Since you now have Tony Isaac on the board, and the the Isaac Organization with a large holding, go check out the manipulation antics of LiveDeal (LIVE). LIVE has been run by Tony and his son, Jon, for the last few years and nothing but manipulation.
Also, check out the checkered history of VELA, another entity with Tony Isaac's fingerprints all over it.
MNGA is looking mighty plucky and could really test its 12 month high of $1.83 especially now that its confirmed another major sale of MagneGas®
So who sell 33 shares and is SO desperate to sell them they consent to losing an additional 1.99% just to get the sale?
You know I've been watching it more closely and have to agree 100%. The days its up a little at the end of the day somebody sells 100 shares at the bid even though thousands of shares traded at ask. Today was good when somebody put 26K shares up for sale somebody quickly bought them up. I'm just waiting for tender offer for most or all of the company. Have a nice day.
Seven-hundred forty-two shares driving the price down $0.12 or more than -5% is NOT a natural trend.
It doesn't even count as "price exploration". No, it's pure manipulation.
If this kind of #$%$ was happening in a casino all H would break out, people would be perp-walked and the jails would swell to overflowing. It would hit the national media. They wouldn't shut up about it for weeks if not months.
No, there's no manipulation going on here.
These vulture law firms only use professional lead plaintiffs, a practice that's illegal in many states. If we can find the name of that plaintiff, one can do a search on it and see if it pops up in any other "class action" lawsuits within the last ten years or gets used in any yet to be filed. They are commonly tied to "asset management" firms who invest for a mental incompetent with enough assets to buy 100-200 shares in hundreds or thousands of stocks (most less than $10/share). One key would be to find out WHEN these shares were bought.
The whole purpose is to harass a company, demand a lot of expensive "discovery" documents be handed over then reach a "settlement" for a few hundred thousand. The "settlement" is usually a non-opt out or has been until recently. One such is in its final death rattle appeal after their non-opt out status was quashed by the presiding judge and initial appeals court. It should make for lots of media buzz once they rule, expected sometime later this year.
That's typical, a company's stock tanks and these law firms file boiler-plate complaints then come up with only a shareholder with 200 shares, how embarrassing. They'll spend a lot of money on this one yet won't win a dime, but might lose a lot of money and reputation.
It's not like ARCI finagled any books, they simply got a vague tax right wrong according to one view, a view (Cali tax authorities) should have made clear. Both should settle for maybe $1M, then California authorities should make the tax law clear on it.
I agree even worst case they will be ok. I also agree it's in California sentiment to be green and so they might go easy on them. The only lawsuit issue the lead plaintiff if you read in the 10Q that shareholder owns 200 shares, are you kidding me. The law firm certainly won't pursue it for zero profit, plus it appears they haven't actually filed everything anyway. Once the deadline in early May passes for the lawsuits and nobody files anything material that should give the stock a relief rally. 1st quarter scrap is low but the company should be setting up for a good year long rally. I think the California investor will try to take it private, but that's just speculation based on the sec filings from last couple months. Have a nice day.
Even if they get hit with the taxes, as long as it's not beyond target their balance sheet can handle it. Clip it off as a write-off and ARCI may still be trading at just below NTB. Sure, it may yet hit historical lows, but that has been when it was losing money hand over fist..
Keep in mind that however affluent California is, there are millions of folks who have to buy appliances recycled, this one is a big green play and sentiments in California can easily change--why whack a recycler by a supposedly green state? They may go easy on this one and negotiate a settlement as a catalyst, and/or their restructuring might pay off as one.
Green can be mean to any short here who plays it too thinly, and short squeezes crush them on low floaters like this. I could understand a short on one like this without a balance sheet, but not on this one.