Odyssey Marine Article...
- Thread starter jeff k
- Start date
VOC
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 191
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Atlantic Ocean
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
No news on the "SS Gairsoppa" project in the statement.
Is this project still on the books ?
Is this project still on the books ?
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,205
Thread Owner
U.S. Firm Asks Court to Block Handover of Treasure to Spain
MIAMI – Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. on Monday asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to overturn a district judge’s order that the $500 million in gold and silver coins the company salvaged more than two years ago from the bottom of the Atlantic be turned over to Spain.
“Our brief emphasizes the clear errors that we believe the district court made. This includes factual errors as obvious as stating that the (Nuestra Señora de las) Mercedes remains on the current Spanish naval registry – which it does not,” the firm’s vice president and general counsel, Melinda MacConnel, told Efe.
Madrid says the treasure came from the Mercedes, a Spanish navy frigate destroyed in battle in 1804, and that the vessel and its contents rightfully belong to Spain under the principle of sovereign immunity.
Spain’s argument was accepted last June by federal Magistrate Mark Pizzo, a finding confirmed in December by U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday, who gave Odyssey 10 days to turn over the treasure to Spain, though he subsequently stayed the enforcement of that order to accommodate the company’s appeal.
MacConnel, however, said Monday that “even if the Mercedes were a sovereign immune vessel, the private cargo she carried is not.”
The cargo, she said, “was physically separate from the vessel, which is more than clear in our case, where no vessel was even found. The vessel and cargo would also be legally distinguishable for purposes of adjudication of ownership rights.”
In the 85-page brief to the U.S. appellate court in Atlanta, Odyssey contends the lower court should have examined whether the gold and silver coins aboard the Mercedes actually to the Spanish government, instead of simply taking the state’s ownership of the cargo as a given.
“The district court,” MacConnel said, “for reasons we cannot explain, accepted as true the biased and erroneous ‘facts’ as presented by Spain, ignoring the facts as presented by Odyssey, Peru (from where the Mercedes sailed in 1804), and all of the other claimants.”
A main focus of Odyssey’s brief is the assertion that the Mercedes was on commercial mission – “transport of passengers and private merchant cargo for freight charges” – when the vessel was attacked by a British fleet on Oct. 5, 1804, off the coast of southern Portugal.
“Vessels on commercial missions have never been immune from the jurisdiction of the court,” Melinda MacConnel said.
The Tampa, Florida-based company also said it was inconsistent for the U.S. court to say that it had no jurisdiction only to subsequently order Odyssey to hand over the treasure to Spain.
Attorney James Goold, who is representing Spain before the U.S. courts, emphasized that Judge Merryday entirely endorsed Madrid’s claim to what Odyssey calls the “Black Swan” treasure.
The evidence clearly shows the coins came from the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, so “the ship, the cargo and the human remains are Spain’s legal patrimony,” Goold said.
Because the Mercedes sank in battle, Spain claims not only the vessel and cargo, but a right to preserve the gravesite of more than 250 Spanish sailors and citizens who went down with the frigate.
Odyssey is asking the 11th Circuit to reverse Merryday’s order and send the case back to the district court for a “trial on the merits.”
Spain has 30 days to respond to the brief from Odyssey, though Goold can seek an extension of that deadline. EFE
MIAMI – Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. on Monday asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to overturn a district judge’s order that the $500 million in gold and silver coins the company salvaged more than two years ago from the bottom of the Atlantic be turned over to Spain.
“Our brief emphasizes the clear errors that we believe the district court made. This includes factual errors as obvious as stating that the (Nuestra Señora de las) Mercedes remains on the current Spanish naval registry – which it does not,” the firm’s vice president and general counsel, Melinda MacConnel, told Efe.
Madrid says the treasure came from the Mercedes, a Spanish navy frigate destroyed in battle in 1804, and that the vessel and its contents rightfully belong to Spain under the principle of sovereign immunity.
Spain’s argument was accepted last June by federal Magistrate Mark Pizzo, a finding confirmed in December by U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday, who gave Odyssey 10 days to turn over the treasure to Spain, though he subsequently stayed the enforcement of that order to accommodate the company’s appeal.
