatan shares when the price was right. Why would a friend of Jayme buy 50 shares other than to set up a trading account????
From the SAT list:
22 1274 Active Amanda G Boutwell 50 02/27/2007 Free 175 Lawler Road Lumberton MS
It appears that Steve owed the bank $1,492,711.37 after bankruptcy. In 2001 he appealed the Decision.Wonder why.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
March 28, 2001 Session
SUNTRUST BANK, EAST TENNESSEE, N.A., (Successor to Third National
Bank of East Tennessee), v. STEVEN T. DORROUGH
Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County
No. 127752-3 Hon. Sharon Bell, Chancellor
FILED MAY 17, 2001
No. E2000-01331-C0A-R3-CV
In this action to enforce a Guaranty Agreement executed by defendant, the Trial Judge granted
plaintiff summary judgment. Defendant appealed. We affirm.
Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed.
HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD,
P.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.
Thomas M. Leveille, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant, Steven T. Dorrough.
James A. Matlock, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee, SunTrust Bank, East Tennessee, N.A.
OPINION
In this action by plaintiff to recover under a guaranty agreement executed by the
defendant, the Trial Judge granted plaintiff summary judgment on the ground that defendant had
“waived his asserted defense of impairment of his guaranty by specific provisions in his Guaranty
Agreements”, and judgment was entered in the amount of $1,492,711.37. Defendant has appealed.
Toyota of Morristown Leasing, Inc. executed a promissory note on March 13, 1987
in the principal amount of $500,000.00 in favor of Third National Bank in Knoxville. On May 22,
-2-
1987, Toyota of Morristown, Inc. executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of
$2,000,000.00 in favor of the Bank. SunTrust Bank, East Tennessee, N.A. is the successor in
interest to Third National Bank, and brought this action.
Defendant Steven T. Dorrough is a stockholder of both Toyota of Morristown, Inc.
and Toyota of Morristown Leasing, Inc., (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Toyota of
Morristown”). Defendant executed two Guaranty Agreements in favor of Third National that
guaranteed the indebtedness of Toyota of Morristown Leasing in the amount of $500,000.00 and
Toyota of Morristown in the amount of $2,000,000.00, on March 13, 1987 and May 22, 1987
respectively.
The guaranty executed by Steven Dorrough in favor of Third National Bank provides
in pertinent part:
hereby personally guarantee to you . . . the full and prompt payment at
maturity to you . . . of any and all sums of money that may now, or at any time
hereafter, be owing to you . . . by Toyota of Morristown, Inc. on the note or notes of
said Toyota of Morristown, Inc. executed by it to you . . . upon notes, bill receivable,
drafts, acceptances, checks and other evidences of indebtedness which you . . . may
at any time hereafter discount or cash for said Toyota of Morristown, Inc. and which
may come into your possession by discount, purchase or otherwise; and [I] hereby
authorize you . . . at any time, in such manner and upon such terms as you . . . may
see fit to renew, extend the time for, or change the manner of, payment of any such
sum or sums of money, or any part thereof, without notice to [me], and hereby agree
that such renewal, change or extension of time for, or change in the manner of,
payment shall not in any way release [me] from or reduce or otherwise affect [my]
liability on this guaranty.
It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that the total liability of the
undersigned under this guaranty shall in no event exceed the aggregate principal sum
of $2,000,000.00 . . . but [I] expressly guarantee, in addition, to pay all interest and
all costs, attorney’s fees and other expenses of collection, which you . . . may incur
or pay.
It is further understood and agreed that this shall be a continuing guaranty and
shall remain in full force and effect until written notice shall have actually been
received by you that it has been revoked by the undersigned . . .
The guaranty executed as to the indebtedness of Toyota of Morristown Leasing, Inc.,
is identical in its language except that it provides that the total liability on the guaranty shall not
exceed $500,000.00.
-3-
The indebtedness acquired by Toyota of Morristown in favor of Third National arose
under what is commonly know as a “floor plan” arrangement for financing the purchase of new
automobiles by Toyota of Morristown for inventory. The Bank also provided financing for
customers of Toyota of Morristown for the purchase of vehicles. Both Toyota of Morristown, Inc.,
and Toyota of Morristown Leasing defaulted on their respective promissory notes in 1989, and have
been liquidated in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.
SunTrust made a demand on the defendant to honor his guaranty agreements, and
when he failed to comply, the Bank brought this action on September 29, 1995.
The standards governing an appellate court’s review of a motion for summary
judgment are well settled. No presumption of correctness attaches to the lower court’s judgment,
and we are required to determine whether the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been met.
Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997).
The moving party has the burden of proving that its motion satisfies the requirements
for judgment. Bain. When a party seeking summary judgment makes a properly supported motion,
the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts establishing the existence of
disputed material facts, to be resolved at trial. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 215.
It is not disputed that Toyota of Morristown and Toyota of Morristown Leasing
defaulted on their respective promissory notes with SunTrust Bank, and they have been liquidated
in bankruptcy and had the remainder of their debt discharged. Further, it is undisputed that Steven
Dorrough signed continuing guaranty agreements in favor of the Bank for the debts of the defaulters,
and based upon these undisputed facts, the Trial Court found that the defendant had waived his
asserted defenses of impairment of his guaranty by the specific provisions of the guaranty agreements
and the Bank was therefore entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant insists that he is entitled to be relieved as a guarantor because plaintiff
impaired the guaranty agreements by releasing collateral consisting of 111 vehicles to various
customers while applying all payments from Toyota of Morristown to repossessions instead of the
promissory note for its floor plan financing. He argues that the Bank, by not obtaining any
substitution of collateral, left the “floor plan financing” note under-secured.
Guaranties on a commercial contract are special contracts under Tennessee law. In
order to facilitate the extension of credit, Tennessee does not favor guarantors and will construe a
guaranty against the guarantor as strongly as the language will permit. Squibb v. Smith, 948 S.W.2d
752, 755 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Also see Farmers-Peoples Bank v. Clemmer, 519 S.W.2d 801, 805
(Tenn. 1975). This principle of law dates back to Bright v. McKnight, 33 Tenn. 158 (1853), where
our Supreme Court held that “a guarantor shall be held bound to the full extent of what appears to
be his engagements, and the rule in expounding these undertakings is that the words of the guaranty
are to be taken as strongly against the guarantor as the sense will admit.” Id. at 168.
-4-
As a general rule, the surrender or release by a creditor without the consent of the
guarantor of any security held at the time when the debt is guaranteed will operate to discharge the
guarantor. Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc. v. Regal Publishers, Inc., 626 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 1981). A necessary component of this rule is that the guarantor must not consent to the release
of the collateral. Id. The burden is on the creditor to show that the guarantor consented to the
release of the collateral, and that consent is normally manifest in the note itself. Id. at 280.
T.C.A. § 47-3-606 provides, in part, that the holder discharges any party to the
instrument to the extent that, without such party’s consent, the holder “unjustifiably impairs any
collateral for the instrument given by or on behalf of the party or any person against whom he has
a right of recourse.” The Court in Bank of Ripley v. Sadler, 671 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tenn. 1984), set
forth the standard for determining when the defense of impairment of contract has been established.
We think the test of whether a secured party or holder has unjustifiably
impaired collateral not in his possession is that of reasonable care under all of the
relevant circumstances of the case. The burden of proof is upon the party asserting
the impairment of collateral to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
holder has not used reasonable care under all of the circumstances and to prove the
monetary extent to which the collateral has been impaired as a direct result of the
failure to use due care, because the discharge of the surety, if impairment is shown,
is pro tanto only.
671 S.W.2d at 457.
Plaintiff does not seek to demonstrate that it actually exercised due care in these
matters, but instead argues that the guaranty agreements contained a waiver provision wherein the
Defendant consented to the Bank’s release of the collateral.
There is a recognized exception to the general rule of discharge upon release of
collateral where the debtor has consented to the release. See Ottenheimer Publishers, p. 280. In
FDIC v. Associated Nursery Systems, 948 F.2d 233, 240 (6th Cir. 1991), the Court found that even
though the guarantor had no prior notice of the sale of certain assets, the guarantor had consented
to the release of collateral through his signing of the continuing guaranty agreement.
The guaranties signed by defendant authorized the Bank to:
[I]n such a manner and upon such terms as you or either of you may see fit to renew,
extend the time for, or change the manner of, payment of any such sum or sums of
money, or any part thereof, without notice to us . . .
