It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Just like a good illusionist, Rufus continually provides enough distraction so that many lose sight of not just the facts but why they originally took a position in this stock.
Not one thing that Rufus has promised has come true. Not one projected date for Proxy, PACER or any other event he has put out there was completed when he said or never happened at all.
Seems he would rather have people talk of conspiracy, DUI's, Foal naming contests, dogs getting shot and horse's dying and being taken away than do anything positive.
The ironic part is that for the most part it has worked.
I doubt I'll even be able to believe it when I see. I'd be afraid I ws actually looking at a mirage.
Wally
Damn I can't believe you actually posted that !!!
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Yes tex...I remember discussing that...BUT RPH was not claiming it as a "Divvy"...therefore...Nasd didn't need to be notified...because the term Divvy was not used...and for the life of me...I can't remember what "they" called it...it's in the PR and filing from October...
harris *seemed* to be invoking "tax-free reorg" rules-- who knows exactly what the claim was? -- but even at that, companies traditionally have been limited to either types "A," "B," or "C" reorgs...
lately, past few years? several months? dunno... but sometime "recently" sub-types through "G" have been added, as I recall.
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: Yeah Tex, that's one thing that has bugged me the most in all this. There just CAN'T be a 6:1. It was never poperly filed, and you can't just back date somethign like that. I'm not sure why so many people are STILL talking about it. If anyone can find one example of it ever happening, I may soften my stance, but I'd be willing to bet anyone with heavy odds that if a 6:1 happens, it won't be as of some point in the past.
PC, harris promoted this angle as "not-divvy"
see other posts for "tax-free reorg" implications.
Also, have heard harris say on SPR that SEC/NASD considered it a divvy, therefore subject to those regs.
If it were me? I would clear that up IMMEDIATELY so that folks were not investing on *my* interpretation...
It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Just like a good illusionist, Rufus continually provides enough distraction so that many lose sight of not just the facts but why they originally took a position in this stock.
Not one thing that Rufus has promised has come true. Not one projected date for Proxy, PACER or any other event he has put out there was completed when he said or never happened at all.
Seems he would rather have people talk of conspiracy, DUI's, Foal naming contests, dogs getting shot and horse's dying and being taken away than do anything positive.
The ironic part is that for the most part it has worked.
I doubt I'll even be able to believe it when I see. I'd be afraid I ws actually looking at a mirage.
Wally
Damn I can't believe you actually posted that !!!
Why? If you've read my posts ever since the suspension you will see that I have been critical of the way Rufus has handled the whole situation. I just choose to do it a constructive manner and don't call people that believe fools or stupid.
I still have no idea where this will end but I do know that there really hasn't been anyone associated with the company of the SEC that has given shareholders anything close to black and white it's all gray. I guess that it's appropriate that the stock trades on the Gray Sheets.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RyanPBF: I think he called the 6:1 not a divvy, but a merger consideration. That's what I remember
The debate has always been whether it's Divy, which NASD says it is or as RPH says it's a Threshold Price Reset. I remeber way back probably 10 or more threads ago, we did DD on this. The Threshold Price Reset has been used on some types of investments but never found where it was applied to a stock. I'll have to go back and see if I can dig up what we found. If I remember correctly Mr. Cat Engineer found some info and posted.
IMO, it was another of Rufus's cute moves. When they told him he couldn't do it that it was a Divy he replied show me where it states I can't.
So here we are almost nine months later still trying to figure out what the 6 for 1 is.
I'll what I can find later regarding the "Threshold Price Reset"
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Corporation hereby chooses option (c) to reset the Share value to an equivalent of $15.00 by issuing additional shares to each shareholder of record as of the close of business on October 16, 2006, the issuance date of the Reset shares is October 30, 2006 10 business days from the filing of this form 10-KSB.
The ratio of share issuance will use the following formula ($15.00 divided by the Actual Closing Price on October 16, 2006 (X) minus Actual Closing Price on October 16, 2006) (15 / X - X).
A 10-KSB/A was filed and accepted at 6:50PM and will show up on the Edgar System first thing tomorrow morning.
'The Threshold Price Reset means that for every share you owned as of the close of business today you will receive 6 additional share (no fractions will be issued and will be rounded down to the nearest whole) of CSHD on or around October 30, 2006. This transaction will take the total issued share number to 618,813,942 giving the corporation an estimated book value of $11.78,' stated Rufus Paul Harris, Chief Executive Officer.
THis is what is written. No mention of Dividend or Forward split. THey are saying reset the share value.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally...seems with the way that PR was worded...RPH attempted to "cover his ass in both ways"...Giving the NASD their 10 days notice and giving the shareholders what he had promised...
I am not seeing where RPH "did it wrong"...
But then in walks the SEC...claiming that the bonds are "false"...and yet...somehow that can't be "proven"...true or false...