MacConnel, however, said Monday that “even if the Mercedes were a sovereign immune vessel, the private cargo she carried is not.”
The cargo, she said, “was physically separate from the vessel, which is more than clear in our case, where no vessel was even found. The vessel and cargo would also be legally distinguishable for purposes of adjudication of ownership rights.”
In the 85-page brief to the U.S. appellate court in Atlanta, Odyssey contends the lower court should have examined whether the gold and silver coins aboard the Mercedes actually to the Spanish government, instead of simply taking the state’s ownership of the cargo as a given.
“The district court,” MacConnel said, “for reasons we cannot explain, accepted as true the biased and erroneous ‘facts’ as presented by Spain, ignoring the facts as presented by Odyssey, Peru (from where the Mercedes sailed in 1804), and all of the other claimants.”
A main focus of Odyssey’s brief is the assertion that the Mercedes was on commercial mission – “transport of passengers and private merchant cargo for freight charges” – when the vessel was attacked by a British fleet on Oct. 5, 1804, off the coast of southern Portugal.
“Vessels on commercial missions have never been immune from the jurisdiction of the court,” Melinda MacConnel said.
The Tampa, Florida-based company also said it was inconsistent for the U.S. court to say that it had no jurisdiction only to subsequently order Odyssey to hand over the treasure to Spain.
Attorney James Goold, who is representing Spain before the U.S. courts, emphasized that Judge Merryday entirely endorsed Madrid’s claim to what Odyssey calls the “Black Swan” treasure.
The evidence clearly shows the coins came from the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, so “the ship, the cargo and the human remains are Spain’s legal patrimony,” Goold said.
Because the Mercedes sank in battle, Spain claims not only the vessel and cargo, but a right to preserve the gravesite of more than 250 Spanish sailors and citizens who went down with the frigate.
Odyssey is asking the 11th Circuit to reverse Merryday’s order and send the case back to the district court for a “trial on the merits.”
Spain has 30 days to respond to the brief from Odyssey, though Goold can seek an extension of that deadline. EFE
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,206
Thread Owner
Odyssey Marine Exploration Files Appellate Brief in "Black Swan" Case With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Press Release Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. On Tuesday May 11, 2010, 7:30 am EDT
TAMPA, Fla., May 11, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) has filed its Appellate Brief in the "Black Swan" case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In the brief, Odyssey demonstrates that the district court erroneously dismissed the case by using flawed legal analysis and by failing to acknowledge or understand several major aspects of the case, including the issue of sovereign immunity.
Odyssey's brief cites the recent favorable ruling by the Eleventh Circuit for the salvor in the Aqua Log (Aqua Log, Inc. vs. State of Georgia, 594 F.3d 1330, 11th Cir. 2010) case. This ruling was made shortly after the district court ruled in the "Black Swan" case and is a beneficial clarification of sovereign immunity in support of Odyssey's position. In the Aqua Log case, the Court ruled that the sovereign must be in possession of the salvaged items in order to claim immunity from the courts in an admiralty case.
"The precedent set in the Aqua Log case is very relevant to the 'Black Swan' case and Spain's sovereign immunity claim. The Eleventh Circuit found, as we had argued to the district court in our case, that a sovereign could not claim to be immune from the jurisdiction of the court when it did not have possession of the salvaged goods. It's clear that Spain never owned the majority of the cargo here and did not have possession of them either," said Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey Vice President and General Counsel. "The district court apparently dismissed the fact that there was no vessel present at the 'Black Swan' site. The concretions of coins found by Odyssey were scattered over an area bigger than six football fields, with no coherent ship's hull or structure. Even if that cargo did come from the Mercedes, it is well documented that the majority of the Mercedes' cargo was owned by private merchants who paid for its transport and the Mercedes was carrying paying passengers. Under well-established U.S. and international law, vessels on such commercial voyages do not have sovereign immunity."
The opening brief also points out several erroneous factual findings and legal conclusions made by the district court including the following:
The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues of fact, unquestioningly accepting testimony presented by Spain. This was a violation of due process for all of the claimants as well as Odyssey.