The guaranty agreement also covered “any and all sums of money that may now, or may at anytime
hereafter, be owing” by Toyota of Morristown “executed by it to you or either of you and upon notes,
bills receivable, drafts, acceptances, checks, and other evidences of indebtedness.” While the
-5-
guaranties do not contain specific language consenting to the release of collateral, they implicitly
consent to such changes by the fact that it is a continuing guaranty securing all debts owing to the
Bank by Toyota of Morristown.
The reason lies in the distinction between a continuing guaranty and a specific or
limited guaranty. A guarantor who guarantees a specific note, which is also secured by collateral,
is responsible solely for that note. When he becomes a guarantor, his obligations are tied up with
the specific note and his agreement to become a guarantor might hinge upon the fact that the note
is secured by collateral. Thus, the potential risk of a guarantor on a particular note may not be
altered by the unjustifiable impairment of the collateral by the creditor.
The circumstances of a continuing guarantor are far different, however. A continuing
guarantor does not guarantee a particular note, but rather guarantees an overall indebtedness. A
continuing guarantor is thus obliged to pay the debts of the defaulting principal whether those debts
are secured by collateral or not. In short, a continuing guarantor cannot rely on the presence of
collateral securing a particular note, absent a specific provision providing that the collateral secures
all notes. See Union Planters Nat’l Bank of Memphis v. Markowitz, 468 F.Supp. 529, 535 (W.D.
Tenn. 1979). As long as the continuing guaranty in this case was in effect, nothing prevented Toyota
of Morristown from incurring new debts to plaintiff secured by no collateral whatever. Under these
circumstances, the fact that the note in question was secured by collateral was largely fortuitous from
the point of view of the continuing guarantor.
Defendant claims that in signing the guaranty agreements, he relied upon the
existence of collateral securing the debt and upon certain statements made by the Bank regarding the
collateral. While the cardinal rule in the construction of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the
parties, Frizzell Construction Co., Inc. v. Gatlinburg, L.L.C., 9 S.W.3d 79, 85 (Tenn. 1999), where
the contract is plain and unambiguous, the Court’s function is to interpret the contract as written
according to its plain terms. Bradson Mercantile, Inc. v. Crabtree, 1 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 1999). Accordingly, Defendant Dorrough cannot be relieved from his written obligation
because of an unfortunate and erroneous assumption.
Where the guaranty is a continuing guaranty, there is no obligation to give notice to
the guarantor that new obligations are being incurred for which the guarantor will be liable, absent
a contractual undertaking to do so. See Third National Bank in Nashville v. Friend, 626 S.W.2d 464
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). As the Court in Friend stated:
This Court is not entirely comfortable with the present state of the law as to
continuing guaranties. However, it is part of the law of contracts which allows great
freedom and latitude in the contracts which may be made by the parties, but places
upon the parties a heavy burden to minutely examine and understand what they sign.
626 S.W.2d at 467.
-6-
We conclude the Trial Court correctly determined that the language of the guaranty
constituted a waiver of defendant’s asserted defense of impairment of collateral. Plaintiff established
that the requirements for summary judgment had been satisfied, and we affirm the Judgment of the
Trial Court. The cost of the appeal is assessed to defendant, Steven T. Dorrough.
_________________________
HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, J.
They should have sent Steve to jail in 1991.
A Hamblen County judge sentenced the former owners of a bankrupt Morristown Toyota dealership to 11 months' probation Friday - one month for each of 11 charges.
Terry Coleman, Steven T. Dorrough and Larry J. Parks entered nolo contendere pleas - no contest pleas - before Judge James E. Beckner on 11 misdemeanor counts of failure to deliver vehicle titles.
They were originally charged with 11 felony counts of fraudulent breach of contract. The charges were reduced as part of the plea agreement.
-- 3/21/1991, Knoxville News Sentinel, page A1
I said Jayme is in Knoxville, I assume Steve is there.
Anyway he wouldn't want to talk to me.
We shall see.
Let's just say I know more about the Dorroughs than most people, and have for years.
Jayme is in Knoxville. Steve must be too.
