Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Angstrom Microsystems Corp AGMS



GREY:AGMS - Post by User

Post by john378on May 27, 2008 6:21am
274 Views
Post# 15112922

Well well well

Well well well
Another fine Nevada corporation lands in my e-mail box. Just thought I would give them 5 minutes of research (As a thank-you for the spam) and post the results for you. There is a lot more, but really, is it necessary?


ITEM 1.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

 

1.

Cooljag U.S.A. v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. , Boston Municipal Court, docket number 07-01-CV -002041.  This is a default judgment against AMI in the amount of $14,997.74, exclusive of   interest and costs.

 

2.

Tester v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. , San Diego County, Calif. Superior Court, Case No. 07-2007-00054558.  This is a default judgment against AMI  in San Diego County, Calif. Superior   Court in the amount of  $17,100  exclusive of interest and costs.

 

3.

Zip Ship, Inc. v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc.  This is a consent judgment against the company in the amount of $8,106.66 arising from unpaid invoices.

 

4.

Integrated Dynamic Metals Corporation and J & J Machine Company, LLC v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. and Lalit Jain ., Boston Municipal Court, C.A. No. 08 01 CV 000958.  The   suit is an action for goods and labor sold and delivered. The plaintiffs are demanding judgment in   the total amount of $16,678.02.

 

5.

Mercury Business Services, Inc. v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. , Boston Municipal Court, C.A. No. 08 01 CV 001241.  The suit is an action for goods and labor sold and delivered. The plaintiff   is demanding judgment in the total amount of $4,684.74.

 

6.

DecisionOne Corp v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. , Boston Municipal Court, C.A. No. 07 01 CV 6414.  The suit is an action for goods and labor sold and delivered. The plaintiff is demanding   judgment in the total amount of $6,770.54.

  

7.

Mike OConnell d/b/a K2 Logistics v. Angstrom Microsystems, Inc. and Lalit Jain , Boston Municipal Court, C.A. No. 08 05 SC 169.  The plaintiff seeks compensation for the provision of transportation services for under $2,000.

 

8.

Flextronics

 

Flextronics, through counsel, made a written demand for payment in the amount of $28,375.00 for unpaid invoices.  

 

9.

University of Utah  University of Utah, through its general counsel, made written demand on Angstrom claiming that on or about October 18, 2006, Angstrom received an erroneous double payment from the University in the amount of $14,100.00.

 

10.

AirTrans Logistics, Inc .

This vendor made demand on Angstrom for goods sold and delivered in the amount of $11,127.25.  Accordingly, by letter dated March 12, 2008, this vendor made demand on Angstrom for $10,627.25, and has threatened the institution of suit.

 

ITEM 2.  UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

On January 25, 2008, we closed a private placement of 2,100,000 units (post two for one forward split) at a purchase price of $0.04 per unit (post split), for gross proceeds of $84,000. Each unit consisted of one common share and one common share purchase warrant exercisable for a period of two years from closing at an exercise price of $0.06 (post-split). We issued all of the 2,100,000 units to three subscribers who represented to us that they were not “U.S. persons” (as that term is defined in Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933) in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Regulation S and/or Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

Bullboard Posts
Next >>