Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PLNI - Game Over -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (11103)	8/29/2007 8:08:48 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12518

5. According to the Pro Mold, Inc. Disbursement Journals that are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”, “2” and “3”, Debtor Pro Mold has transferred the following amounts to Debtor Plasticon since June 22, 2007 for management fees: Date Amount a. June 22, 2007 $ 7,500.00 b. June 29, 2007 $ 7,500.00 b. July 6, 2007 $ 7,500.00 c. July 10, 2007 $ 7,500.00 Total $30,000.00 6. According to counsel for Debtor Pro Mold and Debtor Plasticon, Debtor Plasticon directed Debtor Pro Mold to pay these management fees to Debtor Plasticon “out of necessity because Debtor Plasticon had no money to pay its’ payroll.” 7. If Debtor Plasticon has no money to pay its’ payroll, Debtor Plasticon has no money to pay a $25,000 retainer to the attorney for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. 8. James Turek, Sr. reported to the Court on or about May 22, 2007 that Debtor Pro Mold had a written management agreement with Debtor Plasticon that provided for Debtor Pro Mold to pay Debtor Plasticon $25,000 per month. 9. The Court instructed Debtor Pro Mold to produce a copy of the written management agreement. 10. As of this date, no written management agreement has been produced. From: 07/20/2007 122 Objection Filed by Pro Plas LLC (RE: related document(s)102 Application to Employ). (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document) (Case, E.) (Entered: 07/20/2007) -------------------- Doc 122 pages 1 to 5 SEE - Message 23720468

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (11103)	8/30/2007 9:35:47 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12518

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