posted
Sure thoth, you bring up an old 8-K Hey you look at what you wnat to & I will look at what I want to. We know how to connect the dots & you can go back to playing at RB.
Posts: 583 | From: Northridge, CA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright... not ever going to post any of my DD here anymore. Yall can go screw yourselves.
Posts: 159 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well finally have some quiet time, so here goes. One of the first things I asked Andrew, was what we can expect as far as a time line is concerned. I also asked, why they didn't release all the details of the definitive agreement. He responded by stating he was surprised that they didn't include the details of the acquisition.(Remember he doesn't issue the PR's) I asked if we would be updated on this information and he stated it could be released when the merger is complete or anytime.(he didn't know for sure)
He also stated that people wanted unaudited fins to be released like I mentioned before. He did state that people are focused too much on Aero NOW and should be looking at what Aero will be when this is complete. He was referring to the rapid growth of the company. MY RESPONSE TO WIT: I work in manufacturing currently and when you experience rapid growth, you don't always have millions of dollars lying around to keep up with the demand.(This has happened several time at my current employer) Andrew was making the point that he was surprised that the amount given to Aero was as small as it is. IMO...this is a VERY good thing, that even though they are experiencing rapid growth, they only had to receive 1.5 million. This is chump change to a company this size. This may be common knowledge to most, but I'm just trying to clarify what I had posted earlier.
People are all worked up about the recent drop in price after the news was released, but that is to be expected. People think that they have until the 2nd quarter to get back in before the pps starts to rise. Oh how those people will be unpleasantly surprised when it happens when they least expect it too...of course this is JMO.
About tonight's filing. It is almost to a tee what else I was going to talk about tonight. During our conversation he was saying something about the company no longer being a investment firm. He went into details and I now understand what he was talking about. I think that the company is being very honest and has a lot of house cleaning to do.
Just a bit of a side note. I've called a lot of companies over the past year. I like to hear what they have to say and see if I can pick up any negative vibes. This is one thing I hated about SLJB, I couldn't get a hold of anyone, anywhere. With CSHD I spoke to old psycho..I mean Rufus back in July, but then he stopped answering my phone calls.(He was a bit of a pumper LOL). I like how FCCN's current management is handling business and my concern is not with them, but all the B/S being said on these boards. This is going to be completed..IMO and it is being done by-the-book!
I've never been concerned with whether people buy or sell, just do it on your own DD and do not let all the bashing/pumping B/S convince you otherwise. BTW: I personally think CINDYOUHOO or whatever the heck her name is on IHUB is a seriously paid basher (NOBODY has that much time to learn about stocks they don't have a interest in)..JMO,JMHO!!!
Well that ends my novel for the evening and I hope this clears up some questions. If I remember more I'll post it.(I took crappy notes)
posted
Posted by: moon2mkt In reply to: MrTrendGreen who wrote msg# 23460 Date:1/20/2007 1:23:12 AM Post #of 23729
Here is what I have come up with from my own DD on todays 14a filing etc.
To understand the current share situation we need to understand what happened with FCCN prior to SP (Mr. S. Peacock) getting involved with FCCN to clean up the mess and make the shell ready to merge with Aero. Here is the best recreation i can do with what I read up thus far ....
----- My recreation of history of FCCN before June 2006 [Mind you all of this happened before June 2006 when the filing came out on June 8, 2006: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060608/0134373.html]
- FCCN had BDC status in 2005/2004 ; as part of this status [ http://www.secinfo.com/d13y6x.v3k.htm ] the are prohibited from getting CDs and letting them convert into shares of FCCN under certain conditions. However, they went ahead and did this (CD with Golden Gate Investors [GGI] and conversion to shares) - violating the rules of SEC.
- The CEO, Bradford Miller, and 2 other execs ended up in litigation with GGI over this. [It appears that they have given some 'personal guarantees' to complete the CD contract, all in violation of rules.] My guess is -- the 840M shares that GGI accumulated as part of all those conversions thus ended up in escrow - as they are illegal/against rules.
- Subsequent management could not do much to resolve it and ended up doing more stupid things like R/S and cancelling A/S of 5Billion without proper approvals etc. -----------
with this mess, Steven Peacock (SP) was brought in to clean up the mess and find a new buyer/RM candidate.
