posted
To me the SEC is coming across like they want to run the company their way. I'm very curious to hear what defense lawters would have to say about it.
quote:Originally posted by trade04:
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I keep getting the idea that the SEC is stepping way over their bounds with this. The crap that Conversion should have to sell the bonds is ludicrous or are they just wise azzez that are trying to mock that Rufus said that CSHD owns the bonds, therefore the freedom to sell them.
this is the most interesting/baffling thing ive heard all day
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I keep getting the idea that the SEC is stepping way over their bounds with this. The crap that Conversion should have to sell the bonds is ludicrous or are they just wise azzez that are trying to mock that Rufus said that CSHD owns the bonds, therefore the freedom to sell them.
this is the most interesting/baffling thing ive heard all day
FWIW, Take everything Rufie says with a grain of salt....
grain of salt, got it. I make a motion that we hear some solid secnd opinions real soon. Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I keep getting the idea that the SEC is stepping way over their bounds with this. The crap that Conversion should have to sell the bonds is ludicrous or are they just wise azzez that are trying to mock that Rufus said that CSHD owns the bonds, therefore the freedom to sell them.
this is the most interesting/baffling thing ive heard all day
posted
With all the smart traders here who can't figure this mess out, it may be simpliar then we think. It just could be we are in this mess because our company officers are stupid, and we aren't closed down because the SEC is incompetent. Could be that simple....
-------------------- If you repeat a lie often enough it is perceived as truth Posts: 478 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 3403: With all the smart traders here who can't figure this mess out, it may be simpliar then we think. It just could be we are in this mess because our company officers are stupid, and we aren't closed down because the SEC is incompetent. Could be that simple....
no the company was/is incompetent and the SEC is criminal..
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
yes please someone confirm or deny this...
now if rufus sells all the bonds...what does conversion/shareholders get out of it, if anything?
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
Let me get this straight...
You're not sure what you heard...but you think it involved a former SHC person ( a member of a group with unproven legitmacy ) being quoted second-hand to the effect that the SEC was pressuring the former CEO to sell something, said something the SEC questions in the first place...
posted
Trade, I know I did hear Rufus say that the sec. told him if he draws on the bonds , its fraud and if he doesn't , its fraud. RPH said he's in a box because of this. I should have done my DD on SPR again before saying things that may or may not be true , but sense the subject was brought up , thought I'd ask.
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
yes please someone confirm or deny this...
now if rufus sells all the bonds...what does conversion/shareholders get out of it, if anything?
not following how the "former CEO" is in such a position...
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
Let me get this straight...
You're not sure what you heard...but you think it involved a former SHC person ( a member of a group with unproven legitmacy ) being quoted second-hand to the effect that the SEC was pressuring the former CEO to sell something, said something the SEC questions in the first place...
is that accurate?
Oh boy, I should have re-listened before asking. I thought I heard Simon say that and thought it was rather odd. Just wondered if anyone else heard that?
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
yes please someone confirm or deny this...
now if rufus sells all the bonds...what does conversion/shareholders get out of it, if anything?
not following how the "former CEO" is in such a position...
Tex, It was my understanding that this was said while Rufus was ceo, and I'm very confused , Who is our ceo? John or Rufus? I think a pr. from someone in this company needs done asap, to stop alot of this.IMO
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few people are thinking like me as to how we got here... maybe a little reasoning to the madness.
++++++++++++++++++
Rufus: We control a pile of bonds bigger than the GDP of many countries.
SEC: No way. That seems impossible. Show us the money.
Rufus: Well, I can't show you the money but I can show you the account they are in. This account has huge initialization requirements and should at least indicate that my claim is not all that wild.
SEC: Hey, that Euroclear thing is pretty neat. We've never seen that before.
Rufus: You bet your britches its sweet. Its where the big boys play on the global market.
SEC: OK, we'll give you a star but you're not done yet. You said you control the bonds. Go and pull down some credit against them and prove they are really yours.
Rufus: That's not in our busines plan just yet. We need to wait until our first JV is ready to accept the money.
SEC: Do it or else.
Rufus: OK, here is a chunk of money backed by the assets in the Euroclear account. Happy?
SEC: Unbelievable! We never thought you would be able to do that. Ummm...
Rufus: Can I go now. I need to go talk to Simon and tell everyone we are "Ready to Roll".
SEC: Not so fast Little Fella. You said you controlled BILLIONS of dollars in bonds. We want you to show us all of those assets.
Rufus: I can't do that. The bonds are private so you can't see them, and I can't monetize that amount right now because there is no where to put the money yet; it will be done in time just like the other chunk I showed you.
SEC: Makes sense, but... NO DICE! Sell/hypothecate the bonds, all of them, or we will consider you a fraud.
Rufus: I just can't do that. So the only way you will let the company off the hook is is we draw down all of our future potential credit, thereby assuming so much interest that the company will be sunk anyway if it cannot turn those assets around quickly enough?
++++++++++++++++++
In a series of events like this, no one is really wrong. The real hurdle might be te inability of the SEC to see the bonds due to an agreement Rufus signed with the issuer. I don't believe the SEC is intentionally screwing us over, but they seem to be overstepping their jurisdiction in expecting to see, with full tranparency, every minute detail of an asset issued in a foreign market and stored in a foreign institution.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
Ocqueoc Simon was talking to ntnabguy from hsm when he got a pm from James G.This could be a different guy than your thinking of.Simon quoted James pm as saying the only way the SEC would have been satisfied that it was not fraud is if they sold the actual bond.A drawdown on the asset wasn't good enough.Remember we can't be sure where this guy got his info.
