quote:Originally posted by 6digits: jmoestinks, your conception is quite recent and unexpected, but I have to be honest and confess that I find it amusing. The way you described the stock picking method is a classic.
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I guess Dufus is now playing the squeeky wheel gets the grease logic by holding a meeting in D.C .He must really think that he's going to play this his way and just forget all about the pending suit against him with the SEC . There's no way some idiotic cowboy like Dufus is well connected with anyone of power . He doesn't even have an attorney ............ and I'm betting his broke off his a$$ .
I sure would like to hear from Sabra or Mitch right about now . I bet they have a hell of a story to tell .
He's broke? Have you been to his horse stables lmao..far from broke
-------------------- Disclaimer: Not accountable for anything I say Posts: 6266 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
anybody willing to give me a few-sentence summary of the latest developments? lol, last I was on-thread, we had discussion of keeping this thread DD & news only...
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: It appears that--since CSHD didn't show for the hearing--the judge has few options other than granting summary judgement.
Kinda like saying, well you can be right, or...um...wrong.
Tex, the judge/clerk can rule however they like, meaning they can take the SEC's motion from yesterday and say, "Ok, here ya go SEC here is your DEFAULT judgement". They can also say, "Here ya go SEC, you can take that motion and shove it sideways, where's the proof?".
This can go either way, we just have to WAIT and see what happens. No amount of "figgerin" can come up with a correct answer for now.
That is the way I see things at this point anyway.
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Kinda like saying, well you can be right, or...um...wrong.
Tex, the judge/clerk can rule however they like, meaning they can take the SEC's motion from yesterday and say, "Ok, here ya go SEC here is your DEFAULT judgement". They can also say, "Here ya go SEC, you can take that motion and shove it sideways, where's the proof?".
This can go either way, we just have to WAIT and see what happens. No amount of "figgerin" can come up with a correct answer at this point.
nope...
for one, "clerks" can't rule...
that is, I'll buy clerks' having an affect on the docket, and I'll even buy off on clerks having signed judges' names to rulings, presumably with the judge's consent. But a clerk's siggy is not gonna fly on a "ruling."
Now, gotta retrace: whether it's granted or requested, has *ANY* judgment been entered?
quote: Under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter a default against a defendant who “has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the rules,” when a failure to defend is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Indeed, the purpose of Rule 55(a) is to relieve the district judge of the obligation of reviewing applications for the entry of default. 6 James W. Moore et al. Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.03[1] n.16 (2d ed. 1992). Thus, the power to enter default is given to the Clerk. Based therefore on the previously filed return of service of summons establishing that Conversion was served through its agent for service of process on October 26, 2006, and the authority specifically granted to the Clerk by Rule 55(a), the Commission respectfully requests the Clerk enter a default against defendant Conversion Solutions forthwith.
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: anybody willing to give me a few-sentence summary of the latest developments? lol, last I was on-thread, we had discussion of keeping this thread DD & news only...
Obviously, I been outta pocket a few days...
Tex, Maybe this will help. Notice the top of the filing. There are 2 dates. 11/16/2006 and 12/04/2006. I'm no lawyer but it sure seems that 12/04 is the deadline before the defualt judgement could be entered. Like I said I'm not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night but why is the 12/04/2006 if it has no relevance.
Deadline/Hearing Event Filed 11/16/06 Due/Set 12/04/06 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. v. 1:06-CV-2568-CC
CONVERSION SOLUTIONS HOLDING CORPORATION and RUFUS PAUL HARRIS a/k/a PAUL RUFUS HARRIS,
Defendants.
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), plaintiff in the above-referenced matter, hereby applies to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an entry of default against defendant Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp (“Conversion”). Entry of default is sought against Conversion for failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by Rule 55(a).
