"Hope you have a relaxing weekend - and down a brew for me"
Well, that's the plan, starting in about three hours. I'm starting some hardware revisions on my little network here, but I usually can manage that with a beer or two.
Incidentally, we're starting to see a small variety of "legal" corn liquors in the local package store; found one so far that has the right combination of flavor and price.
I'm told that, by fall, we'll have a more or less local (in state, anyway) corn whiskey distillery over in New Straitsville. Back when I was a young 'un, moon shiners over there had a reputation for turning out a very high quality product with a unique flavor; looking forward to seeing whether they can do it in a legal setting.
Good afternoon, Fritz.
Yes, both of your observations are appropriate.
The amazing thing to me is that, notwithstanding the obvious risks, there were still people willing to trade FEEDQ right up to its precipitous demise. The commentary on the FEEDQ message board might just as well be a template for many other non-reporting issuers.
Today, the SEC revoked the registration of AgFeed Industries, Inc. (FEEDQ, formerly FEED on the NASDAQ).
The noteworthy feature of this particular revocation is the absence of a preliminary suspension; FEEDQ was trading right up through yesterday.
Per FINRA's latest published figures, ABAT short interest as of 31 March was 107,299 shares, down -30,237 shares (nearly 22%) from the previous reporting period.
My expectation is that short interest will prove to have fallen below 100,000 shares when figures for 15 April are published.
More interesting, at least from a purely academic viewpoint, will be LDK (now LDKSY) for this next period. Curious to see how much covering occurred considering 1) the extended halt, and 2) the fall well below $1.00 PPS.
At least a couple of the long side ETF's actually trade in physical contracts. If you look back through the financial news at the time they came into being (again, mid-to-late 2000's) some commentators postulated that the mere presence of these funds might skew the market, particularly those that traded in front month contracts, as they'd be dumping and moving on to the next month on a regular basis.
Makes for interesting reading, if nothing else.
If you want to "get your feet wet" and don't have the storage space in case you need to actually take delivery on a NYMEX contract, here are some alternatives:
Personally, I don't dabble in any of these, as they don't appear to me to do all that good a job tracking the commodities they're supposed to.
There was a fellow posting here years ago (covnvest, I think was his user name) who was trading with one or two of these back in 2008-2009; not sure how he fared.
My understanding is that the Receiver in ZSTN (Seiden) is required to file periodic reports / accounts with the District Court (my recollection is that these were to be monthly, but I may be mistaken).
I don't have a horse in either race (SCEI or ZSTN) so I haven't had any interest in running up the tab on my PACER account to get the Receiver's reports. I'd think, though, that most of the questions arising should be addressed in those.
"Now get going you young whipper-snapper."
I'll have you know I'm happily married (33 years, now) and my head is not so easily turned by such shameless flattery.
unwiredguy, fritz, lbcb, pip, et al--thanks so much for the kind words; if I wasn't already retired, I might be tempted to stand for public office.
I'm in agreement with lbcb321 here.
Read through the detail of the proposed restructuring carefully, particularly the dilution analysis. Note particularly the assumptions in the latter. Now that the PPS is far below $1.00, all that goes out the window. Under the scenario presented, dilution for current current ADR holders to around 22% was modeled. Think about the prospects now.
Well, Panasonic's President, Kazuhiro Tsuga, started to distance his company from ol' Elon's "giga factory" almost as soon as the PR came out on the 26th, but don't think I'm ungrateful for your sharing of your expertise.
You'll find my ego isn't so easily bruised as that of some other folks on the board here. In fact, I promise you that I'll be the very first to come on here and eat "crow pie"--the instant that Tesla and ABAT issue the joint press release announcing that fat battery supply contract or collaborative venture.
I'd still suggest you explore that Panasonic NCR18650PD cell. Just for kicks, you might also look into just what ABAT's cylindrical cell capacity is, versus, say, CBAK and HPJ ( we already have a good notion of Panasonic's capability in that area).
I'd tend to presume it's the same dialect from which "...when pigs fly..." is rendered into English as "....in the coming months...". Would you call that Foondarin?
I'd love to know by what logic they include A123 Systems on the list, or, for that matter Altair. Even EnerDel is questionable, when outfits like Basf, Saft, Wanxiang, and Winston Battery are inexplicably left off.
