And today's desperate morning low-volume-premium-price-attempt-to-raise-the-price buy is for 100 shares at an insane $0.17 (9%) premium.
You just have to admire the persistence of the buyer.
Yesterday, April 10, another last minute low volume- super premium panic buy, bringing the price $0.06 up (3%,) in a desperate attempt to mask the slide.
... So today, April 7, at 10:14 am, the morning attempt to buy a rally with a premium buy of 10 thousand shares is over at 10:15, and the per share price off MTSL is sinking. Next up should be a last minute premium buy before closing in order to keep the price above the price at open...
You can spell??? I am impressed. Frankly, reading your past postings, I would have never guessed that you could.
20% appreciation in one day. Pretty close to same pattern that we saw over the last three run-ups.
Assuming that this is stable, the real question is how the 10Qs are going to be perceived.
Yes, it would seem so, but, so far, not bad enough to meet the ASK, which was $1.73.
So, in effect, by holding, the seller has lifted the ASK and the per share price.
We will see what happens next.
Well, as you would suspect, I am sure, there has been a number of updates on UNTK, which may -- or may not -- be worth reading.
On MTSL postings I get a lot of hits over from profit.ly.
Anyway, what is your feeling about the quarter?
Today is showing to be quite and erratic day.
Having leaped 5%, or so, in the morning to $1.84, the per share price of CKSW has now declined to $1.77 -- still considerably up from Friday's close at $1.72.
Besides the recent, arguably very positive news about the new sale of the company's managed MVNO offering, there is no "new" news that I am aware of.
The total influx up to Series D is approximately $30 million.
Assuming a pre-money valuation of $200 million, or so, $66 million breaks down to 33%.
Assuming that they retained control until the $66 million injection, my guess is that ownership is diluted down to 20% or less at this point. Certainly below the control-level, but still very reasonable.
Hope this helps.
I must say that the fact that you create your account on June 30th just in time to post this rather inflammatory question tends to undermine your credibility. However, as I suspect that you know this very well, we will let that issue rest for now.
With respect to the new CEO (I assume that you are referring to the current CEO,) your question is, however, on point as we know very little about Mr. Romanella's performance at UPS. In fact, the information that we have available is the information that is released by the company and Mr. Romanella, supplemented by sporadic press clippings over the years related to Mr. Romanella employment at UPS.
To what extent Mr. Romanella actually is qualified to run a publicly traded company is not know, whether or not he is suited to run a business like Unitek is not know, and whether or not he did well for UPS is not known.
However, as usual, if Mr. Romanella is not the right guy for the job and/or did not have a performance at UPS that would justify his hiring as CEO for Unitek (which I assume is what you are intimating,) is really not an issue between the shareholders and Mr. Romanella, but, rather, an issue between the shareholders and the Board of Directors, who hired Mr. Romanella. If, indeed, Mr. Romanella is not competent (for whatever reasons,) then he should be terminated and, more importantly, the Board of Directors should be replaced for bringing in an incompetent CEO.
If your message is indeed meant to imply that there is a problem and this implication is based on factual knowledge about Mr. Romanella, you should direct your concerns to the Board of Directors and -- possibly -- to the shareholders (assuming, of course, that you are a shareholder, yourself -- and if you are not, I ask, why are you here?)
As expected, Robert Strougo, the largest of the three plaintiffs, with an estimated potential loss of a whopping $2,563 on 1,100 shares, filed for acceptance as lead plaintiff.
Surprisingly, however, a new plaintiff appears to have emerged in the last moment with losses that seem to have caused Mr. Strougo to retract his request. This plaintiff, Plumbers Local No. 18, has evidently forwarded a memorandum to the Court, documenting a potential loss that exceeds this of the other three plaintiffs. The memorandum, however, is not yet on file in Pacer, so I don't know what it reflects.
We will see what happens next...
In fact you have managed to cram a surprisingly amount of incorrect information into only four lines, including the claim that the company "has committed fraud."
Yesterday was the expiry for the lead plaintiff, so, soon we will know if someone else has emerged or if the Court will find that any of the three -- not to my mind very representative -- plaintiffs are representative of the class.
Yes there is. Someone who cannot read. If you read you would see that I did not threaten anything. Rather, I pointed out that RealHazard (or whatever his alias of the day is) could be sued for defamation by someone with standing.
