Replies to post #264207 on MyECheck, Inc. (fka MYEC)

[DWIN17]

People can from their own opinions if the company is going into receivership.

Based upon the last filed financials, the company had about $5,000 in the bank, had approximately $5,000,000 in losses, and the CEO just said not to expect anything differently when the delinquent financials are filed.

Not sure how this $588,000 will be paid over the next 10 days.

We will know for sure soon.

[tjl5030]

His link also doesn't bring you anywhere but to the definition of a civil case lol. They try hard, give em that.

[mascale]

Was MEC acting to protect TCA judgment interests(?). TCA action causes do not claim zero revenue, only subsequent MEC reports to Dec 31, 2015. MEC response to the motion for a hearing is apparently unknown. MEC Facebook posts have asked about it.
Then anyone notes that even in real estate, receivers collect rents and make sure the rents keep coming in. If that doesn't happen, then owners can appeal the receivership. In the instant matter, at the hearing, apparently TCA has show a basis of how the previously dismissed lawsuit about assets precludes a value preserving transfer, if it happened; and as a hedge against MEC paying the judgment in full. That would come from the new revenue sources thought likely before, and now shown likely last week. Possibly MEC can be said to have acted to protect the TCA judgment(?), in the face of possible future proceedings. MEC likely had a calendar in mind, which it could not disclose to TCA(?).

[mascale]

Was MEC acting to preserve TCA interests given the judgment? TCA action causes do not allege zero revenue, only timely reporting of it, subsequent the filing for December 31, 2015. The response of MEC to the motion hearing is apparently unknown. Questions about it have also been posted at MEC Facebook. Even in real estate, however, the receiver collects rents, and assures they keep coming in. If they do not, then the owners can appeal to have the receivership removed. In the instant matter, TCA has to show how the previously dismissed lawsuit precludes MEC from acting to preserve any asset values in advance of the likely new revenue source--only last week now showing the new and satisfactory revenue source. MEC likely knew the calendar it could not disclose to TCA. The outcome is better said good faith creditor protection, not fraudulent conveyance(?), or however that is said(?).