Replies to post #55985 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[litton51]

People bailing out at one penny a share indicate a lot of confusion and apprehension. But don't forget, 98% of the total shares have not traded. Most people are just waiting to see what happens.

Don't forgot, it's tax time. How many shareholders need a write-off against their year's profits?

I have been involved with several other companies that went into receivership, but neither had any assets of value, let alone a patent worth a fortune.

[downsideup]

I think the typical expectation is receivership is close to ZERO communication... as the receiver typically has no obligation to anyone other than the court as he conducts the business he has to conduct, as he sees fit, while doing what he expects he needs to in a way the court expects and will approve.

I've seen receivership in more than a few cases, but, I've never seen one in which the judges' instructions came close to what we see in the current case...

I don't have any reason to question the receiver's decisions, if any have been made, not seeing much if any evidence of them...

I'd naturally have a concern about the quality of information he's dealing with... as he grapples with the issues.

And, I do have a concern re the 8K, and reason to be concerned about other things because of it... given I CAN see that.

It looks like the SEC issues will be addressed first... whether because the judge directed that, or because the SEC initiated that process, with a "negotiation" set to occur between the SEC and the receiver... either prior to, as a part of the process the SEC has set in motion, already, or as a result of dealing with it in the aftermath ?

Addressing that "first" doesn't mean other things will stop and wait for that process to occur... or for other things to be resolved. So, a lot of moving parts, still...

It appears to me the judges instructions don't anticipate obviating the requirements of the securities laws... and I can't see how it would work to maximize the benefit available to shareholders to cut them off from information they are REQUIRED to have under the securities laws... but, also are ENTITLED to have... as a function of their own rights. "Benefit" appears to me it cannot well survive elimination of "rights" or "entitlements" ?

And, as those issues are not purely financial... there is no ability to have them be subsumed by others financial claims ?

So, I guess I'd parse the nature of the risk as being one in which those with an obligation ensure they enforce the law... might run the risk of suppressing evidence of wrongdoing, or worse, were their actions to enable the avoiding of the responsibilities the law imposes... not just in ensuring those responsible DO meet their prior obligations in reporting PRIOR to dismissing them from those obligations in the future ?

I think shareholders might still rightly address their concerns to the SEC, as well as to the court... ???