A recent article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal tells us of the latest troubles of Daryl O. Anderson, a veteran of the great CMKM penny-stock swindle.
Anderson was a stock broker at the now-defunct NevWest Securities, which used to sell CMKM stock in the heyday of Casavant and his cronies. Back in the good ol' days, over the four year period 2003-07, CMKM sold $200 million in stock to the public on that public's expectation that such capital would help exploit the diamond wealth of Saskatchewan, Canada. By the spring of 2007, CMKM was a penny stock company with, in essence, no assets and $558 in the cash drawer.
CMKM still exists, but the new management there is encouraging the Dept. of Justice, the FBI, and an IRS task force to "finally issue indictments and commence criminal proceedings" against the the old management.
Anyway, none of this has discouraged Daryl Anderson, who got right back on the horse, as they say in Nevada. The Fort Worth, Texas office of the SEC has recently filed a lawsuit against Anderson for stock scalping involving a company named Cloudtech Sensors. [Stock scalping involves the recommendation of the purchase of a stock while the person giving the recommendation is himself selling it into the market.]
Apparently, this enterprising fellow got forty investors to pony up $3 million total for Cloudtech, which caused a 358% rise in its price, allowing him to cash out his Cloudtech for a profit of $930,852.
My point? Just the age-old one: caveat emptor.
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Trico Marine, Outcome
The shareholders of Trico Marine elected the two contested incumbent nominees at the 2009 Annual Meeting, Joseph S. Compofelice and Ben A. Guill.
The Trico Marine Group, which is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, provides subsea, trenching, and marine support vessels and services.
This is a defeat for the two Kistefos nominees, Christen Sveaas and Age Korsvold. A proposal to expand the size of the board was also defeated.
But all was not lost for admirers of insurgency. A proposal to declassify the board of directors prevailed.
The company's announcement is here.
One of the unusual features of this particular proxy fight was the involvement of the Jones Act, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. This is a bill that provides for workers compensation payments to seamen, and that offers various sorts of protectionism to US maritime related industry. For example, the Jones Act prevents US shipholders from refurbishing their ships in foreign ports.
Trico made a point that the Jones distinguishes between US companies and non-US companies, beneficiaries of its protection provisions and non-beneficiaries, based on the control of a company even by indirect means. It said that a May 29th letter the company had received from the US Maritime Administration said that Trico's protected status might be at risk should certain Kistefos-sponsored outcomes ocur at the meeting. I'll try not to get into the technicalities of it, which are intricate.
The bottom line, after all, is that the issue turned out to be a red herring, though, as on June 5 the same agency sent a follow-up letter. "In light of our review of Delaware case law and the affidavit of Messrs Korsvold and Sveaas, we find that concern regarding use of Independent Proxies has been assuaged."
Still, maybe that isn't quite the bottom line. For who knows but that the momentunm of a proxy contest, always an uphill matter, was broken during that period between the 29th and the 5th, when this seemed to be an issue?
The Trico Marine Group, which is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, provides subsea, trenching, and marine support vessels and services.
This is a defeat for the two Kistefos nominees, Christen Sveaas and Age Korsvold. A proposal to expand the size of the board was also defeated.
But all was not lost for admirers of insurgency. A proposal to declassify the board of directors prevailed.
The company's announcement is here.
One of the unusual features of this particular proxy fight was the involvement of the Jones Act, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. This is a bill that provides for workers compensation payments to seamen, and that offers various sorts of protectionism to US maritime related industry. For example, the Jones Act prevents US shipholders from refurbishing their ships in foreign ports.
Trico made a point that the Jones distinguishes between US companies and non-US companies, beneficiaries of its protection provisions and non-beneficiaries, based on the control of a company even by indirect means. It said that a May 29th letter the company had received from the US Maritime Administration said that Trico's protected status might be at risk should certain Kistefos-sponsored outcomes ocur at the meeting. I'll try not to get into the technicalities of it, which are intricate.
The bottom line, after all, is that the issue turned out to be a red herring, though, as on June 5 the same agency sent a follow-up letter. "In light of our review of Delaware case law and the affidavit of Messrs Korsvold and Sveaas, we find that concern regarding use of Independent Proxies has been assuaged."
Still, maybe that isn't quite the bottom line. For who knows but that the momentunm of a proxy contest, always an uphill matter, was broken during that period between the 29th and the 5th, when this seemed to be an issue?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Pinnacle Partners v. Forgent Networks Inc.
Forgent Networks Inc. is the legal name of a Texas-based enterprise that does business as Asure Software and that trades on Nasdaq as ASUR.
Pinnacle Partners LLC is an activist hedge fund run by David Sandberg with a stake in ASUR.