In support of this application for entry of default against Conversion, the plaintiff has filed Conversion’s return of service. The return of service of process establishes that Conversion, through its registered agent for service of process, Harvard Business Services of Lewes, Delaware, was served with the summons, complaint, request for temporary restraining order, memorandum in support, proposed order, and other associated documents on October 26, 2006. The return of service of process was filed with this Court on November 16, 2006 and is now part of the record in this case. Conversion was obligated to file an answer to the complaint not later than November 15, 2006, but has not filed an answer as required by the federal rules. Since Conversion has not timely filed a response to the complaint, and has not sought an extension, the entry of default is now appropriate. Under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter a default against a defendant who “has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the rules,” when a failure to defend is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Indeed, the purpose of Rule 55(a) is to relieve the district judge of the obligation of reviewing applications for the entry of default. 6 James W. Moore et al. Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.03[1] n.16 (2d ed. 1992). Thus, the power to enter default is given to the Clerk. Based therefore on the previously filed return of service of summons establishing that Conversion was served through its agent for service of process on October 26, 2006, and the authority specifically granted to the Clerk by Rule 55(a), the Commission respectfully requests the Clerk enter a default against defendant Conversion Solutions forthwith.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ William P. Hicks William P. Hicks District Trial Counsel Georgia Bar No. 351649 /s/ Alana R. Black Alana R. Black Senior Trial Counsel Georgia Bar No. 785045 Counsel for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 3475 Lenox Road, N.E., Suite 1000 Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1232 Telephone: (404) 842-7600 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 16th day of November, 2006, I mailed by United States Postal Service the preceding Notice of Filing of Returns of Service to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Rufus Paul Harris a/k/a Paul Rufus Harris 383 Clear Creek Road, N.W. Adairsville, Georgia 30103-5934 Conversion Solutions Holdings Corporation c/o Registered Agent Harvard Business Services 16192 Coastal Highway Lewes, DE 19958
/s/ Alana R. Black Alana R. Black Counsel for Plaintiff Georgia Bar No. 785045 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Atlanta District Office 3475 Lenox Road, N. E., Suite 1000 Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1232 Tel. No. (404) 842-7678 blacka*sec.gov
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: ya, that's saying the deal appears to be a slam-dunk, therefore even the clerk can proceed.
When the defendant presents no defense? Why bother the judge? (But that's not a "ruling"--catch the distincion?)
Now...if it was a "default" that was entered? It could be the defendant's buying time...
I doubt anyone would be surprised if that's true.
[edited in] lol, don't change your post on me, bro!
anyway, you catch the drift, eh?
Thanks for the previous link...
The lawyer types say it is an easy feat to get the clerks entry set aside. So it's far from a slam dunk at this point. And from the looks of it Rufus may be finally ready to do something about it. We shall see.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this has been posted but if not here it is ... A letter from the committee to Rufus ...........
FIRST DRAFT:
Mr. Rufus Harris Chairman and CEO Conversion Solutions Holding Corporation Kennesaw, GA
Dear Mr. Harris,
As you are aware, Conversion Solutions Holding Corporation (CSHC) has an extremely loyal shareholder base formed primarily as the result of your efforts to provide us with the kind of insight and information rarely provided by Senior Executives of public corporations. I’m sure you are also aware that the shareholder base is formed of people from widely different backgrounds who have converged into a knowledgeable, passionate support structure for the company.
While this approach to the operation of CSHC is both refreshing and unique, it also creates issues for a CEO such as yourself who not only wants to bring great success to the company but also make good on promises made to shareholders regarding share price expectations and the timeline for achieving such success. As such, the events of the past month, beginning with the annual 10K filing, which first gave great tangible hope to shareholders but then followed by the SEC complaints, the suspension of trading, the demotion of the stock to the ‘grey sheets’, the purging of the management team rapidly followed by your return, have, in spite of massive efforts on the part of both you and the shareholder base, clearly tested shareholder loyalty as we have watched the share price plummet by 90% since resumption of trading on November 7.
Throughout this entire process the one constant belief in every shareholder’s mind is that we have invested in a company with real assets and a great business model for success. Without that belief it is likely that the shareholder base would have disintegrated long ago, but because of your efforts in building that solid understanding of the asset structure and the projected future for the company we have stood loyally behind you and the rest of the CSHC management team.
We applaud your interest in maintaining and building a close working relationship between CSHC and the shareholder base. The Shareholder’s Committee, an idea you developed and helped implement, will eventually be an influential voice that contribute to the long term success of the company and it will truly make CSHC a revolutionary organization in the U.S. economy.