The district court erred in failing to recognize that the Defendant in the case (an in rem proceeding) was NOT Spain or a vessel owned by Spain. The actual Defendant in the case was the group of coins and artifacts (the res in this case) discovered and recovered by Odyssey.
Descendant claimants have alleged to have ownership rights to the property recovered, claiming that their ancestors placed it aboard the Mercedes (the vessel alleged by Spain to have been carrying the subject cargo) for shipment. The district court completely missed their relationship to the property referring to them as "descendants of those aboard the Mercedes," rather than the property owners.
Despite undisputed evidence to the contrary, the district court erroneously found that the Mercedes was not engaged in commercial activity. The majority of coins aboard the Mercedes were privately owned and commercially shipped, and the gun decks of the Mercedes had been reconfigured to accommodate paying passengers and cargo. In fact, in the aftermath of the sinking of the Mercedes, Spain went on diplomatic record to protest to the British government that the Mercedes was carrying private cargo and passengers, and therefore the British attack was an unwarranted provocation. Longstanding law, as codified in the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and the SMCA (Sunken Military Craft Act) states a vessel is NOT entitled to foreign sovereign immunity if it was engaged in commercial acts.
The district court also failed to recognize that under well-established admiralty law, cargo may be separated from a vessel, and the cargo may be subdivided to determine competing claims of ownership and salvage.
"We remain confident in our case and in the legal system. I believe that the appellate court will take into account all of the factual evidence which clearly shows that the district court's dismissal of this case under the FSIA was erroneous," said Greg Stemm, Odyssey CEO. "Our legal team will remain focused on the 'Black Swan' case, while our operations team continues to work on deep-ocean search and recovery projects."
Odyssey expects that the other claimants in the case will also file briefs, and then Spain will have the opportunity to submit their response. The case is currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. All of Odyssey's significant filings to date, including those made at the district court level, can be viewed at http://www.shipwreck.net/blackswanlegal.php.
Press Release Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. On Tuesday May 11, 2010, 7:30 am EDT
TAMPA, Fla., May 11, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) has filed its Appellate Brief in the "Black Swan" case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In the brief, Odyssey demonstrates that the district court erroneously dismissed the case by using flawed legal analysis and by failing to acknowledge or understand several major aspects of the case, including the issue of sovereign immunity.
Odyssey's brief cites the recent favorable ruling by the Eleventh Circuit for the salvor in the Aqua Log (Aqua Log, Inc. vs. State of Georgia, 594 F.3d 1330, 11th Cir. 2010) case. This ruling was made shortly after the district court ruled in the "Black Swan" case and is a beneficial clarification of sovereign immunity in support of Odyssey's position. In the Aqua Log case, the Court ruled that the sovereign must be in possession of the salvaged items in order to claim immunity from the courts in an admiralty case.
"The precedent set in the Aqua Log case is very relevant to the 'Black Swan' case and Spain's sovereign immunity claim. The Eleventh Circuit found, as we had argued to the district court in our case, that a sovereign could not claim to be immune from the jurisdiction of the court when it did not have possession of the salvaged goods. It's clear that Spain never owned the majority of the cargo here and did not have possession of them either," said Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey Vice President and General Counsel. "The district court apparently dismissed the fact that there was no vessel present at the 'Black Swan' site. The concretions of coins found by Odyssey were scattered over an area bigger than six football fields, with no coherent ship's hull or structure. Even if that cargo did come from the Mercedes, it is well documented that the majority of the Mercedes' cargo was owned by private merchants who paid for its transport and the Mercedes was carrying paying passengers. Under well-established U.S. and international law, vessels on such commercial voyages do not have sovereign immunity."
The opening brief also points out several erroneous factual findings and legal conclusions made by the district court including the following:
The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues of fact, unquestioningly accepting testimony presented by Spain. This was a violation of due process for all of the claimants as well as Odyssey.
The district court erred in failing to recognize that the Defendant in the case (an in rem proceeding) was NOT Spain or a vessel owned by Spain. The actual Defendant in the case was the group of coins and artifacts (the res in this case) discovered and recovered by Odyssey.