My thoughts on current status --
- SP has found Aero to merge into this shell. - as part of it he had to clean up the mess.... I am sure he has a plan to do it and has convinced Aero that the plan is workable. Or else, they would not sign on. Also, SP is experienced and is not a novice at this sort of dealings.
- They have to clean up the wrongful filings with SEC => * so they have re-instated the A/S as of before and are doing the filings and restructuring of the share-structure (A/S, O/S and all the proper way) * one of the steps of which is to get out of the BDC status (so the merger can go ahead)
with regards to the converted shares in escrow for GGI - here are my thoughts: - from CCD money they took from GGI (during June 2004 to September 2005) they owed $220K. [Reference: http://www.secinfo.com/d13y6x.v3k.htm ] There were clear violations of SEC rules in this process (both in the agreements signed by the 3 officers while the company was in BDC status as well as by GGI in doing the conversion to shares). So the agreements were terminated in Sept. 2005, which resulted in litigation between GGI and the 3 officers of 2005.
- [Other CDs from other sources were paid off - so not an issue.]
- Given the illegalities surrounding the GGI shares - they were placed in escrow. - GGI will not be able to sell them. My guess will be that they will get paid the remaining money's owed -- 220K$, which is chump-change for Aero. {{ If I have to speculate here, part of the 1.5M loan in this merger deal could be to take care of this sort of clean up...}} Once GGI issue is taken care of, these 780M or so shares in escrow will be cancelled.
- moreover, after the change of BDC status to a normal operating PK company status, they will address the A/S of 5B [restructure the old unreasonable A/S of 5B and make it much more reasonable.]
So in a way it is good they filed this today -- although I was initially not so happy at the filing late frdiay afternoon, but come to think of it it is better this way as people can calmly analyse it instead of making rash, irrational decisions during trading hrs.
- this filing shows that after the merger-8k filing there has been no dilution. (All this ugly O/S details -- 920M O/S of which 780M GGI are escrowed, with possibly 63M non-escrowed shrs that they may hold -- are as part of the past screw up and not the result of recent actions by FCCN. So all the dilution fears are groundless.) - They are taking overt, public steps towards cleaning up the past mess at a fast pace. - i am sure Mr. Peacock (SP) knows how to clean it up. Moreover AERO has confidence in SP or else they won't be letting him spearhead this transition/merger.
Very good synopsis. This is how I read this as well. Saved me typing again. Ok... back to bed... if my 4 year old lets me. dog
Towards the bottom of the 14A it clearly states that they will have to clean up the previous filings and lack there of for FCCN.
Who even expected a 14A in the first place????
The filings and P.R.s will keep flowing and all will visible soon enough.
Keep in mind that some people wait for years to double an investment. Do you think we will have to wait that long and do you think it will be just a double??? IMO NO...
All that being said if and when you have a chance protect your capital as 10 of 13 would say.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can expect a number of filings according to Andrew. This is the first of many. It looks like Peacock is handling all aspects of the merger expeditiously as they audit FCCN. This a great sign. Shows much thought and action put into this. It's a go IMO.
posted
Ok. Not looking to bash or pump. I looked at the filing and don't pretend to know all just looking for anwsers and please dumb it down.
The Company's common stock is its only class of voting securities. As of January 9, 2007, the Company has 920,558,174 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Of this amount 780,678,923 shares are held in an escrow account for the benefit of Golden Gate Investors, Inc. and are voted by the Company’s Board of Directors.
2) The above percentages are based on 72,062,852 shares of common stock and 1,182,500 shares of Series C Preferred Stock outstanding as of May 17, 2006.
Looks like dilution to me.
Please show me where I am wrong. I have a position and would like to see the deal done but, looks like a red flag.
-------------------- Must be an easier way! Disclaimer: Don't buy or sell on my advice I am not a licensed broker. Posts: 424 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firedog...the way I "read it" is that the company has alread increased it's shares..so it shouldn't drive the PPS down...dilution since last May?? Sure...it was an increase...BUT seems they have already been in circulation...
My question is this statement.."780,678,923 shares are held in an escrow account for the benefit of Golden Gate Investors, Inc. and are voted by the Company’s Board of Directors."
Does that mean that Golden Gate can sell those shares after a vote? And will "we" be given notice of that vote BEFORE or AFTER the shares have been sold?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firedog: Ok. Not looking to bash or pump. I looked at the filing and don't pretend to know all just looking for anwsers and please dumb it down.
