posted
By: phxgold 11 Jul 2005, 09:14 PM EDT Msg. 236336 of 236341 Jump to msg. # Ok Quick question If someone recieves restricted shares of a company would they be considered a shareholder of record before that restriction was lifted and the shares were registered?
Im thinking no. They would be on the register but not registered owners until the restriction is lifted although they would be on the books. I ask because 698-360 from jan 03 = 338 then casavant family had 144 shares that is 22 people so 338-22=316 then maj shareholders held 85.7% but not more than 4.9% a piece so that 17 shareholders so 316-17=298 then there is uc as 5% beneficial owner that makes 297 then you have 2 consultants who recieved s shares in 2002 that is 296 shareholders of record but 698 people in the record. Any thoughts? ~Phx
IP: Logged |
Come on, does it matter subtracting could be's now. All that matters is there was for sure 698 as of the form 15 filing. Second reason none of this matters is it was not used in the hearing. Even if appealed you can only use presented evidence at the hearing. He can try and make chit into gold, it still makes no difference now.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I'll use legals own words to condemn his and his fellow faithful's logic:
"there you go assuming again. You don't know what the company is doing. You are only seeing what you want to see, or what supports your contentions."
I will take every opportunity to remind that you said this, legal, (noah), until you get sick of it. I almost said, or go away, but you'll never do that, and besides who would we have to laugh at. Keep your selective, out of context, faithful, moronic, logic coming, pal.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
ric, come on now...including that jackazz in the moron group is an insult to proud morons everywhere. the SEC, according to this braindead fool has no idea what the rules are, the CMKX lawyers have no idea what the rules are, CMKX t/a has no idea what the rules are. only this guy that couldn't pass the floor mopping test at mc donalds knows the rules, to the point he has sent his opinion & a copy of the rule he believes kills the case to frizzy because he doesn't know the rules either. the cmkx savior. the cult needs to worship him right along side UC.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
they have upside...lol most at pb32 think he is a fool & 75% of the 4 pages i skimmed thru on the Thank UC thread are not thanking UC. the cult is shrinking. less the 1500 in phase II of the OG, down from over 5500, 4300 that paid.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
I signed up for Phase I of OG (I know, money well spent. Drank too much koolaide I guess, LOL), but don't plan on joining Phase II. I don't see how any positive outcome will benefit only the OG and not all of the share holders so what's the point. Looks like CMKX being revoked is inevitable, and then it's anyone's guess what will happen. I can't buy into believing that it's a good thing to be revoked as many others think. But then again I am a pinhead, loser and nitwit (at least I haven't been called a moron yet, so I have that to look forward to, LOL). Good Nite!
IP: Logged |
Joined: Nov 2004 Gender: Male Posts: 1,276 Location: British Columbia Re: Riddle me this ask Phnx Gold! « Reply #10 on Yesterday at 10:45pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jillikens, you have to ask yourself why are we here? We are the ones that got us here by filing form 15. We have brilliant high prices experienced lawyers that didn't make a mistake of this magnitude if they were prepared for the consequences. And for those that say it was out of a sense of duty, not a chance. If you look at the evidence and the way it was given in the hearing you have to ask what the hell? The judge asking what naked shorting was, the way the JEFF letter was introduced and by who, the way we left out our share structure and valuation which could have absolutely killed them. We let them off the naked share issue by not giving our share structure, and you don't do that unless something has been agreed upon in my opinion. So we got ourselves to the hearing and then held back our real damaging evidence, makes you go hmm. I think we have had them for a long time and made them work with us, this isn't happening out of the kindness of their hearts. If I am wrong and they are not dealing I can't see why we at least we didn't give our share structure proving the short beyond a reasonable doubt, it just doesn't make sense.
IP: Logged |
posted
are those the same high priced lawyers that don't know that cmkx doesn't need to file because the shares were S- Restricted? i'm also sure the judge would have throw everything out of court had share structure & valuation been introduced. we all know that companies that are ns'ed & have wildly hi value do not need to file.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
legal, (noah), and gusjarvis, there you go assuming again. You don't know what the company is doing. You are only seeing what you want to see, or what supports your contentions.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
Otttoman, I'll defend you if anyone calls you a moron. Sounds as if you are sobering up. At least you are beginning to recognize there is a reality. I called you a pinhead, and I retract that. I cannot fully apologize though because at the time you were talking nonsense. You're almost there, welcome back to semi-reality, keep bringing your body and your mind will follow. If you slip back into the faithful's state of mind, just ask yourself one question, WTF, am I some kind of pinhead or moron to believe this heaping mass of steaming dog crap ?