Descendant claimants have alleged to have ownership rights to the property recovered, claiming that their ancestors placed it aboard the Mercedes (the vessel alleged by Spain to have been carrying the subject cargo) for shipment. The district court completely missed their relationship to the property referring to them as "descendants of those aboard the Mercedes," rather than the property owners.
Despite undisputed evidence to the contrary, the district court erroneously found that the Mercedes was not engaged in commercial activity. The majority of coins aboard the Mercedes were privately owned and commercially shipped, and the gun decks of the Mercedes had been reconfigured to accommodate paying passengers and cargo. In fact, in the aftermath of the sinking of the Mercedes, Spain went on diplomatic record to protest to the British government that the Mercedes was carrying private cargo and passengers, and therefore the British attack was an unwarranted provocation. Longstanding law, as codified in the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and the SMCA (Sunken Military Craft Act) states a vessel is NOT entitled to foreign sovereign immunity if it was engaged in commercial acts.
The district court also failed to recognize that under well-established admiralty law, cargo may be separated from a vessel, and the cargo may be subdivided to determine competing claims of ownership and salvage.
"We remain confident in our case and in the legal system. I believe that the appellate court will take into account all of the factual evidence which clearly shows that the district court's dismissal of this case under the FSIA was erroneous," said Greg Stemm, Odyssey CEO. "Our legal team will remain focused on the 'Black Swan' case, while our operations team continues to work on deep-ocean search and recovery projects."
Odyssey expects that the other claimants in the case will also file briefs, and then Spain will have the opportunity to submit their response. The case is currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. All of Odyssey's significant filings to date, including those made at the district court level, can be viewed at http://www.shipwreck.net/blackswanlegal.php.
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,207
Thread Owner
District Court ruling denying Georgia sovereign immunity affirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In two in rem admiralty actions seeking to salvage logs lying at the bottom of Georgia's rivers, the district court's denial of the state's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is affirmed where that doctrine did not apply because the state did not have possession of the logs.
[If the State of Georgia can not claim sovereign immunity then surely Spain can not claim it as well (no possession). Therefore, Odyssey's case should be sent back to the district court for adjudication.]
http://admiraltymaritimelaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/aqua-log-inc-v-georgia-sovereign.html
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816225.pdf
In two in rem admiralty actions seeking to salvage logs lying at the bottom of Georgia's rivers, the district court's denial of the state's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is affirmed where that doctrine did not apply because the state did not have possession of the logs.
[If the State of Georgia can not claim sovereign immunity then surely Spain can not claim it as well (no possession). Therefore, Odyssey's case should be sent back to the district court for adjudication.]
http://admiraltymaritimelaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/aqua-log-inc-v-georgia-sovereign.html
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816225.pdf
Philvis
Sr. Member
Thanks for the update Jeff. I think the Appellate Brief makes some very strong points. I particularly like:
In fact, in the aftermath of the sinking of the Mercedes, Spain went on diplomatic record to protest to the British government that the Mercedes was carrying private cargo and passengers, and therefore the British attack was an unwarranted provocation. Longstanding law, as codified in the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and the SMCA (Sunken Military Craft Act) states a vessel is NOT entitled to foreign sovereign immunity if it was engaged in commercial acts.
My 85 shares are burning a hole in my pocket. Now is a great time to buy stock at $1.35-$1.40 a share average price. I hope they win the appeal.
Phil
In fact, in the aftermath of the sinking of the Mercedes, Spain went on diplomatic record to protest to the British government that the Mercedes was carrying private cargo and passengers, and therefore the British attack was an unwarranted provocation. Longstanding law, as codified in the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and the SMCA (Sunken Military Craft Act) states a vessel is NOT entitled to foreign sovereign immunity if it was engaged in commercial acts.
My 85 shares are burning a hole in my pocket. Now is a great time to buy stock at $1.35-$1.40 a share average price. I hope they win the appeal.
Phil
Philvis said:
well perhaps someone can shead light on a question that's been ponderingme for some time ??
Why is there still stock activity on Greg Stemm's old company SEAHAWK ?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SHWK.PK
my 22,000 shares dont seem to be getting to far either...
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,210
Thread Owner
It's trading as a shell stock. This is how Odyssey went public. They merged with a shell company.