LMAO. This will be (may be) the THIRD time the Dorroughs have BORROWED IFR from good old Lester Gann (previously Workforce and EEGI). It was nice of them to word the PR so everyone knew who they were referring to.
If Lester sees the deal EEGI pulled on Rich Strattan,he may have second thoughts about a THIRD time.CTDH has been in court for 18 months trying to get back 51% control he gave to EEGI.
Anyway this is not about BHUB, but rather a pump for TCHL, AIMO.
BTW, if anyone wants to see the filings, I will gladly dig them out and post.
GLTUA.
Merrimack, N.H.-based GT Solar International filed the terms of its planned initial public offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, setting the number of shares at 30.3 million and the range at $15.50 to $17.50 per share.
The company provides manufacturing equipment and services to producers of photovoltaic wafers. It expects to raise $609.8 million in the share sale, including 4.5 million shares to cover over-allotments.
GT Solar initially filed for a $200 million offering in April 2007. The company expects to trade on the Nasdaq under the symbol "SOLR."
Credit Suisse and UBS Investment Bank are the lead underwriters on the deal. All of the shares in the IPO are being sold by GT Solar.
According to its filing, the company said it will not receive any cash from the offering. All of the shares are being sold by parent GT Solar Holdings, with the net proceeds going toward a distribution to its shareholders.
GT Solar Holdings is controlled by GFI Energy Ventures, a private equity firm focused on the energy sector, and Oaktree Capital Management, a global alternative and non-traditional investment manager.
Earlier this year, Changzhou, China-based Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL) canceled plans to build a $1 billion polysilicon production plant using equipment from GT Solar, saying supplies of the material have become more available (see Trina Solar drops plans for polysilicon plant).
Trina said the two companies would continue to work together.
Maybe you should take the time to dig thru the reports the company filed with PINKSHEETS.
It appears some people involved with Beverage Creations(SEC Investigation) are also involved here.
Also, I can't account for about 9mm shares in PINKSHEET's numbers for float and o/s.
AIMHO.
3/18/2005 Amendment:
(b) Vacation Dividends. For each 100 shares of Class B Preferred Stock held on September 1 of each year the holder shall be issued a certificate for accomodations for the holder and a guest for 7 days, 6 nights at a Siren Resort property. Such certificates must be redeemed within one year of issuance and are subject to such conditions concerning reservations, transfer and other matters as may be established concerning such vacation dividends.
8k 2/22/05 also mentions Siren Fountain Of Youth and Siren Labs. Funny thing happened here. Jayme filed the 8K for Techlabs but signed it Eline Entertainment Group Inc.
SEC never saw the mistake. No wonder the Pinkies stay in business.
Another PACWEST wrong phone and address.
There is also Belmont Printing LLC.
Marcg: Your excuse does not hold water. I found it by clicking on the amendment, not the PDF. What's your answer now.
Are you pumping???
Castle, thank yuu. Would you believe someone would invest in a Penny and not be able to do basic DD?
I hope you don't have any money in this one.
Sorry, I'm an amateur at the computer, cannot cut and paste.
Perhaps you're looking at the wrong document number.
Search by Document number P96000035689.
Document number WO7000046685 will not show the amendments.
Can you find the 12/05/2007 amendment?
FL SOS:
9/25/07 Amendment:A/S increased to 500,000,000.
12/05/07 Amendment: A/S increased to 5,000,000,000.
Either my eyes are failing, or no one on this Board does any DD.
If you're investing in Pinkies, you must do your own DD.
GLTA.
Wondering if you checked out PACWEST TRANSFER yet.
Interesting story on Meuse, who is a princible in both Belmont Partners and PacWest Transfer, both located in Washington,VA. Until recently both were in the same bldg.
Since I posted this fact on MVBY Board, Pinksheets has changed address of PacWest from VA to 2510 Pines Road North,Suite 206B, Spokane Valley, Wa 99206.
411 has no listing for PacWest there.
Change of address for about 6 companies,
Hmm.
Sad but true.
If you read Post #149 you will probably be more concerned.
I don't believe the gang at MVBY are concerned about turning this around. 67,000,000 shares translates into big bucks. Or is it more shares by now?
All IMO.
Thanks for the info.:)
No. Wish I had. Will look at it.
My account shows EMC up 1.92 or 8.52%