hoosays: he didn't say who HyperSquared: The SHC sent someone to pickup the files and computers.
HyperSquared: Dogman said that n00b_101_1: who said ? n00b_101_1: lol n00b_101_1: rufus got owned hoosays: rufus said last night n00b_101_1: thats awsome hoosays: he didn't say if they got them though
stock_prophet: wow stock_prophet: you can't just pick up computers HyperSquared: Yes, but later Dog posed the question in the room because he did not hear Rufus say that stock_prophet: unless you are FBI stock_prophet: and/or have a warrant aleemm: come on 75 texasspanky: or you own them HyperSquared: If you have Rufus full cooperation you can SP aleemm: hmm sbtrader: aleemm what's your target hoosays: exactly, rufus didn't say if he gave them what they wanted or not
posted
I hope RUFUS goes to JAIL IF he misled share holders, and i wish him a very crapy birthday, hope he gets diarhea for a week from his birthday cake!!
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Chart, you think Rufus's wife was in a good mood because they got paid? heh
Do you realize how easy it is for any govt organization to determine how Rufus and family suddenly received a ton of money out of thin air? Come onnnnn, think about that. And, if he was "bought out" legitimately? He would NOT have come on subpenny last night to bring a spotlight back on him.
Rufus's wife was happy last night because it was her husbands birthday and they were celebrating it without and taking their minds off of CSHD for a day. Thats my opinion
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
hope all the members of the share holders committee have good lawyers! they will probably need them!!
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by madmoney: hope all the members of the share holders committee have good lawyers! they will probably need them!!
Now thats a statement! SHC, take the advice you tried to give Rufus to heart yourselves.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you take your mind off of CSHD for a day by going on to SPR and talking about it for hours?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me ask you this then...if it was your B-Day and you had guests over to celebrate, would your wife let you leave the party for about an hour and a half to go play with Simon on SPR when you were not the CEO anymore?
Don't know about you guys, but my hot blooded Greek wife would not be too happy about that. So...why was she in a good mood?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: So Chart, you think Rufus's wife was in a good mood because they got paid? heh
Do you realize how easy it is for any govt organization to determine how Rufus and family suddenly received a ton of money out of thin air? Come onnnnn, think about that. And, if he was "bought out" legitimately? He would NOT have come on subpenny last night to bring a spotlight back on him.
Rufus's wife was happy last night because it was her husbands birthday and they were celebrating it without and taking their minds off of CSHD for a day. Thats my opinion
-------------------- "If you go the Extra Mile there will be no Traffic Jams".
St. Matthew Posts: 885 | From: Dallas, Texas | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by St. Matthew: Let me ask you this then...if it was your B-Day and you had guests over to celebrate, would your wife let you leave the party for about an hour and a half to go play with Simon on SPR when you were not the CEO anymore?
Don't know about you guys, but my hot blooded Greek wife would not be too happy about that. So...why was she in a good mood?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: So Chart, you think Rufus's wife was in a good mood because they got paid? heh
Do you realize how easy it is for any govt organization to determine how Rufus and family suddenly received a ton of money out of thin air? Come onnnnn, think about that. And, if he was "bought out" legitimately? He would NOT have come on subpenny last night to bring a spotlight back on him.
Rufus's wife was happy last night because it was her husbands birthday and they were celebrating it without and taking their minds off of CSHD for a day. Thats my opinion
Someone go ask John if he read Section 8 of the By-Laws listed in the most recent 10KSBA
Section 8. RESIGNATIONAND REMOVAL: Any director may resign at any time by giving notice to another Board member, the President or the Secretary of the corporation. Unless otherwise specified in such written notice, such resignation shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the Board or by such officer and the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Any director may be removed with or without cause at any time by the affirmative vote of shareholders holding of record in the aggregate at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose, and may be removed for cause by action of the Board.
John is NOT legal at this point.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think I can agree with you, but I also believe it was done because Rufus was sitting on his azz and we were about to default to the SEC.