We know that there are many issues facing you and the company that needed both attention and resolution to ensure our mutual success. Many of us have taken months out of our lives to research the company and analyze the events as they have unfolded. Although there are many opinions that are sometimes in conflict, it is clear that there are several shared universal goals: • We want the company to be successful and reward shareholders for their loyalty and patience. • We want the company to use its Asset base to make investments that help solve some of the pressing issues in the world • We want the success of the company to be a model for the evolution of the public companies into a true partnership between management and the shareholder base.
Another very important goal for many shareholders is the true leveling of the playing field so that emerging public companies have a better chance of avoiding the ‘death spiral’ often caused by highly dilutive financing and attacks by individuals and groups interested in profiting through the failure of a business.
The purpose of the above was to provide you with an overview of how many of your shareholders truly feel about CSHC as you prepare at this very crucial point in CSHC’s evolution; the shareholder conference call on November 18, 2006 seems to many of us to be the beginning of intense effort to bring the reverse merger of Conversion Solutions and FrontHaul Group to a successful conclusion and set the stage for the success all of us want to see.
At the same time, however, we are also frustrated by many of the events over the past few months and wanted to make our voices heard so that you could address these specific issues directly and hopefully clear the air so that shareholder confidence is both restored and enhanced. We decided as a group this evening, after the release of the November 17th Press Release announcing the Emergency Shareholder’s Meeting as well as the Shareholder’s Committee Conference call on November 18th to summarize our concerns and ask that you address each of them, hopefully as soon as the conference call later today. These issues include (they are broken down into several major issues):
SEC Complaint and Case: • The status of an Attorney being retained to represent CSHC in the case • The plan for reversal of the Default for non-response entered on November 17th • The goals and expectations for the successful conclusion of the case
Resumption of trading on a Regular Exchange • The plan for timely filings of the 10Q, amended 10K, S4 and other documents needed to complete the merger • The status and timetable for the filing of Form 15(C)-211 by sufficient Market Makers to enable the relisting of CSHC on the OTCBB or another Exchange such as NASDAQ or AMEX • The status and timetable for distribution of the 6 additional shares contained in the 10K filing for holders of record as of October 16, 2006 • The plan for bringing the Share Price to an acceptable level once trading resumes on a regular exchange.
Operation of the Business • The plan for staffing the Executive Management of CSHC • The status and plan for validating the Bond Assets through the hypothecation of one or more of the bonds • The status and plan for funding JVs per the original commitment to have at least 2 funded and operational by the end of 2006
There were many more questions posed by Shareholders but we believe that the above represents a summary of the key issues facing you and CSHC at this time.
In conclusion, we know you have a very difficult job in front of you but are hoping that you will choose a path that not only addresses our concerns but also creates a clear path to the success of the company without the bumps in the road encountered over the past few months. As much as each of us appreciates your candor when appearing on Subpenny Radio and other media outlets we would truly like to see CSHC begin to adopt some of the good practices of larger Public companies, including things such as: • Timely SEC filings • More discretion in sharing information that has not yet been provided in a Press Release announcing a material event • Create shareholder expectations that are consistent with CSHC’s ability to deliver results • A reduction in the somewhat adversarial way that regulatory agencies such as the SEC have been addressed
We think that taking all or some of the above advice would result in the continued support and loyalty of your shareholder base as well as contribute to both the short term and long term success of CSHC.
Again, we appreciate your interest and willingness to work closely with us and eagerly look forward to the Conference Call on November 18th and the Emergency Annual Shareholder’s Meeting on December 17th.
Sincerely,
The CSHC Shareholder’s Group
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doc -- nice letter. If I may be so bold as to suggest not only requesting the status of the attorney but name and background. Also don't forget to inquire about status and plan of validating the Duestche (sp?) Bank relationship. Since that relationship was one of the four areas mentioned in the tro, I thought that might be a key issue.
Also, at the conference call will someone ask for the details and reason for an emergency meeting?
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS -- the response to this letter of "all of this will be discussed in 30 days at the emergency meeting" should not, and I mean should not, be acceptable to the shareholders. I visualize this happening, so let's head it off at the pass.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