The Company's common stock is its only class of voting securities. As of January 9, 2007, the Company has 920,558,174 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Of this amount 780,678,923 shares are held in an escrow account for the benefit of Golden Gate Investors, Inc. and are voted by the Company’s Board of Directors.
2) The above percentages are based on 72,062,852 shares of common stock and 1,182,500 shares of Series C Preferred Stock outstanding as of May 17, 2006.
Looks like dilution to me.
Please show me where I am wrong. I have a position and would like to see the deal done but, looks like a red flag.
"Posted by: momoore3 In reply to: None Date:1/21/2007 10:42:56 AM Post #of 24439
I just figured out why the two Share number are different for Golden Gate 780,000,000 vs 840,000,000. The Debentures were issused for a period for 2 years at 7.5%. Meaning originally they were worth 780,000,000(approx) share. When they matured at 7.5% interest, they were worth 840,000,000(approx). Since they are still escrow, the total amount due to Golden Gate would be 840,000,000; even though they will not see one share. Hence they float is the 76,000,000 nunmber(approx). Found on form 10-qsb Page 9, paragraph 4 (CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES) file date 5/18/2005; from SEC archives for FCCN."
Posts: 159 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
thOth posts.. ""Posted by: momoore3 In reply to: None Date:1/21/2007 10:42:56 AM Post #of 24439
I just figured out why the two Share number are different for Golden Gate 780,000,000 vs 840,000,000. The Debentures were issused for a period for 2 years at 7.5%. Meaning originally they were worth 780,000,000(approx) share. When they matured at 7.5% interest, they were worth 840,000,000(approx). Since they are still escrow, the total amount due to Golden Gate would be 840,000,000; even though they will not see one share. Hence they float is the 76,000,000 nunmber(approx). Found on form 10-qsb Page 9, paragraph 4 (CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES) file date 5/18/2005; from SEC archives for FCCN." "
Why did they add the 7.5% into the share structure if 1) it's not yet due and 2)How can this poster say that "they will not see one share"? Is it written/filed somewhere that this debt will be paid prior to the due date?
Not bashing...simply trying to understand...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: thOth posts.. ""Posted by: momoore3 In reply to: None Date:1/21/2007 10:42:56 AM Post #of 24439
I just figured out why the two Share number are different for Golden Gate 780,000,000 vs 840,000,000. The Debentures were issused for a period for 2 years at 7.5%. Meaning originally they were worth 780,000,000(approx) share. When they matured at 7.5% interest, they were worth 840,000,000(approx). Since they are still escrow, the total amount due to Golden Gate would be 840,000,000; even though they will not see one share. Hence they float is the 76,000,000 nunmber(approx). Found on form 10-qsb Page 9, paragraph 4 (CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES) file date 5/18/2005; from SEC archives for FCCN." "
Why did they add the 7.5% into the share structure if 1) it's not yet due and 2)How can this poster say that "they will not see one share"? Is it written/filed somewhere that this debt will be paid prior to the due date?
Not bashing...simply trying to understand...
1) The debenture matured (it was already due) June 9, 2006. It was a 2 year agreement made May 2005. Therefore, the 7.5% interest is accounted for.
2) It's a theory. First off, if you search the Net on past cases of other similar escrow share situations, you'll see that they can be cancelled. Since this financing was in direct violation of the SEC rules regarding BDCs, I do not think that the SEC will approve and allow GGI to have those shares. Regulatory approval must be made before those shares will be freed up from escrow and into GGI's hands.
Posts: 159 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
whoever is bashing this stock, please focus your bashing efforts and all your energies at the open tomorrow...please! i want to get back in as cheap as possible! so bash away. bash the s h i t out of it at the open! gap it down! place some sell orders under the bid, don´t be shy, go below the ma20 induce a panic sell! repo( or alice) please post some of your shorting crap, will you? throw some trash around for me, get real dirty repo, i know you can do it! so guys give it your best shot tomorrow, i want to buy cheap ,really CHEAP but i´m not gonna get my hands dirty, that´s your job fellas! i´m just gonna play the bounce...