The party was ALMOST over!! Everyone here would have LOST ALL THEIR MONEY.
And for what?!! --we have the dang bonds!
-That idiot! (Rufus)
Because of that I think God John did step in, and hope to God he stays!
My first post of today was that John wants to redo the SHC the right way, with proper voting. Trouble is we had Rufus riding his horses around TANKING US. SOMETHING had to be done...
posted
Wow, there is a whole new brand of Koolaide being passed around these days.
I have some work to do. I'll check back later, maybe something a little more concrete will surface soon.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and if one more person says "Arlitt honored the 6:1 and Rufus couldnt manage to do it" gets a cyber slap! Until i see the 6:1 in my account thats a false statement
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am not a lawyer and I have to admit legal speak makes my head spin, but it sounds to me like it WAS legit.
There is no mention of the SHC here...its says "the affirmative vote of shareholders holding of record in the aggregate at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation at a special meeting of the shareholders".
Does that not mean that a group of shareholders (not all shareholders) can pull together their 51% shares and vote him out?
Any lawyers in the house?
shareholders
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: bump... (What no comments?)
Someone go ask John if he read Section 8 of the By-Laws listed in the most recent 10KSBA
Section 8. RESIGNATIONAND REMOVAL: Any director may resign at any time by giving notice to another Board member, the President or the Secretary of the corporation. Unless otherwise specified in such written notice, such resignation shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the Board or by such officer and the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Any director may be removed with or without cause at any time by the affirmative vote of shareholders holding of record in the aggregate at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose, and may be removed for cause by action of the Board.
John is NOT legal at this point.
-------------------- "If you go the Extra Mile there will be no Traffic Jams".
St. Matthew Posts: 885 | From: Dallas, Texas | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chart ~ I do not know how much of what you just said was fact? From MY perspective I would say it appeared to be a good estimate, but we really do not know for sure.
"The party was ALMOST over!!" - Do we really know? I read something posted from Pacer yesterday that the Default was "Terminated" a day after it was filed.
"Everyone here would have LOST ALL THEIR MONEY." - I heard rumors of merger, I heard rumors of judgements being "terminated", I even heard rumors of bonds being drawn, and MM's. the only thing I did not hear but was expecting since I saw nothing concrete in the SEC case was a rumor of the SEC throwing in the towel.
"Because of that I think God John did step in, and hope to God he stays!" - Really? He was your first choice? I would have thought we could have found someone a bit better. Frankly, I spend way too much time on these boards, but I know I read them just as much as Tut did because he did exactly what everyone was screaming about, and in a few short days. (The squeaky wheel gets the grease.) Now what? Romeo Vindetti seemed to be extreemly important to the company, Rufas has obviuosly got a few ties to the bonds and Ben S. has some ties to the Business plan too. What is John going to do without them? Hook up with MA and sell the Carbon Credits and float some dead trees? We were all talking Conglomerate, Holdings company that can take deposits and possibly provide insurance to the subs. I am very nervous that John does not know what he has gotten himself into.
This is a falling stack of dominoes right now, and John IMO is going to slip-up just as bad if not worse than Rufus if he is not carful and extreemly quick.
I wish him luck but this is not a good start. He needed to have Rufas on board and he couldn't wait. Patience is as powerful in business as it is in trading.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the simple fact is that common share holders ( us! ) almost NEVER hold a controlling interest, officers and directors hold the majority of the voting stock.
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chart walker: Taxback...
I think I can agree with you, but I also believe it was done because Rufus was sitting on his azz and we were about to default to the SEC.
The party was ALMOST over!! Everyone here would have LOST ALL THEIR MONEY.
And for what?!! --we have the dang bonds!
-That idiot! (Rufus)
Because of that I think God John did step in, and hope to God he stays!
My first post of today was that John wants to redo the SHC the right way, with proper voting. Trouble is we had Rufus riding his horses around TANKING US. SOMETHING had to be done...
Look at the charts, were was our PPS going?
"SOUTH!"
Ok. I can agree that something needed to be done. I have posted that an answer to the court was of utmost importance.