Thanks. Well, yes, news would probably be welcome (as long as they are not bad, I assume)
You know, you could write to the company and just ask and/or suggest. I mean, the CEO and the management team are accessible.
Well, chapter 11 would be initiated by the company with the argument that the company's assets, liabilities, and revenues are out of balance to such an extent that the company could never pay its debts.
Effectively, when this happens, and the shareholders are squeezed out, the creditors ends up owning the company (this is reinforced by the loan covenants, which, effectively, puts the entire company and its receivables up as collateral,) and, so, it is a very messy (and expensive) process involving a trustee whose fees are, to put it nicely, exorbitant (being a professional trustee is perhaps most profitable job on earth) and lots of litigation by everyone who ever had any involvement with the company.
It is rarely a win scenario for the lenders, and, so, they will probably resist. It is sometimes a win for the management team, but given the timeliness of the customer relationship, I suspect that this is not the case here (if things take a lot of time, DirecTV may move on, immediately decimating whatever business the management team will be preceding over.)
We should make no mistake about it. Chapter 11 is serious business and there is serious fees to be made, so a company has a lot of pushing and shoving going on from advisers and counselors, and sometimes such company can lose its mind and go for it.
My gamble is that this is not one of these times. However, clearly, as time drags on and the paper losses mount, the risk increases.
Well, that is a complex question.
If the company restructures as part of bankruptcy, the common shareholders are probably not going to fare well.
However, any company can restructure its debt at any time -- assuming that the loan terms allow for it -- by essentially paying of the loan with another loan. However, since early repayments are often associated with a charge and since the new lenders (who, btw, can be the same lenders that have the old loan) are not dummies, this may, in effect, be a very expensive approach.
In some cases the lender may recognize that the debt burden is crippling -- threatening to lead to liquidation or bankruptcy reorganization (a lose-lose scenario) -- and, therefore, agree to reduce the debt.
The situation with Unitek is complex. On the one hand the lenders are clearly working with the company, but, on the other hand, they are clearly also exercising all their rights. My guess (and it is not particularly qualified) is that the lenders will refinance Unitek's debt, giving the company breathing room.
For sure, if the company ends up in a situation where the common shareholders gets squeezed out, there will be a new series of class action suits based on the May/June actions of the company, and I am guessing these will be far more popular and potent than the current, rather anemic suits, and, so, I assume that the restructuring will be made in good spirit.
The thing to remember, I think, is that shareholders, insiders, lenders, and customers have the same goal here: To iron this out and move on to the business of making money.
I am struggling here... You keep doing the same thing: Postulating objective facts about the company, the CEO, and other parties in a matter that is clearly actionable defamatory statements.
Now, your contention is some sort of conspiracy theory on the back-end of some alleged sale on February 27.
If you read the filings (there is a theme here, clearly,) you would have noted that the "sale" that you are alluding to was a complex transaction, transferring shares from one fund to another (the transaction actually was on February 28, not the 27 -- at least get your dates straight.) Unless you have more information than what is available in the filings, you have no basis for your claims.
You are clearly inferring that the company and the CEO did something wrong and in some way gave a holder a heads-up, which then caused the holder to sell at some advantage. That would, of course, be a crime, and you are, therefore, implying through statement of objective facts that the company and others are criminals -- presumably with the objective of impacting upon the company's and these individuals financial situation and/or reputation.
With the continued barrage of defamation, I for one, would at this point take you to court. As a shareholder in Unitek Global Services I certainly would support the company in taking legal action against you.
Again you were wrong and again you try to breeze over your error. Get your facts straight....
And, again, try to stay of the defamation of character. Calling the company's CEO stupid or implying that he has acted in an inappropriate -- if not criminal -- way is to invite trouble -- particular when you do not read the actual filings and probably know very little about what is going on.
You may want to check on Krinsky vs. Doe... Given your continued postulations of objective facts about the company, the CEO, and other parties, you are certainly skirting on what the courts found to be actionable defamatory statements. Certainly, Mr. Romanella would not be out of bounds if he, at this point, were to litigate against you for defamation, and I thin the company could arguably have cause for an action as well.
Hmmm.. I am not sure what you mean, but (1) no news, and (2) there is trade (see below)
Date Open High Low Close/Last Volume
11:08 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 302