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: thOth posts.. ""Posted by: momoore3 In reply to: None Date:1/21/2007 10:42:56 AM Post #of 24439
I just figured out why the two Share number are different for Golden Gate 780,000,000 vs 840,000,000. The Debentures were issused for a period for 2 years at 7.5%. Meaning originally they were worth 780,000,000(approx) share. When they matured at 7.5% interest, they were worth 840,000,000(approx). Since they are still escrow, the total amount due to Golden Gate would be 840,000,000; even though they will not see one share. Hence they float is the 76,000,000 nunmber(approx). Found on form 10-qsb Page 9, paragraph 4 (CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES) file date 5/18/2005; from SEC archives for FCCN." "
Why did they add the 7.5% into the share structure if 1) it's not yet due and 2)How can this poster say that "they will not see one share"? Is it written/filed somewhere that this debt will be paid prior to the due date?
Not bashing...simply trying to understand...
1) The debenture matured (it was already due) June 9, 2006. It was a 2 year agreement made May 2005. Therefore, the 7.5% interest is accounted for.
2) It's a theory. First off, if you search the Net on past cases of other similar escrow share situations, you'll see that they can be cancelled. Since this financing was in direct violation of the SEC rules regarding BDCs, I do not think that the SEC will approve and allow GGI to have those shares. Regulatory approval must be made before those shares will be freed up from escrow and into GGI's hands.
Dammit duh, for 1), it should be "It was a 2 year agreement made June 2004." The 10QSB explaining this was in May 2005. May 18, 2005 to be exact - the 10QSB.
Posts: 159 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
thOth? So all that you are posting is others speculation? I was looking for more facts... your first post has a date of 5/18/2005...the 2 years would be 2007...so you are making things "confusing"...maybe it would be better for you to post the actual links to the filings...with highlighted info...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dog: Posted by: moon2mkt In reply to: MrTrendGreen who wrote msg# 23460 Date:1/20/2007 1:23:12 AM Post #of 23729
Here is what I have come up with from my own DD on todays 14a filing etc.
To understand the current share situation we need to understand what happened with FCCN prior to SP (Mr. S. Peacock) getting involved with FCCN to clean up the mess and make the shell ready to merge with Aero. Here is the best recreation i can do with what I read up thus far ....
----- My recreation of history of FCCN before June 2006 [Mind you all of this happened before June 2006 when the filing came out on June 8, 2006: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060608/0134373.html]
- FCCN had BDC status in 2005/2004 ; as part of this status [ http://www.secinfo.com/d13y6x.v3k.htm ] the are prohibited from getting CDs and letting them convert into shares of FCCN under certain conditions. However, they went ahead and did this (CD with Golden Gate Investors [GGI] and conversion to shares) - violating the rules of SEC.
- The CEO, Bradford Miller, and 2 other execs ended up in litigation with GGI over this. [It appears that they have given some 'personal guarantees' to complete the CD contract, all in violation of rules.] My guess is -- the 840M shares that GGI accumulated as part of all those conversions thus ended up in escrow - as they are illegal/against rules.
- Subsequent management could not do much to resolve it and ended up doing more stupid things like R/S and cancelling A/S of 5Billion without proper approvals etc. -----------
with this mess, Steven Peacock (SP) was brought in to clean up the mess and find a new buyer/RM candidate.
My thoughts on current status --
- SP has found Aero to merge into this shell. - as part of it he had to clean up the mess.... I am sure he has a plan to do it and has convinced Aero that the plan is workable. Or else, they would not sign on. Also, SP is experienced and is not a novice at this sort of dealings.
- They have to clean up the wrongful filings with SEC => * so they have re-instated the A/S as of before and are doing the filings and restructuring of the share-structure (A/S, O/S and all the proper way) * one of the steps of which is to get out of the BDC status (so the merger can go ahead)
with regards to the converted shares in escrow for GGI - here are my thoughts: - from CCD money they took from GGI (during June 2004 to September 2005) they owed $220K. [Reference: http://www.secinfo.com/d13y6x.v3k.htm ] There were clear violations of SEC rules in this process (both in the agreements signed by the 3 officers while the company was in BDC status as well as by GGI in doing the conversion to shares). So the agreements were terminated in Sept. 2005, which resulted in litigation between GGI and the 3 officers of 2005.
- [Other CDs from other sources were paid off - so not an issue.]
- Given the illegalities surrounding the GGI shares - they were placed in escrow. - GGI will not be able to sell them. My guess will be that they will get paid the remaining money's owed -- 220K$, which is chump-change for Aero. {{ If I have to speculate here, part of the 1.5M loan in this merger deal could be to take care of this sort of clean up...}} Once GGI issue is taken care of, these 780M or so shares in escrow will be cancelled.