So as of now..."we" don't have the 6:1...divvy...OR any other word you want to use...hell there isn't really a company now...is there?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tex I believe when all the talk of price resets were being mentioned everyone here researched pretty hard and the only thing that we came across had to do with private investments in public companies. If I can find the website I'll post the link here.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Wally...seems with the way that PR was worded...RPH attempted to "cover his ass in both ways"...Giving the NASD their 10 days notice and giving the shareholders what he had promised...
I am not seeing where RPH "did it wrong"...
But then in walks the SEC...claiming that the bonds are "false"...and yet...somehow that can't be "proven"...true or false...
So as of now..."we" don't have the 6:1...divvy...OR any other word you want to use...hell there isn't really a company now...is there?
10 of Bewilderment,
a PR does not constitute notice--the company must follow procedure.
just for example...let's say your child is allergic to peanut butter. Would it better to notify the teacher, or to take out an ad in a weekly newspaper?
re: SEC...
SEC is questioning the bonds. simple. They have the resources to verify bonds, stock trades, time & sales, etc....
Apparently, they can't--or if you will, WON'T-- verify.
So... WHO should verify?
If I were CEO? I'd have a luncheon where SEC officials could see everything. I certainly would'nt blow 'em off and proceed to antagonize.
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Financial Statements and Ex
Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement On January 10, 2007, Noble International, Ltd. (the "Company") entered into a First Amendment to Amended and Restated Convertible Subordinated Notes (the "Amendment") with the holders of the Company's $32,500,000 Amended and Restated Convertible Subordinated Notes (the "Notes'). The Amendment amends the Notes, the terms of which were described in detail in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2006.
Pursuant to the Amendment: (i) the Conversion Price of the Notes was increased from $18.50 to $19.50; (ii) the mandatory reset of the Conversion Price on July 1, 2007 to 125% of the 45 consecutive trading day trailing average daily closing sale price of the Company's common stock was eliminated; (iii) the interest rate payable on the Notes was increased from 6% to 8%; and (iv) ;the threshold price of the Company's common stock required for the Company's right to redeem some or all of the Notes on or after the third anniversary date of issuance was decreased from 140% of the Conversion Price to 120% of the Conversion Price. Terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Notes.
This description of the Amendment does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Amendment filed as an exhibit to this report and incorporated by reference into this Item 1.01.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits (a) Not applicable.
(b) Not applicable.
(d) Exhibits
10.1 First Amendment to Amended and Restated Convertible Subordinated Notes
I think this is what Rufus was attempting to use as a precedent. Not this particular case but the overall use of a price reset.
When I said cute earlier, I meant finding a loophole and trying to apply it to CSHD's situation. It's like an attorney citing a law that is on the books for one instance and then trying to apply it to something very different. In the legal field what we would see is appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, where a final ruling could be made and a precedent set.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PRICING RESET The purchase price of the common stock or the conversion price of a convertible security is set either (i) at closing or (ii) on a specified date after closing and is subject to adjustment (downward or upward) based on various criteria that can include fundamental performance (operational reset), a specified event (event-driven reset), or the stock price of the issuer at a given point in time after closing (threshold price reset).
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Wally...seems with the way that PR was worded...RPH attempted to "cover his ass in both ways"...Giving the NASD their 10 days notice and giving the shareholders what he had promised...
I am not seeing where RPH "did it wrong"...
But then in walks the SEC...claiming that the bonds are "false"...and yet...somehow that can't be "proven"...true or false...
So as of now..."we" don't have the 6:1...divvy...OR any other word you want to use...hell there isn't really a company now...is there?
10 of Bewilderment,
a PR does not constitute notice--the company must follow procedure.
just for example...let's say your child is allergic to peanut butter. Would it better to notify the teacher, or to take out an ad in a weekly newspaper?
re: SEC...
SEC is questioning the bonds. simple. They have the resources to verify bonds, stock trades, time & sales, etc....
Apparently, they can't--or if you will, WON'T-- verify.
So... WHO should verify?
If I were CEO? I'd have a luncheon where SEC officials could see everything. I certainly would'nt blow 'em off and proceed to antagonize.
Yep as the CEO he should have sat down and tried to work it out with the SEC but it's seems what he was really interested in was winning the battle. History tells us that you can win the battle but lose the war.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
A European Company, that maybe Rufus has been involved in all along,....comes around.."purchases" CSHD.... along with it goes it's assets & shareholders....and perhaps we exchange 1:1 CSHD shares for shares in new company that is in Europe....I don't think the SEC would have any say in what happens to the bonds after that...right? The bonds are loaded into Euroclear right?...New comapany is in Europe (maybe)...
Then New Company draws down on bonds, MY OH MY, must be real & must have belonged to Mr. Harris & company if new company can use them....