quote:Originally posted by Otttoman: I signed up for Phase I of OG (I know, money well spent. Drank too much koolaide I guess, LOL), but don't plan on joining Phase II. I don't see how any positive outcome will benefit only the OG and not all of the share holders so what's the point. Looks like CMKX being revoked is inevitable, and then it's anyone's guess what will happen. I can't buy into believing that it's a good thing to be revoked as many others think. But then again I am a pinhead, loser and nitwit (at least I haven't been called a moron yet, so I have that to look forward to, LOL). Good Nite!
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: All the cult has EVER done is assume. Notice 99% of their posts include the famous "IMO". Nobody has any facts, just IMO.
Ed, all pinks are purely speculation. In fact, it is illegal to make statements unless a company pr stated something without addint IMO or the like.
-------------------- A day without dreams is just a nightmare!
IP: Logged |
posted
"If someone recieves restricted shares of a company would they be considered a shareholder of record before that restriction was lifted and the shares were registered?
Im thinking no. They would be on the register but not registered owners until the restriction is lifted although they would be on the books." --------------------
This guy is really off base! If the shares are issued, and restricted shares definitely ARE issued shares, they become part of the issued and outstanding automatically. Therefore, the owners of those restricted shares must be counted as holders of record.
You guys are right, phxgold doesn't know zip!
IP: Logged |
posted
By: phxgold 12 Jul 2005, 09:30 AM EDT Msg. 236440 of 236527 Jump to msg. # courtesy of vngntn on paltalk, disney just did this. think about this the first step is already done could this be a way to make us all happy?
Reverse Morris Trust Revival by Michael Pohlen, 612.303.6356
Morris Trust transactions1 typically used to work as follows: First, assume that the target company ("Parent") is engaged in two different businesses - one is a "wanted" business and the other is "unwanted" from an acquirer's ("Acquirer") perspective. Next, Parent would "spin" the unwanted business into a Newco and distribute Newco's stock to Parent's shareholders. Subsequently, Acquirer would acquire Parent (containing only the wanted business). As a result, Parent's transfer of the unwanted business into Newco and Parent's distribution of Newco's stock to its shareholders was tax-free because the transaction qualified as a 'D' reorganization.
Reverse Morris Trust Illustration: In a "reverse" Morris Trust transaction, Parent "spins" the wanted business (instead of the unwanted business as was the case with the Morris Trust transaction discussed above) into Newco. As part of a prearranged plan, Parent distributes Newco's stock to its shareholders and Acquirer subsequently acquires the Newco stock in exchange for stock.
Historically, the transaction would not qualify as a 'D' reorganization under IRS rules if Parent's/Newco's shareholders did not maintain at least 80% of the total combined stock (voting and non-voting). As a result, Parent would be taxed on the appreciation in excess of its basis in the wanted business and Parent's/Newco's shareholders were taxed at dividend rates on the value of the wanted business.
A recent revenue ruling, however, has led to the substantial relaxation in the definition of a 'D' reorganization, making the reverse Morris Trust transaction tax-free if Parent's/Newco's shareholders receive in excess of 50% (vote and value), but less than 80%, of the stock of Acquirer. Accordingly, the asset "spin" from Parent to Newco is tax-free and the Newco stock is received by Parent's shareholders on a tax-free basis.
The new revenue ruling has led to a revival in reverse Morris Trust transactions and is expected to spur numerous additional reverse Morris Trust transactions in the future. Examples of the creative use of these structures include Heinz/Del Monte and Proctor & Gamble/JM Smucker. http://www.piperjaffray.com/archives/ma_monitor111102.htm
IP: Logged |
An administrative law judge has issued an Initial Decision in the matter of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. The Initial Decision finds that Respondent CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM Diamonds), failed to file required annual reports since May 9, 2002, and required quarterly reports since Nov. 18, 2002, while its securities were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As such, the Initial Decision concludes that CMKM Diamonds violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The Initial Decision revokes the registration of each class of securities of CMKM Diamonds. (Initial Decision No. 291; File No. 3-11858)
Don't know if it's real but it appears to be.