- moreover, after the change of BDC status to a normal operating PK company status, they will address the A/S of 5B [restructure the old unreasonable A/S of 5B and make it much more reasonable.]
So in a way it is good they filed this today -- although I was initially not so happy at the filing late frdiay afternoon, but come to think of it it is better this way as people can calmly analyse it instead of making rash, irrational decisions during trading hrs.
- this filing shows that after the merger-8k filing there has been no dilution. (All this ugly O/S details -- 920M O/S of which 780M GGI are escrowed, with possibly 63M non-escrowed shrs that they may hold -- are as part of the past screw up and not the result of recent actions by FCCN. So all the dilution fears are groundless.) - They are taking overt, public steps towards cleaning up the past mess at a fast pace. - i am sure Mr. Peacock (SP) knows how to clean it up. Moreover AERO has confidence in SP or else they won't be letting him spearhead this transition/merger.
Very good synopsis. This is how I read this as well. Saved me typing again. Ok... back to bed... if my 4 year old lets me. dog
an understandable read...Now we only need to know how they will pay off GGI, the company file and PR that info... and this thing should be "good to go"...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Thanks for all of your input it has shed some light on the current status. I am still learning and always looking for diffenent ideas and input. I am with you dog.
-------------------- Must be an easier way! Disclaimer: Don't buy or sell on my advice I am not a licensed broker. Posts: 424 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Posted by: Bellman In reply to: None Date:1/21/2007 10:32:26 PM Post #of 24660
Here is a simple analogy of what happened regarding the Golden Gate Investors shares.
Say you go out and buy a car that has been stolen, you may or may not know the car was stolen. All you know is that you got a great deal on it.
You are sitting around enjoying what a great deal you got, when the police arrive and tell you the car was stolen.
You tell them you bought it from a guy you met at a bar.
You even show them a bill of sale.
The cops look at the bill of sale and decide not to arrest you, but they take the car because it is “stolen property” and return it to the rightful owner.
Now you are out your money and the car. Are you going to go to the rightful owner of the car who it was stolen from to get your money back?
If you do, he is going to tell you to get lost.
That is why GGI took the three thieves to court. to get their money back.
They did not claim FCCN owed them anything and did not even try to collect from them.
The shares were stolen from FCCN by Bradford Miller and his two cronies and sold to GGI ILLEGALLY! GGI is not going back to the rightful owner FCCN to get the money they paid for stolen property because Peacock would tell them the same thing! Get lost!
Posted by: analogdog In reply to: Bellman who wrote msg# 24651 Date:1/21/2007 10:52:39 PM Post #of 24661
What if there was no limit on the time those shares could spend in Escrow? They may only have to be released if Bradford and cronies who perpetrated the original deal, pay the $220,000?
Essentially, those shares could be "retired" in a sense. If Bradford never gives them money... but GGI can't do anything with the shares under the terms of the original Escrow agreement. Kerpeesh?
They may have only released this 14A to address and lock up the shares until the contigent is paid by Branford in the original case. GGI has already filed against Bradford, there is an active case. They can't go after FCCN, change BDC status and they may be protected.. I have to check rules of law...
They may actually not have to do a damn thing with those shares... other than make them accounted for fully at a symbol and cusip change.
I'm thinking they can just retire those shares as they were created illegally and actually did not exist, GGI has to go after Bradford for the $220,000.
They already have a case underway. Good luck with that... good-bye.
Or am I just hypoglycemic?
Posted by: Bellman In reply to: analogdog who wrote msg# 24657 Date:1/21/2007 11:06:01 PM Post #of 24661
That is correct. What the escrow arrangement tells me that essentially the shares don't exist except for simply as a marker and Peacock will use them to make sure the deal with Aero goes through. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the shareholders owning legititmate shares would vote on the deal about 99%
Just some thoughts... could be crazy.. just thinking out loud. dog.
posted
Hope you are right dog. I have been reading a lot of bashing on other boards. Like always don't know what to think.
-------------------- Must be an easier way! Disclaimer: Don't buy or sell on my advice I am not a licensed broker. Posts: 424 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firedog: Hope you are right dog. I have been reading a lot of bashing on other boards. Like always don't know what to think.