-------------------- That money talks I'll not deny, I heard it once, It said "GOOD BUY" Posts: 30 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
there was 19 million dollars in a/r on the last quarters audited financials. what has been done to collect it and what has been done to use the 19 million dollars to execute any part of a business plan? bonds or no bonds it seems funny that with 19 million in receivables they can't hire anyone or get anything funded. if the a/r are real then they can factor them to get cash today.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me! Posts: 950 | From: Middle of Nowhere, Missouri | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I'm glad someone else heard the part about sec.wanting Rufus to sell the bonds , for proof it wasn;t fraud, but and I say this carefully because I have not listened to SRP a second time, but I would of sworn that after Rufus hung up his phone, Simon was talking to another caller and said something like, a message has came thru from James Gee stating that the sec.wanted Rufus to sell the bonds, please don't yell at me.yes, I should listen again. Just thought someone else heard this and can confirm or deny. I do not have SPR interview on hand. Thanks and GLTA
Ocqueoc Simon was talking to ntnabguy from hsm when he got a pm from James G.This could be a different guy than your thinking of.Simon quoted James pm as saying the only way the SEC would have been satisfied that it was not fraud is if they sold the actual bond.A drawdown on the asset wasn't good enough.Remember we can't be sure where this guy got his info.
"Remember we can't be sure where this guy got his info."
quote:Originally posted by humble: A few people are thinking like me as to how we got here... maybe a little reasoning to the madness.
++++++++++++++++++
Rufus: We control a pile of bonds bigger than the GDP of many countries.
SEC: No way. That seems impossible. Show us the money.
Rufus: Well, I can't show you the money but I can show you the account they are in. This account has huge initialization requirements and should at least indicate that my claim is not all that wild.
SEC: Hey, that Euroclear thing is pretty neat. We've never seen that before.
Rufus: You bet your britches its sweet. Its where the big boys play on the global market.
SEC: OK, we'll give you a star but you're not done yet. You said you control the bonds. Go and pull down some credit against them and prove they are really yours.
Rufus: That's not in our busines plan just yet. We need to wait until our first JV is ready to accept the money.
SEC: Do it or else.
Rufus: OK, here is a chunk of money backed by the assets in the Euroclear account. Happy?
SEC: Unbelievable! We never thought you would be able to do that. Ummm...
Rufus: Can I go now. I need to go talk to Simon and tell everyone we are "Ready to Roll".
SEC: Not so fast Little Fella. You said you controlled BILLIONS of dollars in bonds. We want you to show us all of those assets.
Rufus: I can't do that. The bonds are private so you can't see them, and I can't monetize that amount right now because there is no where to put the money yet; it will be done in time just like the other chunk I showed you.
SEC: Makes sense, but... NO DICE! Sell/hypothecate the bonds, all of them, or we will consider you a fraud.
Rufus: I just can't do that. So the only way you will let the company off the hook is is we draw down all of our future potential credit, thereby assuming so much interest that the company will be sunk anyway if it cannot turn those assets around quickly enough?
++++++++++++++++++
In a series of events like this, no one is really wrong. The real hurdle might be te inability of the SEC to see the bonds due to an agreement Rufus signed with the issuer. I don't believe the SEC is intentionally screwing us over, but they seem to be overstepping their jurisdiction in expecting to see, with full tranparency, every minute detail of an asset issued in a foreign market and stored in a foreign institution.
... In My humble Opinion
Very nice Humble.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: lol, creative, for sure...
Well, in contrast to the information we have this seem to be plausible. The alternative spin:
A couple of guys spent years setting up a play, gained access to a high-end international clearing institution and then sat back and did nothing at all while the SEC rammed them into the ground, thereby giving all they had worked for to others.
Now THAT story sounds too bizarre to be true.
There are so many unknown things that could have been going on behind the scenes - too many threads that just never tied together. I personally just don't buy that the information we know (or have attempted to deduce) is the whole truth. I am still holding this stock because I am interested in seeing the bigger picture; and I hope we as investors don't somehow muddle that up.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most bizarre thing I see...that is absolute...is the fact that THE PUBLIC still doesn't even know what the SEC wants...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CRab: The most bizarre thing I see...that is absolute...is the fact that THE PUBLIC still doesn't even know what the SEC wants...
I wonder if the SEC even knows that....or if they are just making it up as they go along.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ocqueoc, I heard the same thing on SPR that you heard. If they want that from Conversion they should require it from every other company too. I'd like to hear what there grounds are for that kind of order. Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: John Arlitt is the CEO. As I understand it by more than 51% of the majority shareholders as validated by the TA per the Corporate BYLAWS.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Ocq, these seem like legit concerns to me...
(", and I'm very confused , Who is our ceo? John or Rufus? I think a pr. from someone in this company needs done asap, to stop alot of this.IMO ")
Perhaps Mark can address some?
As I understand it, the SHC exists to facilitate such questions...
Thanks Portman, I'm still confused about who the 51% is, but I think alot of people are. I will watch this play out and wish everyone good luck!
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