IP: Logged |
An administrative law judge has issued an Initial Decision in the matter of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. The Initial Decision finds that Respondent CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM Diamonds), failed to file required annual reports since May 9, 2002, and required quarterly reports since Nov. 18, 2002, while its securities were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As such, the Initial Decision concludes that CMKM Diamonds violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The Initial Decision revokes the registration of each class of securities of CMKM Diamonds. (Initial Decision No. 291; File No. 3-11858)
Don't know if it's real but it appears to be.
My thing is. If the stock is truely revoked then why is it still trading as of right now, something fishy here. Rovoked stocks don't trade so you tell me what is wrong with this picture 15:48:12 5000000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:48:06 999999 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:48:03 100 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:47:51 9000000 0.00 - OTCEQ_NBB (F) 15:47:51 9000000 0.00 - OTCEQ_NBB (F) 15:47:51 2000000 0.00 - OTCEQ_NBB (F) 15:47:42 3435000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:47:12 1296000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:46:12 2000000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:45:06 1000000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:45:06 9000000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB 15:45:00 1000000 0.0001 + OTCEQ_NBB
IP: Logged |
posted
ahhhh ha. An initial Decision. that is why it is still trading. But wait why do thye have an initial anything. Any or other time revocation comes up it is you get revoked or halted then your done. No trade tiLL the beLL or anything. Something stiLL not right
IP: Logged |
posted
That's how these proceedings work. The Judge issues what's called an initial decision. It's referred to as an initial decision because either side has the right to appeal the decision. If there is no appeal, the Commission makes the ruling final 21 days from the date it was issued.
IP: Logged |
posted
Don't bother explaining it UpMan. They won't believe anything you say, and they will always find a way around reality. That news means nothing to these idiots, wait until you see the response. We know the first one, someone hacked into the SEC site and it's a fraud. Then there will be 10 more bullchit reasons why the decicsion means nothing. Then finally it will be, ok, great, we're revoked, we have the SEC right where we want them. LOL
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
LOL ed, you can't taunt him with this. He is just going to tell you that this is exactly what they wanted and what the plan called for. They will be celebrating this. If anything he will tell you: shhhhh, can you hear it. LOL These guys are out of their minds and completely out of control. They just had their nuts removed with a weed whacker and they will actually try to convince you it felt good, and you should try it. I truly enjoy you ed, but even revocation won't vindicate the reality of this news with these fools.
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: I have only one question:
LEGAL, CAN YOU HEAR IT NOW????????
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's about time we demand to know exactly what this "PLAM" is. If I dont see a PR of some sort before the end of the week, I'm gonna start saving my pennies for the class-action suit that is sure to follow in about 22 days.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--An administrative judge has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission can deregister the shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc. (CMKX) because the company failed to file annual and quarterly financial reports with the SEC since 2002.
The SEC said in an order on March 16 that it was taking action against CMKM Diamonds to protect investors. Earlier, the SEC had temporarily suspended trading in the stock of CMKM Diamonds because of questions about the "adequacy of publicly available information concerning, among other things, CMKM Diamonds' assets and liabilities, mining and other business activities, share structure and stock issuances, and corporate management."
CMKM Diamonds has 21 days to appeal the administrative judge's initial decision to allow the SEC to deregister its stock.
This tiny diamond mining company has been trading on the unregulated Pink Sheets market and has not made any regulatory disclosure with the SEC since 2002. Billions of shares of CMKM Diamonds routinely change hands daily and its elusive number of outstanding shares had been the topic of much speculation until earlier this year when the company said it had some 703.5 billion shares issued and outstanding.
CMKM Diamonds shares closed unchanged Tuesday at $0.0001 on a volume of more than 1.74 billion shares.
CMKM Diamonds has said that it's in the process of reinstating its reporting status. The company has been the subject of several Dow Jones Newswires "In The Money" columns which highlighted its huge daily trading volume and the lack of information surrounding the company and its mineral claims.
-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201 938 2074; carol.remond@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
07-12-05 1611ET
Copyright (c) 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
News provided by Dow Jones NewswiresSM, PR News Wire™ and Business Wire™. Dow Jones Newswires is a service mark of Dow Jones & Company. PR News Wire is a Trademark of PR Newswire Association, Inc. Business Wire is a registered trademark and service mark of Business Wire.
Ameritrade is not responsible for the quality and suitability of third party financial or investment information or services. Please consult other sources of information and consider your individual financial position and goals before making an investment decision. Ameritrade, Division of Ameritrade, Inc., member NASD/SIPC. Ameritrade and Ameritrade logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. 2002 Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
