MTVX Company info 08/22/2014 14:24:00 $MTVX 50 mi
Post# of 64205
Posted On: 08/22/2014 3:24:04 PM
MTVX Company info 08/22/2014 14:24:00 $MTVX
50 million is a nice round number...but 60 million would be heavier. To you! I agree it is loading time too
Power hour!
MTVX Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/APT-Moto-Vox-Grou...TVX-87784/
Nice Rico! Glad to have you here!
The big MM ( Masters of manipulation ) hard at work on this ticker.
$MTVX PowerAPT Time!!!
8k expected after close today per investor relations....gonna see some gains next week.
I have being following MTVX for quite a while from the sides. Have done enough DD, looks like will not hit triple zeros, I was hopping for that, so I have being doing text if this is duling but that is thing of the past. Yesterday's news will propel the pps way up to pennies ones reflects the revenues in the next quarters, so I have decided to start loading today, my goal is to reach 50 mill from time to time. My group will be doing so too. Loading zone now. Reloading in the next few days/weeks to come. MTVX
dianne, they are amending the original 4/21 settlement, hence the filing on 8/13 is an 8K/A. Hence the new filings and orders filed on the 19th is an amendment to the case, same case number. The dismissal doesn't change, it still stays and still is a dismissal for the entire case regardless of the changes and amendments to the settlement in the interim.
I do believe that on the 19th 8:30AM hearing, the Judge denied the amendment to the new settlement agreement for certain reasons, but it does seem from the filings on the later 19th day, show that the changes has been made and addressed with the Judge, which later was signed and became an "order" filed.
Agree, lets wait to see what they file later today, think that's what Paul told someone here that the 8K will be filed after market?
All I said was
Quote:
New settlement terms have been FILED...nothing on here indicating the Judge signed off...yet...
but doubt that should be a problem...
I'm sure IronRidge uses that court for a reason...
which, after I saw it said DENIED, I edited to read
Quote:
New settlement terms have been FILED...nothing on here indicating the Judge signed off...yet...
EDIT!>>> (Ooopps! I read through too quickly! DOES THAT SAY DENIED!!!???!!!)<<<
but doubt that should be a problem...
I'm sure IronRidge uses that court for a reason...
EDIT!>>> MAYBE there is a problem!?!<<<
and
Quote:
Screenshot from LACourt...Just in case you need to see it yourself...
Bring on the 8K...I want to hear why it says denied, when the "Elite" shareholders were told the Judge signed off on it.
Notice on 4/21...which was the original IronRidge settlement hearing it says "Granted"...
I'll wait right here for the explanation...
RoninWheels has provided a reasonable explanation...
Quote:
"08/19/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied ", likely during the hearing at 8:30AM, the Judge ordered certain filings before granting the action, hence you see all the filings right after the hearing on the 19th by the attorneys to satisfy the Judges orders, the one to look at is "08/19/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFYORDER FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ) " this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)"
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court " this should be the approval granted, and filed by COURT.
Except that this part is wrong...
Quote:
this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)
because that "dismissal hearing" is NOT "NEW"...its been scheduled FOR A LONG TIME!
So I'll still wait to see the signed doc...
and of course, I can't WAIT to read the new terms...that are alleged to be so wonderful!
I agree
Green time. GO MTVX!!!!!
Going back Back UP- , .0015's now being hit $$$$, Bid .0014 ask .0015 , last of .0015 $$$$$$$$
You just named two of the best....they rock!
Misspelled name? Oh, I know... Wrong color ink used!!
Sorry...but you're wrong about this part
Quote:
dianne, your post is a contradiction. there can't be a dismissal (after settlement) hearing scheduled prior to a settlement order granted already. "after" settlement.
The "dismissal hearing" has been scheduled for a LONG TIME...there ALREADY WAS a "settlement"...REMEMBER???
There was a "settlement" on 4/21!!!
and I already said that this is "routine"...
