SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : 10-Bagger MINIMUM Rise from July 1, 2005 until December 31, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: inchingup who wrote (1601)12/6/2006 11:44:25 PM
From: rrufff  Respond to of 1694
 
What's the matter inchingup, don't you like it when one of your "SURE WINNERS" is analyzed.

I'd say right now LBWR is looking a lot better than TOVC.

For future reference re Enterprise Value

Preferreds.

Class A Preferred stock:
In January 2002, the company authorized the sale of up to 2,000,000 shares of its Class A Non-Voting Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (“Class A Preferred”). During 2002, the company sold 38,500 shares at $4.00 per share of its Class A Preferred in a private placement for approximately $142,000 in net proceeds. Each share of Class A Preferred is convertible into one share of voting common stock and entitles the holder to dividends, at $.40 per share per annum. The holder has the right to convert after one year subject to Board approval.
In connection with this offering the company granted the placement agent 5,000 Class A Warrants, exercisable for five years at an exercise price of $1.52 per share into common stock. The company also granted to these investors 2,500 Class A Warrants, exercisable for five years at an exercise price of $0.01 per share. Such warrants were treated as a cost of the offering. Also, the placement agent was granted 10,000 warrants for providing certain financial analysis for the company. The warrants are immediately exercisable at $.30 per share for five years. The warrant contains a cashless exercise feature. The company valued the warrant at $8,000 using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and charged operations. On July 8, August 14, September 11, 2003 and August 4, 2006, the company issued 2,500, 7,480, 1,200 and 2,500 common shares, respectively, to the placement agent upon the exercise of warrants issued in connection with this offering.

Note F — Stockholders’ (Deficiency) Equity (continued)
[1] Class A Preferred stock: (continued)
During 2005, the company sold 200,000 Class A Preferred for $800,000 and issued 62,500 associated common stock warrants with an exercise price of $.01 per share. Such warrants are convertible immediately and are exercisable for ten years.
During the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2006, the company sold 78,750 and 162,000 Class A Preferred to investors for proceeds of $315,000 and $648,000, respectively. One investor also purchased 20,500 common stock warrants for a purchase price of $2,000 for the period ended March 31, 2006. The company issued 77,515 and 121,265 additional common stock warrants to investors in connection with the purchase of Class A Preferred for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2006. All such warrants are exercisable at $.01 per common share. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2006, 35,000 and 47,500 of these warrants were exercised for proceeds of $350 and $475 respectively.
At September 30, 2006 and 2005, dividends in arrears amounted to approximately $409,000 and $208,000, respectively.
[2] Class B Preferred stock:
On October 21, 2004, the company authorized the sale of up to 300,000 shares of its Class B Non-Voting Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (“Class B Preferred”). During 2004, the company sold 42,500 shares at $5.00 per share of its Class B Preferred for $212,500. Each share of Class B Preferred is cumulative convertible into either one share of voting common stock of the company or one share of common stock of Iso-Torque Corporation under certain circumstances and entitles the holder to dividends, at $.50 per share per annum. The holder has the right to convert into shares of the company’s common stock after one year subject to Board approval. At September 30, 2006 and 2005, dividends in arrears amounted to approximately $43,000 and $22,000, respectively.
(1) In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, whether voluntary or involuntary, the holders of Class B Preferred Shares then outstanding are entitled to be paid out of the assets of the Corporation available for distribution to its shareholders, whether such assets are capital, surplus or earnings, before any payment or declaration and setting apart for payment of any amount in respect of any shares of any Junior stock with respect to the payment of dividends or distribution of assets on liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, all accumulated and unpaid dividends (including a prorated dividend from the last Dividend Accrual Date) in respect of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up consummated except that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section B(2), all of such accumulated and unpaid dividends will be paid in Class B Preferred Shares at a rate of 1 Class B Preferred Share for each $5.00 of dividends. No fractions of Class B Preferred Shares shall be issued. The Corporation shall pay cash in lieu of paying fractions of Class B Preferred Shares on a pro rata basis.
(2) The Class B Preferred Shares will be entitled to participate on a pro rata basis in any distribution of assets as may be made or paid on Junior Stock upon the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Corporation.



To: inchingup who wrote (1601)12/6/2006 11:52:30 PM
From: rrufff  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1694
 
More on TOVC - I'm skipping for now lots of footnotes. How about all those warrants and options for el cheapo shares? Have any of those?

Lots of "business consultant" shares in there.

What do you know about them? SEC guy around?

How about litigation? Problem here with "consultant". YOU SEEM TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT LAWYERS AND LEGALITIES. LOOKS LIKE THEY NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DOING VERY WELL IN COURT.

ooooooopsie!!

Note I – Litigation

On September 30, 2005, the company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the Seventh Judicial District seeking that Court’s determination that the company’s agreements with the management consulting firm were null and void and unenforceable as against the company, its officers and directors. (See Note H)

On February 1, 2006, the company moved for an order granting summary judgment in favor of the company and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The company’s motion is based upon its contention that specific provisions of the purported April 12, 2005 agreement are illegal and void as a matter of law and that since the illegal provisions are central to the purported agreement’s main purpose, such provisions in the absence of a “severability” provision, vitiates the entire document. The provisions in question require that James and Keith Gleasman, as directors and majority shareholders of the company, vote their shares to perpetuate the provisions of members the firm as directors and officers of the company. Other provisions require Messrs. Gleasman to indemnify members the firm from liability for their conduct. The company’s motion was also based upon its view that the enforcement of the purported agreement would result in unjust enrichment since the company believes that the management consulting firm has not provided the services called for under the agreements and that the firm has already been paid far more than the value of the services actually rendered to it by such firm. In addition, the members of the firm have performed no services for the company since July, 2005 and no longer serve the company as officers or directors, or in any other capacities. The enforcement of the purported agreements would only compel the company and its shareholders to pay the management consulting firm substantial sums for inadequate performance.

On April 27, 2006, the Court dismissed the company’s summary judgment motion as to the illegality of the agreements and, in addition, granted the management consulting firm’s motion for summary judgment as to a limited number of counterclaims brought against the company solely with respect to the February agreement. On May 8, 2006, the Court entered a judgment and order directing the company to honor the exercise of two warrants (under both the February and June agreements) which had previously presented to the company for an aggregate 40,000 common shares and, in addition, grant a warrant to the management consulting firm for 245,000 common shares earned under the contested equity incentive provision, exercisable at $.01 per share. The Court also ordered the company to honor the approximately 511,200 additional warrants previously granted to the firm under the contested June and April agreements if and to the extent such firm exercised such warrants.

The company believes the Court has committed reversible error and on May 9, 2006, filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Court’s decision, judgment and order with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Fourth Department. In addition, on May 15, 2006, the company filed a motion for reargument and/or renewal with the Court on the basis that such Court had overlooked significant facts supporting the company’s position and completely misstated certain facts in a manner to sustain defendants’ position. On June 28, 2006, the Court denied the company’s request for reargument and/or renewal and an order confirming such denial was entered on July 17, 2006.