A Shell Stock (Shell Company) is a public company that no longer has any business operations. It retains its capital structure and public trading status with the intention to complete a reverse merger with a non-public company with an on-going business. This merger creates a new company that is both publicly trading and generating revenues. There are many reasons why a Shell Stock exists in the first place, but most commonly they either lost the business due to a bankruptcy, or just sold or closed it.
The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), in Rule 12b-2, defines a "Shell Company" as "a registrant with no or nominal operations and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents, or assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets." Previously, the SEC referred to a Shell Company as a Blank Check Company.
Why would a private company with an on-going business want to reverse merge into a Shell Stock? The goal of the private company is to become a public company. There are many benefits in becoming a public company. The traditional method of becoming a public company, via an IPO (Initial Public Offering) can be very expensive and time consuming. Becoming public via a reverse merger is less expensive and much quicker.
A Shell Stock (Shell Company) is a public company that no longer has any business operations. It retains its capital structure and public trading status with the intention to complete a reverse merger with a non-public company with an on-going business. This merger creates a new company that is both publicly trading and generating revenues. There are many reasons why a Shell Stock exists in the first place, but most commonly they either lost the business due to a bankruptcy, or just sold or closed it.
The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), in Rule 12b-2, defines a "Shell Company" as "a registrant with no or nominal operations and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents, or assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets." Previously, the SEC referred to a Shell Company as a Blank Check Company.
Why would a private company with an on-going business want to reverse merge into a Shell Stock? The goal of the private company is to become a public company. There are many benefits in becoming a public company. The traditional method of becoming a public company, via an IPO (Initial Public Offering) can be very expensive and time consuming. Becoming public via a reverse merger is less expensive and much quicker.
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,212
Thread Owner
http://www.hotstockreport.com/
Hall of Fame reverse mergers
HALL OF FAME SHELL and REVERSE MERGER RUNS:
LFZA(USSE) - ran from .0002 to .84 (420,000%) -
SXML(AMRP) - ran from 0.03 to $50 (160,000%) -
CYBR - ran from 0.001 to 0.50 ( 50,000%) -
DEXTQ - ran from 0.0005 to 0.21 ( 42,000%) -
CKXE(SPEA) - ran from .10 to 30.60 ( 31,000%) -
OBDP(VQPI) - ran from 0.006 to 1.50 ( 25,000%) -
PKTO(USAC) - ran from 0.0002 to 0.049( 25,000%) -
FCNK - ran from .02 to 3.50 ( 17,000%) -
VIPM - ran from 0.0001 to 0.015 ( 15,000%) -
SLJB(LFWK) - ran from 0.0015 to 0.20 ( 13,000%)
NXCN(CYKE) - ran from 0.01 to 1.30 ( 13,000%) -
HCOM - ran from 0.001 to 0.10 ( 9,900%) -
VLNT - ran from 0.0001 to 0.009 ( 8,900%) -
CSHD(FHAL) - ran from .05 to 4.00 ( 8,000%)
PRRY(ABDL) - ran from .02 to 1.60 ( 7,900%) -
IFLI(PGNT) - ran from .3 to 17.00 ( 6,000%) -
LRSY - ran from 0.025 to 1.50 ( 5,900%) -
