IBJNews

Broadband provider sends troubling financial signals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Omnicity Corp., a consolidator of wireless broadband services that moved its headquarters from Carmel to Rushville last year, is severely behind in loan payments to a lender, the Muncie Industrial Revolving Loan Fund.   

The company, which last year drew Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to Rushville to help announce its headquarters expansion, is already fighting allegations of not fully paying owners of three firms it acquired in recent years.

“They’re delinquent,” confirmed Bruce Baldwin, administrator of the Muncie loan fund. He said Omnicity officials have been in contact, saying they intend to catch up on the payments.

Under terms of the loan to help with broadband expansion in Delaware County, Omnicity is required to pay the fund $4,750 a month. It has an outstanding balance of $249,225, according to Omnicity’s most recent financial report that shows the company hasn’t made payments since midyear.

Phone messages left with Omnicity were not returned. The company has about 12,000 broadband customers in Indiana and Ohio.

Omnicity’s latest financial statement, filed this month with the Securities and Exchange Commission, states it has a working capital deficit of $4.12 million and a $1.6 million stockholders’ deficit, among other challenges.

“All of these factors combined raises substantial doubt regarding the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the report states.

A review of the company’s previous financial statements show such a warning has been issued for years–including prior to the Indiana Economic Development Corp. in August 2009 offering Omnicity up to $25,000 in training grants and $110,000 to Rushville officials in the form of a grant to help the company improve infrastructure.

At the time of the state’s offer, Omnicity had a working capital deficit of $2.7 million.

In return for the incentives, Omnicity said it would create 100 jobs within the next three years by investing $2.5 million in wireless infrastructure and a new corporate headquarters. Generally, state grants are performance-based, with a company not receiving the benefit until it meets its obligations.

Omnicity has posted losses in each of the last four years. It had a net loss of  $400,027 on revenue of $1.3 million in the quarter ended Oct. 31.

That compares with a loss of $644,136 on sales of $617,000 in the same quarter a year earlier.

Among other long-term debt obligations is $599,038 owed the Wabash Rural Electric Cooperative and $198,925 to company chairman Richard Beltzhoover of Carmel.

Beltzhoover was a former investor in the company who took over the company as CEO in 2008 as part of a management shakeup. Current CEO Greg Jarman, Omnicity's former chief operating officer, replaced Beltzhoover in June 2009. Lately, Beltzhoover has been helping the company try to raise additional capital. He could not be reached for comment.

Omnicity’s business model is predicated in part on growth—by acquiring numerous wireless Internet service providers nationwide. Among its partners are rural electric cooperatives and municipalities.

In October 2009, Omnicity announced it had won a contract with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to provide wireless broadband at the Mississinewa Lake and Miami State Recreation Area.

According to its most recent financial report, the company is negotiating to raise $2.5 million in equity from private investors by Friday.

The company has about 50 employees.

Meanwhile Omnicity faces lawsuits from the former owners of three broadband firms that sold their firms to the company, alleging they’re owed a total of $1.2 million.

Steve Narducci, former owner of Alexandria-based NDWave LLC, filed suit last September in Rush Circuit Court, alleging Omnicity still owes him more than $405,900 stemming from the February 2009 sale.

Kyle Yoder, who owned Berlin, Ohio-based Digital Network Solutions, said Omnicity paid him $700,000, but not $50,000 in cash and $150,000 of company stock he is owed.

In a third suit, filed in Rush Circuit Court, the former owner of Peru-based North Central Communications alleges Omnicity owes him $159,903, plus interest. Kevin Sexton alleges Omnicity defaulted on a payment in August.

Jarman told IBJ in October that disagreements are par for the course when a company makes acquisitions and that the Rushville company would strongly defend its position in court.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Yet another! WOW!
    Trail Bottom, LLC, P.O. Box 208, Berlin, against Omnicity Corp., c/o Greg Jarman, president/CEO, 807 SR 3, Rushville, Ind., $4,095.21
  • After Image Files Suit
    Defendant
    Omnicity, Inc.
    C/o Gregory Jarman, Reg. Agent
    243 E. Us Hwy 52
    Rushville, IN 46173


    Plaintiff
    Afterimage GIS, LLC
    Burt, Blee, Dixon, Sutton & Bloom
    200 E Main Street Suite 1000
    Fort Wayne, IN 46802

    Case No. 70D01-1102-CC-000067
  • At least in Rush County
    At least it will bring up the ones in their home county of Rush
  • Check omnicity Lawsuits
    How to check Lawsuits against this company.
    https://mycase.in.gov/default.aspx
    select rush county
    do civil
    search by party
    change to business
    type Omnicity and do "use soundex" at top right
    that will bring up them all
    • USPP Wins 67,500
      02/08/2011
      Default Judgment entered (Judicial Officer: Hill, Brian D)
      Comment ()
      Status: Active; Signed Date: 02/08/2011
      Awarded to: USppp Inc.
      Awarded against: USppp Inc.
      Court Costs plus Judgment: $67,500.00

      02/08/2011 Judgment Docket Book
      Vol./Book 18, Page 58
    • loss of service
      We lost our service over the weekend and found out the owner of the grain elevator where the serving antenna was located had cancelled his contract with Omnicity. I wonder why....

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

    ADVERTISEMENT