What is driving me crazy is that John Arlitt, didn't bother to do it legally. IMO, he has put us in another Jackpot. Not the type that pays out.
Here's my questions to John:
1) Have the attorney's you hired answered the courts?
2) Did you check with the NASD and SEC regarding the 6 for 1 Threshold Price reset?
3) Why is there so much secrecy about the Shareholders meeting. Aren't all shareholder's required to recieve the same information as the select few?
4) Why were some shareholders allowed to participate in the vote, even though they were not a part of the shareholder's committee and other's not notified?
5) Did Mike Alexander, Rufus, Ben, Sabra vote?
I hope John knows what he is doing.
Even though I don't believe that Rufus was correct in his handling of the current situation, I do have problems with people that think he doesn't deserve anything for his work. Afterall, He and Ben are the ones that have worked on this for years. If not for their work there would be no company to fight over.
I'm just not ready to annoint John Arlitt as the saviour. He needs to do more than hire a Law Firm, put out an 8K and state that the 6 for 1 will be honored. I know he hasn't been in the position very long.
Time will Tell.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: Oh, and if one more person says "Arlitt honored the 6:1 and Rufus couldnt manage to do it" gets a cyber slap! Until i see the 6:1 in my account thats a false statement
-------------------- "If you go the Extra Mile there will be no Traffic Jams".
St. Matthew Posts: 885 | From: Dallas, Texas | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it looks like we went with the lesser of two evils... GREAT!
Who here heard Rufus last night? Wth was that?!
Rufus actually said that the company (under him) would fold but that we would get our share value from a lawsuit when this is over.. "?"
The SOB doesn't have a lawyer now!!!!!!!!!!! WAIT for some pretend trail that's going to pay out millions to cover us all? STFU Rufus ~
Rufus just BROKE my Bullchit meter with that lie! He won't "spend" money for a lawyer now, you think he will for some BS like that?!!
Rufus says: A tally of BS... read for yourself. -Rufus doesn't want to hire a lawyer because the SEC will press charges either way? --That's WHY you GET a lawyer!!
-our "value" will come from some FUTURE lawsuit?!! riiiiiight!
Seeing how well he's dealing with THIS lawsuit.... riiiiiight again!
He comes back, there will be a massive dumping of shares....
I wasted enough of my life waiting for nothing, and that's just what he was doing, NOTHING!!!
posted
Don;t forget THIS section...and DEL law appears to designate shareholder privs tothe bylaws FIRST.
Section 8. CONSENT IN LIEU OF MEETINGS: Any action required to be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders of a corporation, or any action which may be taken at any annual or special meeting of such stockholders, may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted. Prompt notice of the taking of the corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written consent shall be given to those stockholders who have not consented in writing.
quote:Originally posted by St. Matthew: Tax,
I am not a lawyer and I have to admit legal speak makes my head spin, but it sounds to me like it WAS legit.
There is no mention of the SHC here...its says "the affirmative vote of shareholders holding of record in the aggregate at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation at a special meeting of the shareholders".
Does that not mean that a group of shareholders (not all shareholders) can pull together their 51% shares and vote him out?
Any lawyers in the house?
shareholders
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: bump... (What no comments?)
Someone go ask John if he read Section 8 of the By-Laws listed in the most recent 10KSBA
Section 8. RESIGNATIONAND REMOVAL: Any director may resign at any time by giving notice to another Board member, the President or the Secretary of the corporation. Unless otherwise specified in such written notice, such resignation shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the Board or by such officer and the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Any director may be removed with or without cause at any time by the affirmative vote of shareholders holding of record in the aggregate at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose, and may be removed for cause by action of the Board.
John is NOT legal at this point.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
St. Matt ~ no disrespect but did you just skip over this part of the paragraph.
"at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose"
This is not some closed door function of the primary holders. It is public, it is set-up by proxy, and it includes every shareholder of record. Not to do so violates the injunction.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read my post above...IANAL...but I appears if you have the required number to carry a vote be the requiremnent 20% or 51% you can just do it.