PLSO - ran from .0005 to 0.03 ( 5,900%) -
TMXU - ran from .0007 to 0.04 ( 5,600%)
CFUL(CNDO) - ran from .073 to $4.19 ( 5,600%) -
GWRX - ran from 0.01 to 0.475 ( 4,700%) -
UMCC - ran from 0.003 to 0.14 ( 4,600%)
MXDY(2003) - ran from 0.01 to 0.42 ( 4,100%)
RBID - ran from 0.001 to 0.04 ( 3,900%)
BUIG - ran from 0.0015 to 0.05 ( 3,200%) -
DLGIE(TOCK) - ran from 0.011 to 0.35 ( 3,100%) -
PGNF - ran from 0.002 to 0.065 ( 3,100%)
FCRZ - ran from 0.003 to 0.095 ( 3,100%)
WPRO - ran from 0.003 to 0.085 ( 2,700%)
DGIF(TDRPQ) - ran from 0.06 to 1.70 ( 2,700%) -
RTGV - ran from 0.005 to 0.12 ( 2,300%) -
BUNZQ - ran from 0.005 to 0.12 ( 2,300%)
NVBF(NVAO) - ran from 0.25 to 6.00 ( 2,300%)
NNRF(SFDE) - ran from 0.003 to 0.07 ( 2,200%) -
FCCN - ran from 0.003 to 0.065 ( 2,100%)
SSTP - ran from 0.017 to 0.38 ( 2,100%) -
LNBO - ran from 0.005 to 0.09 ( 1,700%) -
MNEI - ran from 0.001 to 0.017 ( 1,600%)
CSBR - ran from 0.05 to 0.80 ( 1,500%) -
TVCE - ran from 0.0002 to 0.0028 ( 1,300%)
IOGH - ran from 0.015 to 0.20 ( 1,300%)
PPXP(SFPH) - ran from 0.70 to 10.00 ( 1,300%) -
RGNO(FCNK) - ran from 0.02 to 0.25 ( 1,200%)
EPMO - ran from 0.008 to 0.10 ( 1,200%)
OCRI - ran from 0.001 to 0.013 ( 1,200%)
ATGR(ATEG) - ran from 0.004 to 0.058 ( 1,200%) -
VIVI(AXGI) - ran from 0.002 to 0.028 ( 1,100%)
SCYA - ran from 0.001 to 0.011 ( 1,000%)
Hall of Fame reverse mergers
HALL OF FAME SHELL and REVERSE MERGER RUNS:
LFZA(USSE) - ran from .0002 to .84 (420,000%) -
SXML(AMRP) - ran from 0.03 to $50 (160,000%) -
CYBR - ran from 0.001 to 0.50 ( 50,000%) -
DEXTQ - ran from 0.0005 to 0.21 ( 42,000%) -
CKXE(SPEA) - ran from .10 to 30.60 ( 31,000%) -
OBDP(VQPI) - ran from 0.006 to 1.50 ( 25,000%) -
PKTO(USAC) - ran from 0.0002 to 0.049( 25,000%) -
FCNK - ran from .02 to 3.50 ( 17,000%) -
VIPM - ran from 0.0001 to 0.015 ( 15,000%) -
SLJB(LFWK) - ran from 0.0015 to 0.20 ( 13,000%)
NXCN(CYKE) - ran from 0.01 to 1.30 ( 13,000%) -
HCOM - ran from 0.001 to 0.10 ( 9,900%) -
VLNT - ran from 0.0001 to 0.009 ( 8,900%) -
CSHD(FHAL) - ran from .05 to 4.00 ( 8,000%)
PRRY(ABDL) - ran from .02 to 1.60 ( 7,900%) -
IFLI(PGNT) - ran from .3 to 17.00 ( 6,000%) -
LRSY - ran from 0.025 to 1.50 ( 5,900%) -
PLSO - ran from .0005 to 0.03 ( 5,900%) -
TMXU - ran from .0007 to 0.04 ( 5,600%)
CFUL(CNDO) - ran from .073 to $4.19 ( 5,600%) -
GWRX - ran from 0.01 to 0.475 ( 4,700%) -
UMCC - ran from 0.003 to 0.14 ( 4,600%)
MXDY(2003) - ran from 0.01 to 0.42 ( 4,100%)
RBID - ran from 0.001 to 0.04 ( 3,900%)
BUIG - ran from 0.0015 to 0.05 ( 3,200%) -
DLGIE(TOCK) - ran from 0.011 to 0.35 ( 3,100%) -
PGNF - ran from 0.002 to 0.065 ( 3,100%)
FCRZ - ran from 0.003 to 0.095 ( 3,100%)
WPRO - ran from 0.003 to 0.085 ( 2,700%)
DGIF(TDRPQ) - ran from 0.06 to 1.70 ( 2,700%) -
RTGV - ran from 0.005 to 0.12 ( 2,300%) -
BUNZQ - ran from 0.005 to 0.12 ( 2,300%)
NVBF(NVAO) - ran from 0.25 to 6.00 ( 2,300%)
NNRF(SFDE) - ran from 0.003 to 0.07 ( 2,200%) -
FCCN - ran from 0.003 to 0.065 ( 2,100%)
SSTP - ran from 0.017 to 0.38 ( 2,100%) -
LNBO - ran from 0.005 to 0.09 ( 1,700%) -
MNEI - ran from 0.001 to 0.017 ( 1,600%)
CSBR - ran from 0.05 to 0.80 ( 1,500%) -
TVCE - ran from 0.0002 to 0.0028 ( 1,300%)
IOGH - ran from 0.015 to 0.20 ( 1,300%)
PPXP(SFPH) - ran from 0.70 to 10.00 ( 1,300%) -
RGNO(FCNK) - ran from 0.02 to 0.25 ( 1,200%)
EPMO - ran from 0.008 to 0.10 ( 1,200%)
OCRI - ran from 0.001 to 0.013 ( 1,200%)
ATGR(ATEG) - ran from 0.004 to 0.058 ( 1,200%) -