Here is what the case summary said BEFORE.
"Case Summary
Please make a note of the Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
Case Number: BC542517
IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV LTD VS FROZEN FOOD GIFT GROUP INC
Filing Date: 04/11/2014
Case Type: Other Promissory Note/Collections (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
08/26/2014 at 08:31 am in department 68 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE Dismissal (-AFTER SETTLEMENT)
Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties
FROZEN FOOD GIFT GROUP INC - Defendant/Respondent
INCITE LAW GROUP INC - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV LTD - Plaintiff/Petitioner
Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
Please make a note of the Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
04/22/2014 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk
04/21/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPRVG STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/21/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (KENYNIA D. DARDEN CSR 12704 )
Filed by Court
04/21/2014 Order (ORDER FOR APPRVL OF STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Stipulation (STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF TROY A. COVEY )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF BRENDAN T. O'NEIL )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF MARK A. VEGA )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/11/2014 Complaint
Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
07/02/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Conference-Case Management - Completed
04/21/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Granted"
What I questioned...and STILL question is that the filings are almost the same, except for this time it says "Denied" not "Granted" and this ...
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court"
Which you say means
Quote:
"08/19/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied ", likely during the hearing at 8:30AM, the Judge ordered certain filings before granting the action, hence you see all the filings right after the hearing on the 19th by the attorneys to satisfy the Judges orders, the one to look at is "08/19/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFYORDER FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ) " this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)"
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court " this should be the approval granted, and filed by COURT.
You've usually been straight with me in the past...
I'd take your word for it over most...
but I will wait a few more hours and see the SIGNED document myself...
Thanks!
I agree!
So glad we have intelligent people who know how to interpret court filings like Ms. BB and RoninWheels.
Go $MTVX!
So a signed agreement by both sides would be denied by the court for what exact reason?
Nice post that should be enough to silence the negativity.MTVX
14.5 milly buy order on the bid?
50 million is a nice round number...but 60 million would be heavier. To you! I agree it is loading time too
Power hour!
MTVX Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/APT-Moto-Vox-Grou...TVX-87784/
Nice Rico! Glad to have you here!
The big MM ( Masters of manipulation ) hard at work on this ticker.
$MTVX PowerAPT Time!!!
8k expected after close today per investor relations....gonna see some gains next week.
I have being following MTVX for quite a while from the sides. Have done enough DD, looks like will not hit triple zeros, I was hopping for that, so I have being doing text if this is duling but that is thing of the past. Yesterday's news will propel the pps way up to pennies ones reflects the revenues in the next quarters, so I have decided to start loading today, my goal is to reach 50 mill from time to time. My group will be doing so too. Loading zone now. Reloading in the next few days/weeks to come. MTVX
dianne, they are amending the original 4/21 settlement, hence the filing on 8/13 is an 8K/A. Hence the new filings and orders filed on the 19th is an amendment to the case, same case number. The dismissal doesn't change, it still stays and still is a dismissal for the entire case regardless of the changes and amendments to the settlement in the interim.
I do believe that on the 19th 8:30AM hearing, the Judge denied the amendment to the new settlement agreement for certain reasons, but it does seem from the filings on the later 19th day, show that the changes has been made and addressed with the Judge, which later was signed and became an "order" filed.
Agree, lets wait to see what they file later today, think that's what Paul told someone here that the 8K will be filed after market?
All I said was
Quote:
New settlement terms have been FILED...nothing on here indicating the Judge signed off...yet...
but doubt that should be a problem...
I'm sure IronRidge uses that court for a reason...
which, after I saw it said DENIED, I edited to read
Quote:
New settlement terms have been FILED...nothing on here indicating the Judge signed off...yet...
EDIT!>>> (Ooopps! I read through too quickly! DOES THAT SAY DENIED!!!???!!!)<<<
but doubt that should be a problem...
I'm sure IronRidge uses that court for a reason...