Opinions?
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: St. Matt ~ no disrespect but did you just skip over this part of the paragraph.
"at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose"
This is not some closed door function of the primary holders. It is public, it is set-up by proxy, and it includes every shareholder of record. Not to do so violates the injunction.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Section 8. CONSENT IN LIEU OF MEETINGS: Any action required to be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders of a corporation, or any action which may be taken at any annual or special meeting of such stockholders, may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted. Prompt notice of the taking of the corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written consent shall be given to those stockholders who have not consented in writing.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Portman ~ Ok reading the CONSENT IN LIEU OF MEETINGS I can see "may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting"
This is a very important clause. If this ever goes to court I feel the definition of "unanimous" is really going to be in question.
Do we have a Lawyer in the house that can address this?
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree with what you are saying...I'm on your side here. I'm upset about the way this has played out also. But where does it say "all" shareholders?
I'm thinking a "special" meeting was indeed called...only it was too "special" for all to attend. You don't suppose this was actually done at the "special" shareholder meeting that was held a couple of Saturdays ago and just was not played out until now.
This might explain the confidentiality agreements that they all had to sign. This might also explain why TonySoprano wanted no part of it. I mean none of the shareholders that attended that call were talking about anything...not even small talk. It's like they just disappeared until this happened...like they knew it was coming.
I just can't help but think John Arlitt would know a little something about something like this before he allowed it. I mean...we are already talking about a company with the Hubble telescope on it from the SEC (and others). You would think / hope everything is being done by the book at this point.
Matthew
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: St. Matt ~ no disrespect but did you just skip over this part of the paragraph.
"at a special meeting of the shareholders called for that purpose"
This is not some closed door function of the primary holders. It is public, it is set-up by proxy, and it includes every shareholder of record. Not to do so violates the injunction.
-------------------- "If you go the Extra Mile there will be no Traffic Jams".
St. Matthew Posts: 885 | From: Dallas, Texas | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: So Chart, you think Rufus's wife was in a good mood because they got paid? heh
Do you realize how easy it is for any govt organization to determine how Rufus and family suddenly received a ton of money out of thin air? Come onnnnn, think about that. And, if he was "bought out" legitimately? He would NOT have come on subpenny last night to bring a spotlight back on him.
Rufus's wife was happy last night because it was her husbands birthday and they were celebrating it without and taking their minds off of CSHD for a day. Thats my opinion
IF, he did get greased, he isn't going to have someone dump a bunch of money into his account, come on!...
Even his house is in a trust! He knows the game FAR to well from taking the heat with BBAN, deals with world banks, ha ~ you won't find a DIME!
On paper he'll look dirt poor... -oh wait, on paper he DOES look dirt poor, yet google earth his home, I see a pool! -not dirt ~
I'm not a John fan btw, or trying to say he can do no wrong, but Rufus did nothing right...
But I do feel that it was the best option, the other was we loose our money, -what's to think about???
With John we have a shot I believe, he has addressed issues like the doc mentioned and is putting things into order AND has HIRED legal council to get the SEC off our back, AMEN I say ~
Thanks John for doing Rufus' job!
Why Rufus didn't do that is beyond me, hence the Rufus got paid off theory!
How else does any of that make sense?????? "really"
posted
hey my favorite show on VH1 is on I love the __'s watching 1990 now...someday somebodys gonna turn around and make you wanna say goodbye... can you hold oooon for one more day... la la la break free from the chainsss haha .33 weeeeeeeeeee
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chart, why Rufus didnt act as you just commented is exactly the question you should be asking. I think you are on to something! I dont think you will find the answer yet though.
Now i understand the "Stand before me and you will live, stand behind me and you shall perish" comment. Tut has been trying to rally a following for quite some time now. If he was super qualified for the position i wonder why he didnt just come forward and say so. Hmmmm, interesting indeed.
Arlitt already lost 2 people from his little secret society, how many more will fall in the coming days?
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
