Post by digby on Apr 23, 2007 5:27:32 GMT -5
I've read the PR from Kevin and just can't seem to work up a concern about this company no matter how hard I try. No matter how you read it, there are too many holes that don't work in Kevin's latest missive.
1. We have no assets (except Entourage shares), no money and no claims.
Q: Doesn't this make us an empty shell with no product and no value?
2. Kevin is going to get our books and filings together so we can go forward and trade again.
Q: Why? If we are an empty shell with no product and no value, who would buy us?
Q: Why would they buy us?
3. Frizzell is working for free per the PR. This may be possible (though I doubt it). They are hiring forensic accountants (expensive) and additional legal teams throughout the USA (mega expensive).
Q: Why? If we are an empty shell with no product and no value, why bother?
Q: Why would the forensic accountants and additional legal teams come on board to work on behalf of a bankrupt company?
Q: Who or where is the funding coming from to forward this effort?
4. Don Stocklein stated in a PR before the revocation hearing that he had his team of accountants working on reconstructing the company records. Many accountants at that time echoed the sentiment that they could resurrect the company records within 3-6 months. It has been a year and a half or more.
Q: Stocklein produced zero?
Q: Maheu as the Trustee didn't hold his own lawyer accountable for his actions during this time or during the Task Force cert pull effort?
5. Robert Maheu was called upon to address the Onassis problem when Nations could do nothing against Onassis. Mr. Maheu was able to resolve the "situation" within short order.
Q: Maheu couldn't handle a sub-penny stock well enough to even notice that something not right was going on?
Q: The long arm that could slap down Onassis couldn't handle Urban?
I have gone on much longer in other posts discussing the holes in this PR and stance by Kevin. There is much much more that undermines it's validity. I guess the problem is that I've done too much DD on this stock to be blind to the discrepancies in Kevin's statements and assumptions.
We've known (or at least suspected) that Urban had moved the assets out of the company back in 2004. This is not a new "revelation".
Since we are a revoked stock, the SEC has no jurisdiction over us. A Wells Notice from them is, therefore, a farce and of little to no concern. It amounts to a note from your neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz. that says, "I'm investigating you". Any response back other than, "Yes Mrs. Kravitz, we know." is too much of a response. Yawn and go on with life.
As to 4 other agencies investigating "insiders" to this company, I should hope so! Weren't Desourmeau and Edwards both insiders? Haven't we already filed an action against company insiders?
1. We have no assets (except Entourage shares), no money and no claims.
Q: Doesn't this make us an empty shell with no product and no value?
2. Kevin is going to get our books and filings together so we can go forward and trade again.
Q: Why? If we are an empty shell with no product and no value, who would buy us?
Q: Why would they buy us?
3. Frizzell is working for free per the PR. This may be possible (though I doubt it). They are hiring forensic accountants (expensive) and additional legal teams throughout the USA (mega expensive).
Q: Why? If we are an empty shell with no product and no value, why bother?
Q: Why would the forensic accountants and additional legal teams come on board to work on behalf of a bankrupt company?
Q: Who or where is the funding coming from to forward this effort?
4. Don Stocklein stated in a PR before the revocation hearing that he had his team of accountants working on reconstructing the company records. Many accountants at that time echoed the sentiment that they could resurrect the company records within 3-6 months. It has been a year and a half or more.
Q: Stocklein produced zero?
Q: Maheu as the Trustee didn't hold his own lawyer accountable for his actions during this time or during the Task Force cert pull effort?
5. Robert Maheu was called upon to address the Onassis problem when Nations could do nothing against Onassis. Mr. Maheu was able to resolve the "situation" within short order.
Q: Maheu couldn't handle a sub-penny stock well enough to even notice that something not right was going on?
Q: The long arm that could slap down Onassis couldn't handle Urban?
I have gone on much longer in other posts discussing the holes in this PR and stance by Kevin. There is much much more that undermines it's validity. I guess the problem is that I've done too much DD on this stock to be blind to the discrepancies in Kevin's statements and assumptions.
We've known (or at least suspected) that Urban had moved the assets out of the company back in 2004. This is not a new "revelation".
Since we are a revoked stock, the SEC has no jurisdiction over us. A Wells Notice from them is, therefore, a farce and of little to no concern. It amounts to a note from your neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz. that says, "I'm investigating you". Any response back other than, "Yes Mrs. Kravitz, we know." is too much of a response. Yawn and go on with life.
As to 4 other agencies investigating "insiders" to this company, I should hope so! Weren't Desourmeau and Edwards both insiders? Haven't we already filed an action against company insiders?
