posted
If MM are'nt involved right now, than who is conducting the trades that are going on, anybody have input for that?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CRab: Right Surfer...and I'm not sure if anyone saw...but last night Rufus mentioned Venditti owns(yes, OWNS) two banks...
Mentioned it yes, but did he provide any way we can see that for ourselves? Id like to DD that later (cant right now) but if he OWNED 2 banks wouldnt we know it by now? He was on the 8k back in what...July?! We tore that thing apart i dont ever recall anyone saying "Sweet one of our officers owns 2 banks!".
posted
Here is some information I found out by talking with SEC att. Alana Black a few minutes ago:
--The SEC could not halt the trading of the stock after the 10-day suspension was lifted. It is law that the SEC can't delist a stock w/o a court proceeding. The company management would have known this.
--Now it is like any other court case where the plaintiff has to prove and defandant has to disprove.
--The company has two options. Either file a motion to dismiss and show cause or file a motion that answer's the SEC charges (which by the way are not all of the charges the SEC has against the company. These are the ones they believe they have the proof to prove. If the SEC would have put all the charges in the complaint, it would have made it harder to try if one of the charges couldn't be proved.)
--If the company does not file anything soon (don't know any dates yet), the SEC will file a default agreement and would then have the ability to delist the stock.
--She indicated that the SEC has learned alot more through discovery and deposing witnesses which would, as Milliam indicated, why they felt positive about their case.
Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Here is some information I found out by talking with SEC att. Alana Black a few minutes ago:
--The SEC could not halt the trading of the stock after the 10-day suspension was lifted. It is law that the SEC can't delist a stock w/o a court proceeding. The company management would have known this.
--Now it is like any other court case where the plaintiff has to prove and defandant has to disprove.
--The company has two options. Either file a motion to dismiss and show cause or file a motion that answer's the SEC charges (which by the way are not all of the charges the SEC has against the company. These are the ones they believe they have the proof to prove. If the SEC would have put all the charges in the complaint, it would have made it harder to try if one of the charges couldn't be proved.)
--If the company does not file anything soon (don't know any dates yet), the SEC will file a default agreement and would then have the ability to delist the stock.
--She indicated that the SEC has learned alot more through discovery and deposing witnesses which would, as Milliam indicated, why they felt positive about their case.
Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
FWIW
Someone want to forward this to Mike A. VIA dogmando. This might give him an outline. LOL
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Here is some information I found out by talking with SEC att. Alana Black a few minutes ago:
FWIW
some of the things that you mentioned? Seems that CSHD is moving forward with providing that...AND? Seems the SEC would not take the Depo from the Euro...as being accurate...so euro is now "lieing" for CSHD?
Also the info about Fidelity? shouldn't that have been made public via Pacer...if it was true? Regardless if it was on the CVSU site?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good, now I'm giving legal advice lmao. You know what you have with 100 attorneys chained together at the bottom of the river???? A good start.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
I don't understand this statement- Fidelity stated that they owned the bond not Conversion?
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just talked with alana and she is supposed to email me a copy of the filed public document. Do you want me to cut and paste? It might be lengthy.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Here is some information I found out by talking with SEC att. Alana Black a few minutes ago:
FWIW
some of the things that you mentioned? Seems that CSHD is moving forward with providing that...AND? Seems the SEC would not take the Depo from the Euro...as being accurate...so euro is now "lieing" for CSHD?
Also the info about Fidelity? shouldn't that have been made public via Pacer...if it was true? Regardless if it was on the CVSU site?
10 ya thats how it sounds like every one involved is supposed to be lying for Conversion.Where did these guys get this vendetta?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
I don't understand this statement- Fidelity stated that they owned the bond not Conversion?
The deal with Fidelity: Fidelity could own coupons on the bond but does not necessarily mean they own the bond...see the difference..IMO the SEC does not have a handle on how to interpret the information from the Fidelity deposition...This was also explained by Rufus on one of the marathon interviews...
Posts: 559 | From: MN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going out on a very shaky limb here, and this is completely speculative....
Is there any connection between Fidelity Investments and a brokerage house or MM that could be short in this position? Is there any monetary reason they could have for saying something to imply the bonds are theirs without actually saying they were (to avoid lying about it)....???
(Edit: I like mnvestor's post better...)
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully we'll get to see the actual language shortly. I am in and out of meetings but will check my email as often as I can.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
I don't understand this statement- Fidelity stated that they owned the bond not Conversion?
The deal with Fidelity: Fidelity could own coupons on the bond but does not necessarily mean they own the bond...see the difference..IMO the SEC does not have a handle on how to interpret the information from the Fidelity deposition...This was also explained by Rufus on one of the marathon interviews...
I think that some are confused on how the bonds work...I still am not clear...but this is a guess...maybe someone that is familiar with it could explain...it better..BUT
I look at it as me(fidelity)owning shares in CSHD(the bond)but I don't own the bond...I own shares...now I can't take a loan or draw funds on this CSHD stock (the bond)..BUT...Mike A and company can draw a loan on CSHD(the bond)...
Is this even remoteley close?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Alana said that the company made statements that all documents would be available on the company's website, but left out some key ones like the affidavit from Fidelty Investments that they actually owned a major portion of some of the bonds mentioned.
I don't understand this statement- Fidelity stated that they owned the bond not Conversion?
The deal with Fidelity: Fidelity could own coupons on the bond but does not necessarily mean they own the bond...see the difference..IMO the SEC does not have a handle on how to interpret the information from the Fidelity deposition...This was also explained by Rufus on one of the marathon interviews...
I think that some are confused on how the bonds work...I still am not clear...but this is a guess...maybe someone that is familiar with it could explain...it better..BUT
I look at it as me(fidelity)owning shares in CSHD(the bond)but I don't own the bond...I own shares...now I can't take a loan or draw funds on this CSHD stock (the bond)..BUT...Mike A and company can draw a loan on CSHD(the bond)...
posted
Surf - It does look like some sort of race- one column may be the year they won, another column is there age group & another column could be there sponsor or "team"....
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 ~ wv1973 is right the Digital Island web site that had the documents posted and that Rufus used as a source to put links on the site. Did not show all the exhibits in the case.
The declaration from Fidelity is in there. I will say that since that is from a free trading portion of the portfolio it does not mean much at all. Alana obviously knows very little about bond portfolios, and is going to get herself in a bind if she doesn't speed up her progress on the learning curve involved.
It is one thing to base a portion of your case on a declaration of fact, it is another to base your entire case on a declaration of fact that does not necessarily proove the opposition wrong.
Basically a VP from Fidelity declared that he owned approximately 38% of the bond durring the time in question. But if there were multiple $500M dollar issues in the same bond and one was free trading and one was privately owned. You would not see it from the Free trading world.
Study up SEC... we have.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
