rrm modifies and adds to his 'apologies to all longs' post, no doubt believing it prudent to extend his apologies to the Murphy attorneys, "the Pro Plas legal team."
BEFORE -
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: None Date:8/30/2007 9:06:01 PM
Post #31831 of 31831
Bear, After reviwing the enclosure to document 53, which never got downloaded to our PACER archive (my fault), it does appear that the payroll for ProMold is far higher than the $7500 issued for payroll to Plastion. I have downloaded document 53 and will be placing it in the iBox for all to review. My apologies to all longs for the error. My fault. No excuses.
rrm
investorshub.advfn. com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22506819
AFTER -
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: None Date:8/30/2007 9:06:01 PM
Post # 31831 of 31831
Bear, After reviwing the enclosure to document 53, which never got downloaded to our PACER archive (my fault), it does appear that the payroll for ProMold is far higher than the $7500 issued for payroll to Plastion. I have downloaded document 53 and will be placing it in the iBox for all to review. My apologies to all longs for the error. My fault. No excuses.
My apologies too, to the Pro Plas legal team. Your concerns were validly stated. My error.
rrm
investorshub.advfn. com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22506819
And then rrm decided he had to explain that he added the Pro Plas legal team only 'out of courtesy'....
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: rrm_bcnu who wrote msg# 31831 Date:8/30/2007 9:32:19 PM
Post #31833 of 31833
My addition to the apology adding in ProPlas was out of courtesy... something many have no comprehension of.
siliconinvestor.com
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: None Date:8/30/2007 12:32:22 AM
Post #of 31833
...
However, the blatant misread of the Plasticon statement regarding payroll by Pro Plas is a divisive and IMO devious spin on the rightful need for the Pro Mold facility to pay it's own payroll in this Ch 11.
IMO these $7500 payments to Plasicon are for payroll, have nothing to do with anything other than payroll, and to imply otherwise requires the implier to prove the DIP monthly report (#158) incorrect. The dates and amounts on the DIP Monthly ending 31 July 07 appear to correspond to the Exhibits submitted by the Pro Plas creditor in other documents.
...
siliconinvestor.com |
