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: scion who wrote (11976)	1/23/2008 6:47:52 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 12518

22. A Final Hearing to consider the Motion, if any objection is filed, will be held before the Court on February 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4001(d)(3), if no objection is timely filed and served, this Interim Order shall become a Final Order without further hearing. 01/23/2008 362 Proposed Order submitted by Stephen Barnes (RE: related document(s)357 Motion to Approve, filed by Trustee Stephen Palmer). (Barnes, Stephen) (Entered: 01/23/2008) ----------------- Doc 362

To: scion who wrote (11976)	1/24/2008 9:41:14 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12518

....this case is replete with examples of at best, incompetence or gross mismanagement, and at worst with fraud and dishonesty. First, Plasticon’s incurrence of more than $70 million in expenses when it earned no revenue in 2004, followed by an incurrence of an additional $31 million in expenses on revenues of only $65,000 during 2005, provides the simplest “bottom line” evidence of gross mismanagement or incompetence. Turek cannot justify these outlays as a capital investment because the overwhelming majority of these outlays went toward compensation for services. In fact, the evidence is strong that this gross mismanagement was by design. Turek was issued millions of shares as “compensation,” public reporting (of Plasticon’s poor performance) was delayed, and in its place were misleading press releases. This pattern of incomplete and misleading disclosures should itself constitute cause to appoint a trustee. See In re Wright Air Lines, 51 B.R. 96, 98 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1985) (section 1104 designed to remedy concealment in public reporting of securities transactions by Debtor) (dicta). This pattern of behavior could only benefit an insider and major shareholder such as Turek. An insider such as Turek also benefits from the unclear ownership of the patents between the Debtor and PCI and Turek’s children. Cf. In re Intercat, Inc., 247 B.R. 911, 922 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2000) (trustee appointed when debtor, inter alia, transferred intellectual property assets to another entity controlled by insider); In re Embrace Systems Corp., 178 B.R. 112, 128-29 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1995) (trustee appointed sua sponte after attempted sale of intellectual property to insider corporation; ownership of intellectual property was in dispute between debtor and insider corporation of which President of Debtor had an interest.) Extract from Pacer Doc 156 MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE