Infotopia (fka IFTA)

[thepennyking]

IFTA -- Infotopia, Inc.
Com ($0.001)
Primary Venue: Pink Sheets

Best Bid: Unpriced
Best Ask: Unpriced

TRADE DATA Last Sale: 0.0001
Change: +0.00

Percent Change: +0.00
Tick: Down
Daily High: 0.0001 Daily Low: 0.0001

Opening Price: 0.0001 Volume: 1,995
Annual High: 0.0500
Annual Low: 0.0001
Dividend: 0.000 Earnings/Share: 0.00
Previous Close: 0.0001 P/E ratio: N/A
Yield: 0.00
Beta Coefficient: 0.40

http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=ifta

[thepennyking]

IN THE PINK

On January 5, 1999 the SEC amended NASD rules to require that all companies whose shares are listed on the OTC Bulletin Board report their current financial information to the SEC (or, where appropriate, another regulatory agency). Prior to that amendment, a company’s shares could be traded on the OTC Bulletin Board even if the company was "non-reporting" – that is, it did not file regular reports with the SEC and thereby make information available to stockholders and potential investors. Companies that fail to comply on schedule will be delisted

The SEC acted in response to concerns over the potential for abuse and manipulation in the existing system. Much of the public perceives the OTC Bulletin Board as a highly regulated market similar to the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, in part because OTC Bulletin Board prices and executions, like those at NASDAQ, are available electronically on a real-time basis. Indeed, many investors have assumed that the Bulletin Board is part of NASDAQ (it is not).

This potential for confusion has allowed unscrupulous brokers to blur the line between the highly regulated NASDAQ, where issuers must first meet stringent listing requirements and then make timely public disclosures on an ongoing basis, and the OTC Bulletin Board, where listing is not subject to such standards and no such routine disclosures have been necessary. On occasion brokers have fostered this misconception by incorrectly referring to the OTC Bulletin Board as the NASDAQ Bulletin Board.

The process of delisting companies from the OTC Bulletin Board if they don’t report their financial information began in July 1999 and will conclude in June 2000. It is anticipated that as many as 2,000 to 3,000 companies will be delisted during that time period. In most cases companies who lose their Bulletin Board listings will immediately become eligible for quotation in something called "the Pink Sheets." The "Pink Sheets" (which earned that name because they are printed on pink paper) are published by the National Quotation Bureau on a weekly basis and list prices for approximately 3,600 stocks, most of which are not traded on any of the national stock exchanges, NASDAQ or the OTC Bulletin Board.

Historically, brokers who want to buy or sell a "Pink Sheet" stock must first review the printed sheets to determine who the market makers are and what prices they have quoted for the stock (although "Pink Sheet" quotations are not binding). They are then required to obtain price quotations from at least three of the market makers before concluding a transaction. In the electronic age this process would be considered archaic. In the computer age it is absolutely Byzantine.

The National Quotation Bureau acknowledges that this process has long been outdated and says that it is putting "Pink Sheet" information online (www.otcquote.com). For the first time "Pink Sheet" quotations, as well as telephone numbers for market makers and information about "Pink Sheet" companies, will be available electronically to brokers and market makers who subscribe to the National Quotation Bureau’s new service. Since trading will not occur online, telephone calls to market makers will still be required. But the availability of current prices on a computer screen may help to elevate the "Pink Sheets" from a netherworld where prices have sometimes been nebulous and hard to find.

The "Pink Sheets" will continue to expand as they become a haven for refugees from the OTC Bulletin Board and new public companies that cannot comply with the requirements of the OTC Bulletin Board or the listing criteria of the exchanges. And therein lies the rub. The National Quotation Bureau is a privately owned company. It is neither a regulatory body nor a regulated entity. And while the SEC may continue to promulgate rules that require market makers to review certain information about a company before it can be listed in the "Pink Sheets" the fact remains that little, if any, of that information will be readily available to investors.

So what, if anything, has been accomplished by removing the most thinly traded and undercapitalized stocks from the NASD OTC Bulletin Board? Now, instead of being quoted and traded under the umbrella of a regulated entity, the NASD, quotations will be available only through a mechanism provided by an unregulated company.

Approximately three years ago NASDAQ tightened its listing requirements, thereby forcing companies that previously would have qualified for the NASDAQ Small Cap Market to list instead on the OTC Bulletin Board. In this manner NASDAQ rid itself of the pesky burden of monitoring and regulating the most easily and frequently abused sector of its market. Now the NASD has followed the same course. Step by step these stocks have been moved down, and virtually off, the regulatory ladder. The result: the NASD is relieved of a regulatory burden while investors may now be even less protected against the very abuses that caused the SEC to act in the first place. Now, more than ever, it is time for Buyers to be Wary.

http://www.stockpatrol.com/buyer/articles/inthepink.html

[thepennyking]

Can the individual investor successfully navigate his or her way through a ponderous prospectus? In our first installment in this series, BUYER BE WARY – BETWEEN THE LINES PART I, we began to look at some of the questions that a thoughtful investor may want to ask. We continue that process, beginning with a few thoughts about the underwriter


The Underwriter

The name of the underwriter or underwriters appears on the cover of the prospectus. The IPO underwriter may be a household name with a national reputation or an obscure regional broker-dealer. In either case, the investor should want to know the underwriter’s track record. For example, how many offerings have they underwritten? How have those offerings fared? Brokers sometimes tout their success by telling potential investors that their firm’s previous underwritings increased in value significantly immediately after the offering. That, however, is only a small part of the picture. An investor should want to know how the stock (and the company) performed over a longer period of time – three months, six months, two years. Did shares skyrocket immediately after the offering, only to plummet earthward once the brokerage firm’s best customers had taken their profits? Or did the company’s shares build value over time? If you’re a speculator you may not care. But if you’re a long-term investor you will certainly take note of this factor.

Information about underwriters is available through the SEC’s Edgar Online site (www.sec.gov), while stock performance can be found through NASDAQ (www.nasdr.com), the OTC Bulletin Board (www.otcbb.com), or a variety of informational databases (such as Yahoo and AOL).

The underwriter’s reputation and disciplinary history are other factors that investors would be well advised to consider. Some prospectuses will indicate whether the underwriter has run afoul of the regulators or is involved in any disciplinary proceedings brought by the SEC or the NASD. Sometimes, however, the prospectus will remain silent on these issues because the individuals drafting the prospectus (the Company, the underwriter, and teams of attorneys representing each) don’t consider this information "material" to investors. So check for yourself. The NASD provides disciplinary information about all licensed brokers and brokerage firms (www.nasdr.com). You certainly will want to know whether the underwriter has been charged with engaging in questionable sales practices in the past. For example, have brokers working for the underwriter misrepresented the business or prospects of a company to prospective investors? Take advantage of your ability to access those details.


Risk Factors

To put it simply, a prospectus is drafted for two primary purposes: to inform the public and to protect the company. Which goal is paramount? Critics may differ, but they can agree on one essential point: the prospectus must, under the law, include "material" information about the company, warts and all. What’s "material?" Generally speaking, information is material if it is likely to affect your decision to invest. On a case by case basis, however, the determination of materiality is often a judgement call for the people running the underwriter and the company, and their respective attorneys.

While most of the prospectus focuses upon the Company’s past successes and future plans, it will also include a section entitled "Risk Factors" which is supposed to present various risks for investors to consider. The Risk Factors are the equivalent of a caution sign. If a disgruntled investor complains at some later date, the company can point to the Risk Factors and simply say, "We told you so!"

Every investment bears risks. Question is, are they bearable? For you? Here are a few things to ponder as you review the Risk Factors:

Does the company warn investors of the need for future financing? If so, does it have other plans – concrete ones – for raising funds? Financial concerns are always a red flag. If the company has repeatedly gone to the well for new financing, you can fairly predict that it will need funding again in the future.

Even if more funding is not an immediate consideration, is the Company financially sound? Check and see whether the Company’s auditors are concerned that it may not be able to continue in business as a "going concern." Auditors issue a "going concern" opinion when they question a Company’s ability to survive. That fact alone makes for a risky and speculative investment. The prospectus should tell you if the auditors have expressed these reservations, and why. Try to determine whether the Company can cure these problems. And what will be their long-term effect? For example, default on bank loans or a line of credit might affect the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and, perhaps just as importantly, make it more difficult to get credit in the future.

Debts can become an albatross around the neck of a business. As an investor, you will want to know whether the Company owes money and, if so, how much and to whom? Is the Company in default on any loans, and what is likely to happen as a result of that default? Will the company be using any of the proceeds from the IPO to pay off this debt, and if so, what will be left over? Some companies can’t get off of this treadmill – raising new money and incurring new obligations just to pay off old debt.

A start-up company is almost always a risky investment. But a new line of business for an existing company can be just as risky. Do the Risk Factors warn that the Company is engaged in something new and untested? If so, who are its competitors and what is their experience? If other players in the field are already established and well-funded the Company’s prospects for success may be doubtful.

It is important to find out whether the Company has sufficient resources to develop its business. The Risk Factors should provide a clue. Will the Company have to depend upon suppliers, manufacturers, technicians, inventors? Does it have agreements with these people and companies and, if so, what are their terms? If the Company is forced to look for replacements for any of these business partners will they be easy to find, and at what cost? Each of these questions relates to the same central issue – does the Company have the money, personnel, technology and resources to carry out its business plan?

Does the Company’s business require technical expertise, patents or trademarks? If the Company is manufacturing, distributing or selling a product does it own the rights to that product or does it license them from another party? What are the terms of any licenses and how would their termination affect the Company’s ability to stay in business? It is particularly important to find out whether a license will expire or can be cancelled. A Company’s future is indeed precarious if it relies on such a slender reed.

Is the Company’s business subject to any governmental regulations (such as those promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Trade Commission)? Are there pending laws and regulations that could adversely affect the Company’s plans? Consider what could happen to the Company’s business if unfavorable regulations were to be enacted.

Is the Company dependent upon any "key" employees? How unique are their skills? Do they have employment agreements? If so, check out the terms of those agreements. Do salaries seem reasonable in light of the Company’s income and history of profits or losses? More importantly, can this Company afford to pay the agreed upon compensation? If a Company appears to be too dependent upon one (or more) employees it may be cause for concern. Can they be replaced if necessary?

Is the Company being sued by anyone? Litigation is expensive – the cost of defending may be steep and the potential liability is often prohibitive. Review the nature of any outstanding lawsuits against the Company. Are the claims covered by insurance? What does the Company (and you as an investor) stand to lose? For example, if a disgruntled ex-employee is claiming that he or she owns the rights to all of the company’s patents, the potential consequences to the company could be devastating.

Will the stock be traded on a national stock exchange like the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, on the OTC Bulletin Board or through the "Pink Sheets?" Almost without exception, companies don’t list their stock on the OTC Bulletin Board or in the Pink Sheets because they want to -- they do it because thy have to. A Company that lists on the OTC Bulletin Board probably has been unable to meet NASDAQ’s more stringent listing standards. Consequently, the Bulletin Board company will generally be less established, lack a history of profits and have fewer assets. The Pink Sheet company may be in even more precarious condition – but you may never be able to find out the details because Pink Sheet companies aren’t required to file financial statements (otherwise they would qualify for the OTC Bulletin Board (See, BUYER BE WARY – IN THE PINK). Bulletin Board and Pink Sheet stocks are almost always risky! Be wary of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.

Read each Risk Factor carefully, no matter how tedious the process may seem. Remember, while specific Risk Factors will differ from offering to offering, each represents a warning to investors – and a protection for the company. Take those warnings seriously.

Catch your breath. In our next installment we will conclude our look at the minefield commonly known as a prospectus.

http://www.stockpatrol.com/buyer/articles/prospectus2.html

[thepennyking]

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT PROSPECTUSES - BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK (PART I)

No one will ever confuse a prospectus with the Great American Novel.

The typical prospectus is dull, tedious and difficult to read. Most investors react predictably – they scan the prospectus briefly, or not at all. In the end, they invest based principally on what their broker has told them and not on what they have read about the company. Maybe they get lucky and find that they invested wisely.

But what if the broker’s advice is not so sound? Worse yet, what if the broker’s motives are suspect? How does an investor make his or her own thoughtful decision about a new company or a new stock issue? One tool is available to every potential investor. The prospectus. Read it carefully – and know what to look for and where. Beneath all of the legal jargon and cautionary language is a wealth of information.

In this series of articles we help you navigate the prospectus. In particular, we offer pointers on what to look for, where to look for it, and what some of that confounding "legalese" really means. Where do we start? With the cover page, of course.


The Company’s Name

What’s in a name? Maybe nothing. Generally, the name of a company has no bearing upon the quality of its business or its profitability. Occasionally, however, the name sends a message. When a company adopts a name that reflects current trends it may be time for the investor to take a closer look. The clearest example? Today’s dot com fascination. The Internet frenzy has motivated businesses to append a dot com to their name, or to spin off an internet-oriented subsidiary. Investors need to be cautious. Is the company simply trying to take advantage of a "hot" trend and favorable market conditions, or is the business truly related to the Internet? Carefully, review the section of the prospectus titled "Company" or "Business" to determine the historic nature of the Company’s business. Has management recently abandoned existing operations or a less sexy business plan to jump on the Internet bandwagon? And if it did, how successful, or unsuccessful, had the company been in its earlier endeavors? Be wary of a struggling operation that is grasping at the Internet straw. Does it appear that insiders are simply trying to increase the value of their own shares through an Internet stock play? If so, don’t play along.