VIVI(AXGI) - ran from 0.002 to 0.028 ( 1,100%)
SCYA - ran from 0.001 to 0.011 ( 1,000%)
Salvor6
Silver Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,760
- Reaction score
- 2,180
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Port Richey, Florida
- Detector(s) used
- Aquapulse, J.W. Fisher Proton 3, Pulse Star II, Detector Pro Headhunter, AK-47
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
I thought Seahawk was still in business with John Balch as CEO?
it was`...........until around 2000
John T. Lawrence
President and CEO.
Graduated with honors degree in Chemistry from University College, London. Qualified as a Chartered Accountant with the London office of Peat Marwick McKlintock. Former Finance Director of the UK based oil service industry company and Chairman of OSEL Group, a specialist subsea equipment manufactuer. Over 20 years experience in financial and corporate management. Director of Seahawk since 1991.
John P. Balch
Senior Vice President and COO.
Graduated from Portsmouth College of Technology with a diploma in engineering. Formerly Program Director of Advanced Systems with Oceaneering, the worlds largest underwater services company and Managing Director of D.H.B, developers of the modern one atmosphere diving suit (ADS). Co-owner and Managing Director of the OSEL Group with over 20 years experience in manufacture, operation and management of subsea equipment. Director of Seahawk since 1993.
John T. Lawrence
President and CEO.
Graduated with honors degree in Chemistry from University College, London. Qualified as a Chartered Accountant with the London office of Peat Marwick McKlintock. Former Finance Director of the UK based oil service industry company and Chairman of OSEL Group, a specialist subsea equipment manufactuer. Over 20 years experience in financial and corporate management. Director of Seahawk since 1991.
John P. Balch
Senior Vice President and COO.
Graduated from Portsmouth College of Technology with a diploma in engineering. Formerly Program Director of Advanced Systems with Oceaneering, the worlds largest underwater services company and Managing Director of D.H.B, developers of the modern one atmosphere diving suit (ADS). Co-owner and Managing Director of the OSEL Group with over 20 years experience in manufacture, operation and management of subsea equipment. Director of Seahawk since 1993.
JordanRHughes
Tenderfoot
This looks like a great read. I am going to read it later. Thanks for posting it.
Jordan.
Jordan.
destin hotels.dominican republic hotels. all inclusive vacationsxxxJeff K said:
JordanRHughes
Tenderfoot
That's a great link. Thanks for the hook up.
Jordan
Jordan
Jeff K said:
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,218
Thread Owner
dagfoto... The whole market has been tanking, but I believe there is added pressure on Odyssey right now. At these price levels, there's a good chance that Odyssey will be delisted from the Russell 2000 Index on June 11th. This is probably causing additional selling at this time.
where does these people come into the picture ?? 
except their in CAnada .. not on a exchange we can purchase...
http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Investors-StockInfo.asp
except their in CAnada .. not on a exchange we can purchase...
http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Investors-StockInfo.asp
Top Member Reactions
-
2875 -
2234 -
1278 -
1215 -
966 -
903 -
857 -
792 -
688 -
613 -
605 -
591 -
558 -
553 -
550
Similar threads