Makes it tough to make up your own mind. We'll find out what happens... it'll sure be interesting.
posted
"Recently the Company's CEO appeared in a proceeding in San Diego Superior Court as a witness for the Company's former President and CEO, Bradford Miller, and two other shareholders. The three had personally guaranteed an agreement between Franchise Capital Corporation and Golden Gate Investors, and are now being sued by Golden Gate. Franchise Capital, which is not a party in the litigation, believes that the agreement was a violation of securities laws, and in addition, they believe Golden Gate violated Section 16b of the 1934 Act. Franchise Capital hopes that a decision in this case could aid the Company in settling its outstanding contract dispute with Golden Gate."
BOLD IS IMPORTANT. Can today's FFCN write this off? Personally gauranteed... they may have nothing to do with FCCN. Gimme those shares back! Eh, just retire them. They have to be accounted for.
Just need more PACER info... if someone has access.
posted
Thanks dog. For the DD. I do think that if no PR comes out quickly it will be bad this week. Just a hunch.
-------------------- Must be an easier way! Disclaimer: Don't buy or sell on my advice I am not a licensed broker. Posts: 424 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
3:06-cv-00611-J-POR Golden Gate v. Neild, et al Napoleon A. Jones, Jr, presiding Louisa S. Porter, referral Date filed: 03/20/2006 Date terminated: 09/20/2006 Date of last filing: 10/02/2006
Case Summary Office: San Diego Filed: 03/20/2006 Jury Demand: Both Demand: $336000 Nature of Suit: 190 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract Jurisdiction: Diversity Disposition: Dismissed - Settled County: San Diego Terminated: 09/20/2006 Origin: 2 Reopened:
Lead Case: None Related Case: None Other Court Case: None Def Custody Status: Flag: CLOSED
Plaintiff Golden Gate Investors Inc represented by Alan L Atlas Phone: (858)551-8789 Fax: (858)551-8779
Defendant Terry Neild represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Defendant Dana Bersch represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Defendant Bradford Miller represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Defendant DOES Counter Claimant Terry Neild represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Counter Claimant Dana Bersch represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Counter Claimant Bradford Miller represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Counter Defendant Golden Gate Investors Inc represented by Stephen M Spinella Phone: (858)793-8500 Fax: (858)793-8263 Email: steve*sgsslaw.com
Counter Defendant Roes Defendant Franchise Capital Corp represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Cross Claimant Terry Neild represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Cross Claimant Dana Bersch represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Cross Claimant Bradford Miller represented by Michael Dean Rogers Phone: (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889
Cross Defendant Golden Gate Investors Inc represented by Stephen M Spinella Phone: (858)793-8500 Fax: (858)793-8263 Email: steve*sgsslaw.com
posted
Here are the court docs showing the issue was handled out of court:
CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-00611-J-POR
Golden Gate v. Neild, et al Assigned to: Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter Demand: $336,000 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity Plaintiff Golden Gate Investors Inc a California corporation represented by Alan L Atlas Law offices of Alan L Atlas 7817 Herschel Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92037 (858)551-8789 Fax: (858)551-8779 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant Terry Neild represented by Michael Dean Rogers Lambert and Rogers 359 West Madison Avenue Suite 100 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619)588-7600 Fax: (619)588-7889 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant Dana Bersch represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant Bradford Miller represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant DOES 1-10, inclusive
Counter Claimant Terry Neild individually and on behalf of Franchise Capital Corporation, a Nevada corporation represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Claimant Dana Bersch individually and on behalf of Franchise Capital Corporation, a Nevada corporation represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Claimant Bradford Miller individually and on behalf of Franchise Capital Corporation, a Nevada corporationi represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Counter Defendant Golden Gate Investors Inc a California corporation represented by Stephen M Spinella Solomon Grindle Silverman and Spinella 12651 High Bluff Drive Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 (858)793-8500 Fax: (858)793-8263 Email: steve*sgsslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Defendant Roes 1 through 100, inclusive
Defendant Franchise Capital Corp represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cross Claimant Terry Neild represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cross Claimant Dana Bersch represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cross Claimant Bradford Miller represented by Michael Dean Rogers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Cross Defendant Golden Gate Investors Inc represented by Stephen M Spinella (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cross Defendant ROES 1 through 100
Date Filed # Docket Text 03/20/2006 1 Notice of Removal from Superior Court of CA, San Diego County t/w copies of complaint, answer and cross-complaint; Court Case Number: GIC860807 (to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter); Receipt No/Amt of Fee: 122769/$250.00; Demand for Jury (kaj) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/20/2006 1 Answer to complaint by defendant Terry Neild, defendant Dana Bersch, defendant Bradford Miller (kaj) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/20/2006 1 Counterclaim by defendant Terry Neild, defendant Dana Bersch, defendant Bradford Miller against plaintiff Golden Gate; Demand for Jury Trial (filed as cross-complaint) (kaj) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/20/2006 2 Demand for jury trial by defendant Terry Neild, defendant Dana Bersch, defendant Bradford Miller (kaj) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/29/2006 3 Order by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter; E.N.E. Conference set for 10:00 5/1/06 before Mag Judge Louisa Porter (kaj) (Entered: 03/30/2006) 04/12/2006 4 Answer by counter-defendant Golden Gate to Counterclaim of Terry Neild, Dana Bersch and Bradford Miller (kaj) (Entered: 04/13/2006) 04/26/2006 5 Minutes: Enter Order by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter E.N.E. Conference reset for 10:00 5/8/06 before Mag Judge Louisa Porter Court Reporter: n/a (axr) (Entered: 04/26/2006) 05/10/2006 6 Order by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter; Court held an ENE on 5/8/06 and the case did not settle Case Management conf set for 9:30 6/30/06 before Mag Judge Louisa Porter (axr) (Entered: 05/11/2006) 06/15/2006 7 Discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26 of the FRCP by counter-defendant Golden Gate (axr) (Entered: 06/16/2006) 07/06/2006 8 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter; On 6/30/06, the court held a telephonic case management conf Mand settlement conf set for 10:00 8/25/06 before Mag Judge Louisa Porter , Final Pretrial conf set for 10:30 4/16/07 before Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. Proposed final p/t conf ord by 04/9/07 (axr) (Entered: 07/06/2006) 08/03/2006 9 Stipulation allowing pla to file a first amd complaint for breach of contract and breach of guaranty by pla/cross dft Golden Gate Investors Inc (axr) (Entered: 08/04/2006) 08/03/2006 10 Order by Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr.; court orders that pla Golden Gate Investors, Inc may file a first amd complaint (axr) (Entered: 08/04/2006) 08/03/2006 11 FIRST Amended complaint [1-2] ; adding Franchise Capital, Terry Neild, Dana Bersch, Bradford Miller, Golden Gate, ROES (axr) (Entered: 08/04/2006) 08/31/2006 13 Consent to jurisdiction by a United States Mag Judge; parties in this case voluntarily consent to have US Mag Judge Louisa S. Porter conduct any and all further proceedings, including enforcement of the terms of the settlement agreementsigned by Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. on 08/31/06. (axr, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006) 09/05/2006 14 ORDER: Mandatory Settlement Conference held 8/25/06. Telephonic, attorneys-only Settlement Disposition Conference set for 9/15/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom H before Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter. Signed by Judge Louisa S Porter on 9/5/06. (cag) (Entered: 09/12/2006) 09/12/2006 12 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Settlement Disposition Conference set for 9/15/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom H before Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter. (ibf, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006) 09/14/2006 A Stipulation for Dismissal was submitted to the Honorable Louisa S Porter on September 14, 2006. Therefore, the Settlement Disposition Conference set for September 15, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. shall be VACATED. (ep, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006) 09/20/2006 15 PER ORDER DATED 9/27/06, STIPULATION IS STRICKEN- DOCUMENT RETURNED TO ATTY. (Entered: 09/22/2006) 09/27/2006 16 ORDER striking stipulation signed by Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. on 09/27/06. The court strikes from the docket the September 20, 2006, stipulated dismissal of complaint and cross complaint signed by the court. This matter is referred to Mag Judge Louisa S. Porter.(axr, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006) 10/02/2006 17 Stipulated dismissal of complaint and cross complaintsigned by Judge Louisa S Porter on 10/02/06. The court dismisses the complaint of Golden Gate Investors with prejudice against dfts, Terry Neild, Dana Bersch and Bradford Miller and without prejudice against dft Franchise Capital Corp formerly known as BGR corp. The court further dismisses the cross complaint of cross complainants, Terry Neild, Dana Bersch, and Bradford Miller, with prejudice. The Honorable Louisa S. Porter shall further retain jurisdiction of this action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and release reached among the parties and for any other matter or issue related to this action.(axr, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