...& If we hand our certs to New Company & new company finds that some of these certs are counterfiet or fraudulant....perhaps the comapny can go after the perpatrators...maybe?
Perhaps this company has been doing business for a while now, with it's own assets...maybe it was the "real company" all along....& CSHD was just a decoy...just like Rufus always said....maybe it's on the London Stock Exchange right now & we don;t even know it because we don't even know it's name yet....
Remember, the fiscal year for CSHD ends June 30th....wouldn't that be convienient if tomorrow was the last day of trading for CSHD....maybe a halt maybe not.....
But you say, even if this could happen Jenna, how would we even know or be notified of such a thing....some say that RPH can not release a PR, the SEC would see that as fraudulant (not sure the reasoning behind that, but for the sake of argument let's play with this idea) Ok, Rufus can't put out a PR, but the New Company can!!! ....And what's to stop Rufus from taking that other company's PR & putting it on CVSU's website? It would be news affecting CSHD so it should be on the website....
I may be way off or maybe not but it's the only EXIT plan that seems like it could be possible...
Things that make you go HHHMMMM....
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
A European Company, that maybe Rufus has been involved in all along,....comes around.."purchases" CSHD.... along with it goes it's assets & shareholders....and perhaps we exchange 1:1 CSHD shares for shares in new company that is in Europe....I don't think the SEC would have any say in what happens to the bonds after that...right? The bonds are loaded into Euroclear right?...New comapany is in Europe (maybe)...
Then New Company draws down on bonds, MY OH MY, must be real & must have belonged to Mr. Harris & company if new company can use them....
...& If we hand our certs to New Company & new company finds that some of these certs are counterfiet or fraudulant....perhaps the comapny can go after the perpatrators...maybe?
Perhaps this company has been doing business for a while now, with it's own assets...maybe it was the "real company" all along....& CSHD was just a decoy...just like Rufus always said....maybe it's on the London Stock Exchange right now & we don;t even know it because we don't even know it's name yet....
Remember, the fiscal year for CSHD ends June 30th....wouldn't that be convienient if tomorrow was the last day of trading for CSHD....maybe a halt maybe not.....
But you say, even if this could happen Jenna, how would we even know or be notified of such a thing....some say that RPH can not release a PR, the SEC would see that as fraudulant (not sure the reasoning behind that, but for the sake of argument let's play with this idea) Ok, Rufus can't put out a PR, but the New Company can!!! ....And what's to stop Rufus from taking that other company's PR & putting it on CVSU's website? It would be news affecting CSHD so it should be on the website....
I may be way off or maybe not but it's the only EXIT plan that seems like it could be possible...
Things that make you go HHHMMMM....
While that sounds about as good as lying on a nice beach with a blonde and a brunette by my side, it doesn't seem like it will happen. But then again stranger things have happened?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless I'm wrong and I could be, I was under the impression that the SEC wasn't claiming that the bonds themself were fraudulent but that Rufus's claim that he owned the amount of the bond stated was fraudulent. I mean they were saying that there was no way he could own what he stated.
Secondly, we only have Rufus's word that the SEC told him if he drew down on the bond it would be considered fraud. I don't remember ever reading anything that verified that.
So if my memory is correct it just adds to my statement of Smoke and Mirrors. Things get so confused that it's hard to tell fact from fiction.
Jenna, you have spoken with Alana Black in the past did she ever tell you that CSHD could not draw down on the bonds?
OK so Rufus has stated there is an Exit plan for shareholders, has he ever stated that the Exit plan included shareholders receiving what was promised? I mean an Exit Plan could be similar to what you speculate except that the shareholders get shares in a private company with no ability to trade their shares. Heck the private company could claim they have a book value of $15 or $20 a shares but with no market to trade them what good would it be?
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
RPH did file the SEC forms that included the TPR info, right? I would think this would be enough to make if "official", but who knows.
I do remember him talking about differentiating between a TPR and a dividend. He said the TA and NASD wanted him to make it a dividend and push the ex-date out 10-30 days. He said by doing this, the MM’s would pump the stock (based on the upcoming dividend) and continue to dump shares onto the market. He said this is what happened in BBAN. I’ll try to check BBAN’s history and see if there are any dividends listed.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, it looks like BBAN did do a dividend back in 04. They issued the PR on Feb. 12th and listed the issue date as Mar. 30th. It was a 1 for 10 share dividend.
According to their stock chart, the volume shot up huge the week of Feb. 9th. The volume the week before was less than 1 million and it shot up to over 20 million. The pps also ran up from .03 to .06. The volume remained high for about 6 weeks and the pps topped at .085 before falling down to .04.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, looking into this BBAN stuff has brought some things that I've either forgot about, or are new to me. Here's an excerpt from BBAN's 10QSB from 2/19/04. It looks from this filing, that both RPH and Ben had brought a good bit to the company. I don't think it was long after this date that things started going downhill.