Saft and JCI should probably be in both cell manufacturers and battery pack system integrators. Winston Battery is more than a bit player in that area, as well.
No accounting for taste, I guess.
I check 'em every day. Two more Chinese "blank check" companies and one actually trading revoked today-China Metallic Resources, Inc., and China Timber Work Enterprises Inc., Delaware-incorporated shells that never traded, and Jinhao Motor Company (GIMC), a Nevada-domiciled RTO.
All very interesting, Twist, but not responsive to the question:
When do you expect that ABAT will resume its periodic filing obligations?
In light of this, when do you expect that ABAT will resume its periodic filing obligations? If we assume, as LBCB321 has suggested, that they are no longer an "accelerated filer", they still have an opportunity to get the 10-K for 2013 filed in a timely manner (10-K due on 31 march, "NT" could be filed 1 April).
Here you go:
"PANASONIC AND TESLA REACH AGREEMENT TO EXPAND SUPPLY OF AUTOMOTIVE-GRADE BATTERY CELLS
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
OSAKA, Japan / PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Panasonic Corporation and Tesla Motors today announced that the two companies have reached an agreement in which Panasonic will expand its supply of automotive-grade lithium-ion battery cells to Tesla. With this agreement, the two companies update and expand their 2011 arrangement to now supply nearly 2 billion cells over the course of four years. The lithium-ion battery cells purchased from Panasonic will be used to power the award winning Model S as well as Model X, a performance utility vehicle that is scheduled to go into production by the end of 2014.
This agreement builds upon a multi-year collaboration between Panasonic and Tesla to develop next-generation automotive-grade battery cells and accelerate the market expansion of electric vehicles. Panasonic’s cells combined with Tesla’s proven EV battery expertise have already enabled more than 130 million customer miles driven in Tesla Roadsters and Model S.
'This expanded agreement with Panasonic is important to Tesla as we continue to increase the pace of production,” said Tesla Co-Founder and CEO Elon Musk. “We look forward to strengthening our relationship with Panasonic, and I’m confident that this partnership will continue to be an integral part of Tesla’s success for years to come.'
Together, Panasonic and Tesla have developed a next-generation battery cell technology that provides the highest energy density and best performance cells in the market. Panasonic’s cylindrical cell is a customized technology designed specifically for optimizing electric vehicle quality and life. These cells are integrated by Tesla into the battery pack in a way that enables an industry-leading range of approximately 265 miles for the Model S."
Look up Panasonic's NCR18650PD (cylindrical) cell.
I agree that Judge McMahon has exhibited extraordinary patience here.
She asked for a reasonable date by which ABAT would comply with the law, and defense counsel crawfished.
Understand that Braun ( the derivative action) isn't about delinquent filings. Braun was filed on 28 June 2011, when ABAT was still in compliance in that regard. Braun is about the officers' and directors' negligence in their fiduciary duty to shareholders, including, inter alia, misrepresentation of related party transactions, misrepresenting or withholding information from auditors, quality of audits, etc..
ABAT's management merely compounded the negligence by ceasing to file their obligatory reports; if they had intentionally set out to hand a prima facie case to Braun, they could hardly have managed it better.
Any suggestion that further delay in these filings is warranted is patently absurd.
Agreed. I haven't looked at the docket since February. At that point, counsel for both parties were to draft a revised settlement in Sanderson removing the requirement that Braun also settle. My recollection is that McMahon had tacitly approved the new language in Sanderson.
That said, though, Sanderson isn't concluded in the strictest legal sense until the final order is signed and filed, and we're months away from that. McMahon really took 'em to the woodshed over these periodic filings, and I can't see her countenancing a delay that has no legal basis in the first place.
"I agree fully and expect ABAT to follow through with the statement by their representation. This is to file when the Class suit is settled. I do not feel ABAT will file as long as the Class remains open."
Just so I understand, here--
Are you representing that defense counsel is going to stand up in front of a Federal judge and tell her that their client refuses to comply with U.S. securities law unless she approves the Sanderson ("Class") settlement?
I'd pay money to be in the courtroom when that happens.
Recall that Sunways went into receivership once before, nearly a year ago. They exited that process in August of 2013; now here they are again entering insolvency.