EDIT!>>> MAYBE there is a problem!?!<<<
and
Quote:
Screenshot from LACourt...Just in case you need to see it yourself...
Bring on the 8K...I want to hear why it says denied, when the "Elite" shareholders were told the Judge signed off on it.
Notice on 4/21...which was the original IronRidge settlement hearing it says "Granted"...
I'll wait right here for the explanation...
RoninWheels has provided a reasonable explanation...
Quote:
"08/19/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied ", likely during the hearing at 8:30AM, the Judge ordered certain filings before granting the action, hence you see all the filings right after the hearing on the 19th by the attorneys to satisfy the Judges orders, the one to look at is "08/19/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFYORDER FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ) " this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)"
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court " this should be the approval granted, and filed by COURT.
Except that this part is wrong...
Quote:
this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)
because that "dismissal hearing" is NOT "NEW"...its been scheduled FOR A LONG TIME!
So I'll still wait to see the signed doc...
and of course, I can't WAIT to read the new terms...that are alleged to be so wonderful!
I agree
Green time. GO MTVX!!!!!
Going back Back UP- , .0015's now being hit $$$$, Bid .0014 ask .0015 , last of .0015 $$$$$$$$
You just named two of the best....they rock!
Misspelled name? Oh, I know... Wrong color ink used!!
Sorry...but you're wrong about this part
Quote:
dianne, your post is a contradiction. there can't be a dismissal (after settlement) hearing scheduled prior to a settlement order granted already. "after" settlement.
The "dismissal hearing" has been scheduled for a LONG TIME...there ALREADY WAS a "settlement"...REMEMBER???
There was a "settlement" on 4/21!!!
and I already said that this is "routine"...
Here is what the case summary said BEFORE.
"Case Summary
Please make a note of the Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
Case Number: BC542517
IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV LTD VS FROZEN FOOD GIFT GROUP INC
Filing Date: 04/11/2014
Case Type: Other Promissory Note/Collections (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
08/26/2014 at 08:31 am in department 68 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE Dismissal (-AFTER SETTLEMENT)
Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties
FROZEN FOOD GIFT GROUP INC - Defendant/Respondent
INCITE LAW GROUP INC - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV LTD - Plaintiff/Petitioner
Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
Please make a note of the Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
04/22/2014 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk
04/21/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPRVG STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/21/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (KENYNIA D. DARDEN CSR 12704 )
Filed by Court
04/21/2014 Order (ORDER FOR APPRVL OF STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Stipulation (STIP FOR SETTLMT OF CLAIMS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF TROY A. COVEY )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF BRENDAN T. O'NEIL )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2014 Declaration (DEC OF MARK A. VEGA )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/11/2014 Complaint
Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
07/02/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Conference-Case Management - Completed
04/21/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Granted"
What I questioned...and STILL question is that the filings are almost the same, except for this time it says "Denied" not "Granted" and this ...
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court"
Which you say means
Quote:
"08/19/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied ", likely during the hearing at 8:30AM, the Judge ordered certain filings before granting the action, hence you see all the filings right after the hearing on the 19th by the attorneys to satisfy the Judges orders, the one to look at is "08/19/2014 Ex-Parte Application (JOINT EXP APP FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFYORDER FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ) " this filing should have addressed the Judges requirements, otherwise we wouldn't see a new hearing for 8/26 to dismiss the entire case and close the case in all "Dismissal (After settlement)"
"08/19/2014 Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (Stella Tapia csr 10124 )
Filed by Court " this should be the approval granted, and filed by COURT.
You've usually been straight with me in the past...
I'd take your word for it over most...
but I will wait a few more hours and see the SIGNED document myself...
Thanks!
I agree!
So glad we have intelligent people who know how to interpret court filings like Ms. BB and RoninWheels.
Go $MTVX!
So a signed agreement by both sides would be denied by the court for what exact reason?
Nice post that should be enough to silence the negativity.MTVX
14.5 milly buy order on the bid?
(0)
(0)