On February 28, 2003 BBAN received a 100 Million USD Insurance Guarantee Bond from Enhancement Holdings, LLC currently held in Custodian safekeeping by Republic Bank and Trust in Norman, Oklahoma for credit enhancement purposes.
The receipt of the bond is the first step in an agreement with Enhancement Holdings, LLC and Stanley Holdings Business Trust to provide liquidity to Broadband Wireless International Corporation. Enhancement Holdings, LLC a privately held company along with Stanley Holdings Business Trust are engaged in the business of corporate financing, business consulting, debt instrument financing, international trade and asset enhancement. Paul Harris is the Chairman and CEO of Enhancement Holdings, LLC and Ben Stanley is the Chairman and CEO of the Stanley Holdings Business Trust. Under the agreement Enhancement Holdings, LLC will receive 3 board seats on the BBAN board and a ranking equity position upon liquidity.
On July 9, 2003 BBAN received a $31 Million USD valued Timber Deed from Stanley Holdings Business Trust currently held in safe keeping at Hancock Bank, Gulfport Mississippi. The Timber deed is Stage 2 of the agreement with EHLLC and SHBT.
On August 11, 2003 the New Board finalized Two Timber purchase contracts with International Paper to begin timber harvesting on the 5,600 acres supported by the timber deed. The Timber purchase contracts are Stage 3 of the agreement with EHLLC and SHBT. The contracts holds an annual harvest value of around $3,200,000 Million USD.
On August 12, 2003 BBAN completed the start up phase of the Timber Division located in the Arkansas Pine Plantation, which is stage 4 of the plan of operation of the existing Board of Directors. The total start-up cost is expected to be around $1,000,000 USD and was largely covered to date by Stanley Holding Business Trust and affiliates. The board of directors has also approved and is in the negotiation stages to acquire a chip mill close to the harvest site. The purchase of the chip mill will greatly increase the annual harvesting revenues and salvage around 30% in lost harvest.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Its a list of people invovled with BBAN. The interesting thing is that you can click on each name and see what other companies they were/are involved with. There's quite a few listings from both RPH and Ben. I've investigated a few of them and haven't really found much, but if someone has the time, it might generate some info.
Some other names on there that are pretty intersting: Ron D. Harris, Howard Stern, and Wesley Snipes. Looks like Snipes was/is involved in CMKM Diamonds. Interesting to see Stern's name connected with XM radio a bunch too.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joined: Feb 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,963 Location: Cartersville, Georgia Karma: 2,900,001,863 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Friday, June 29th « Reply #395 on Today at 12:53pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disturbing News in today, SIXTO G Thoroughbred Stallion dies at county facility (“SIXTO G tangled itself in a fence and had to be put down “exact words used), “Hmmmmm a half starved to death Stallion, scrapped up all of his energy and torn down 2 or 3 fence lines; I am getting the run around on details, Has our friend Lee Webb published anything on this!!
Interesting story from Ms. Debbie Elrod of the Bartow County Animal Control, Keep your eyes and ears open for any news
IF anyone happens to talk to Ms Elrod, Please share the facts of the conversation here!! « Last Edit: Today at 12:54pm by Rufus Paul Harris » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
Joined: Feb 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,966 Location: Cartersville, Georgia Karma: 2,900,001,863 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Friday, June 29th « Reply #416 on Today at 1:08pm »
A Ton of female emotions around here today, mixed crying and anger!!
Watch what this develops into!!
GODSPEED and GOD Bless, I’ll be back later!!
Oh one more thing; They are also asking for $6,323.42 to get my horse back, Can you legally give horses back to someone you just charged with animal abuse!! I guess we have finally got to the root of the evil!! Money!!
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
debbie said this happened about 2 weeks ago. she said the horses already had a bad rear left leg and that the orse tried to jump a fence and got the good right leg tangle up. a vet came out and determined it was badly damaged and it was his call to put ol sixto in the ground. if rufus does get the horse back, there will be a supervision clause in it, you know, to make sure he feeds and waters them properly.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
debbie said this happened about 2 weeks ago. she said the horses already had a bad rear left leg and that the orse tried to jump a fence and got the good right leg tangle up. a vet came out and determined it was badly damaged and it was his call to put ol sixto in the ground. if rufus does get the horse back, there will be a supervision clause in it, you know, to make sure he feeds and waters them properly.
Not that it really matters but if their still are charges of Animal Cruelty pending would they release the Horses to Rufus?
I know in cases of suspected child abuse the minor is removed from the home until the investigation is complete and I believe a judge would have to make a ruling.
I am not at all familiar with how they deal with animals.
Just something to pass a little before I go out into the sunshine.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