On May 4, 2009, Sandberg filed a Schedule 13D on Pinnacle's behalf announcing his/its intention to initiate a proxy fight in hopes of voting down the "going private" transaction on which the stockholders will vote at a special meeting scheduled for June 2, 2009.
I'll just lazily link you to a further discussion by a less indolent blogger, "Dave in Hackensack" as he calls himself.
Enjoy.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Bracewell & Giuliani
The latest issue of Vanity Fair has a feature story about former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Some of the buzz about this issue has suggested that this story, written by Michael Shnayerson, would be a great take-down piece. A serious blow to Rudy's candidacy.
It isn't. Frankly, I got the sense reading it that Shnayerson was flailing about a bit, trying to score a solid punch and missing.
Example: In 2005 (as the story accurately reports), Giuliani became a partner at what had been the Texas law firm of Bracewell & Patterson. It's now, of course, the Texas & New York law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani.
By the time Giuliani put his name on the door, Bracewell had become, we're told, "the go-to law firm for major polluters in oil and gas as well as coal companies."
Shocking. Until you give it a second's thought. A prominent Texas law firm represents oil and gas companies? Such companies, when accused of environmental violations, hire lawyers to defend them? What's the shocker there again?
Then we get a long graf re-hashing the Citgo connection. No "mini-scoop" here. This stuff was all thoroughly vented months ago. Yes, Citgo is run by the Venezuelan state, which is currently run by Hugo Chavez, a nasty piece of work.
"Bracewell & Giuliani [has] been happy to take Chavez' money," our intrepid reporter breathlessly informs us.
Would he be happier -- would he want us to be happier -- if B&G hadn't taken Chavez' money? Suppose they had represented Citgo's interests in the US for free, and called it their pro bono work for the year. Feel better?
Either way: they're in the business of advocacy, aren't they? A law firm can, without any shadow to its reputation, defend a serial killer -- for money if he can pay it. Why is it hard to believe that a law firm can work for the interests of a company that does a lot of business in the US, that is run by the government of a foreign state.
The fact that I say "big whoop" to this doesn't make me partial to Giuliani. (Although, for the sake of full disclosure, I might as well admit that a couple of the lawyers who work in Bracewell & Giuliani -- NOT the candidate -- have been valuable sources to me in explaining some legal issues pertinent to stories I've been working on.) I'm not partial to Rudy as a candidate at all -- indeed (a) I don't believe in politics, (b) even if I did believe in politics, it would be a sort of politics that would involve the rejection of the two major parties, and (c) even thinking within the box of those two parties, the only candidate who makes even a smidgen of sense to me is Ron Paul. So there, for Rudy.
Still, I recognize a flailing boxer in the ring when I see one. And that is the figure Mr. Shnayerson cuts.
It isn't. Frankly, I got the sense reading it that Shnayerson was flailing about a bit, trying to score a solid punch and missing.
Example: In 2005 (as the story accurately reports), Giuliani became a partner at what had been the Texas law firm of Bracewell & Patterson. It's now, of course, the Texas & New York law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani.
By the time Giuliani put his name on the door, Bracewell had become, we're told, "the go-to law firm for major polluters in oil and gas as well as coal companies."
Shocking. Until you give it a second's thought. A prominent Texas law firm represents oil and gas companies? Such companies, when accused of environmental violations, hire lawyers to defend them? What's the shocker there again?
Then we get a long graf re-hashing the Citgo connection. No "mini-scoop" here. This stuff was all thoroughly vented months ago. Yes, Citgo is run by the Venezuelan state, which is currently run by Hugo Chavez, a nasty piece of work.
"Bracewell & Giuliani [has] been happy to take Chavez' money," our intrepid reporter breathlessly informs us.
Would he be happier -- would he want us to be happier -- if B&G hadn't taken Chavez' money? Suppose they had represented Citgo's interests in the US for free, and called it their pro bono work for the year. Feel better?
Either way: they're in the business of advocacy, aren't they? A law firm can, without any shadow to its reputation, defend a serial killer -- for money if he can pay it. Why is it hard to believe that a law firm can work for the interests of a company that does a lot of business in the US, that is run by the government of a foreign state.
The fact that I say "big whoop" to this doesn't make me partial to Giuliani. (Although, for the sake of full disclosure, I might as well admit that a couple of the lawyers who work in Bracewell & Giuliani -- NOT the candidate -- have been valuable sources to me in explaining some legal issues pertinent to stories I've been working on.) I'm not partial to Rudy as a candidate at all -- indeed (a) I don't believe in politics, (b) even if I did believe in politics, it would be a sort of politics that would involve the rejection of the two major parties, and (c) even thinking within the box of those two parties, the only candidate who makes even a smidgen of sense to me is Ron Paul. So there, for Rudy.
Still, I recognize a flailing boxer in the ring when I see one. And that is the figure Mr. Shnayerson cuts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