The company’s name may send out other signals as well. Does it sound similar to the name of another, better established business? If it does, the investor should probe further. Occasionally, management will adopt a familiar sounding name in order to benefit from someone else’s reputation. If you’re thinking of an investment in one of these "sound alike" companies pay extra attention to its history and business plan. Is the company a start-up, or does it have an operating history? One rule of thumb – if the company is new and unproven, its operations are not well established, and its financial condition is precarious, the similarity of names is far less likely to be merely coincidental.


The Offering

The cover of the prospectus will tell investors how many shares (or other securities) are being offered to the public, at what price, and by whom. Note carefully – are the shares being sold by the Company or by a group referred to as "Selling Stockholders" (sometimes referred to as "insiders" or "inside stockholders")?" Or by both? The term Selling Stockholder is used to refer to any individual or entity whose shares are being registered as part of the public offering. Sales by Selling Stockholders are instructive. The circumstances and terms of those sales may offer clues about the Company which can help you weigh the merits of an investment.

For example, just who are these Selling Stockholders? Are they planning to sell all of their holdings, or just a small percentage? An investor may be justifiably concerned if the Selling Stockholders include people who founded the Company, corporate executives, or individuals who are running its operations. Why, you will certainly wonder, does management seem to be bailing out? What can this possibly mean to the long-term prospects for the Company? An early exit by these corporate insiders may signal that they are more interested in profiting from a "pop" in stock prices immediately after the offering than in developing the business over time.

The Selling Stockholders may consist of venture capitalists and other financiers who helped the business get started. In that case it is not unusual for those stockholders to seek to recoup their investments or just cash out at the earliest opportunity. Even here, however, there are questions to ask. How long have these investors held their stock, and how much did they pay? Be concerned if they acquired their shares only recently, at a bargain price, and with little risk. In that case the public offering may only be a convenient vehicle for these individuals to reap profits. Does enriching a group of investors appear to be a priority, or does the Company seem more devoted to achieving its business goals? The Company that you invest in should always place its business first.

Often, the company and its underwriter will require Selling Stockholders (together with the Company’s executives and management) to sign a "lockup agreement" before the offering. Although their shares will be registered as part of the IPO, these stockholders agree that they will not sell the shares for a fixed period of time.

The lockup would appear to provide some assurance that all of these shares will not flood the marketplace. But review the terms of the lockup with care. Is it meaningful, or merely cosmetic? Lockup agreements prevent the stockholder from selling the shares for a fixed period of time (usually between 6 and 24 months). In some cases that time period is absolute – the stockholder may not sell under any circumstances until the lockup period has expired. In other instances, however, the lockup is conditional – the underwriter has discretion to release the lockup early. Why would an underwriter reserve this right? Typically, the underwriter wants to know that it has access to additional shares in the event of market demand. Where discretion exists, don’t be surprised if it is soon exercised, and the shares are released from the lockup early. This, of course, results in immediate dilution to the public.

How can an investor determine whether this is likely to occur? Look at previous offerings by the same underwriter. Has the underwriter routinely reserved the right to release lockup agreements? If the answer is yes, check the public filings for those companies in the months immediately following their IPOs. (If the Company files its financial reports with the SEC, this information is available at www.sec.gov).

What should you look for? In some instances the Company will clearly disclose whether the Selling Stockholder shares were released early. If the Company fails to address that issue directly you can still determine whether the shares were released by reviewing the company’s quarterly financial reports. Check out the public float (that detail is included in the financial statements). Then look at the prospectus, which will specify how many shares were held by the public immediately after the offering. Compare the two numbers and you should be able to determine if any of the Selling Stockholders were permitted to sell before their lockups expired.

Once you have identified a pattern you will have an idea how that underwriter is likely to approach lockups in the future.

Enough for now. And we’re still on the Cover Page! In our next installment we look at the Underwriter and focus on the body of the prospectus.

http://www.stockpatrol.com/buyer/articles/prospectus1.html

[thepennyking]

Interesting, wonder why they didn't finish the job for Infotopia?

http://www.glrs.com/inbox/cases/23586.pdf

[thepennyking]

Class Action Lawsuit against Fred Alger Family of Funds Filed by GLRS

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – November 21, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on November 20, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Fred Alger Family of Funds ("Alger" or the "Company") between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Fred Alger Management, James P. Connelly Jr., and Veras Investment Partners, LLP.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that the Alger funds engaged in fraudulent and illegal schemes that enabled certain favored investors to reap millions of dollars in profits at the expense of Alger fund investors through secret and after hours trading and timed trading. In exchange for allowing and facilitating this improper conduct, the defendants received substantial fees and other remuneration to the detriment of the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Alger securities between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 5, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Beth Hoffman
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
212-907-0887
212-818-0477 fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Announces Class Action Lawsuit against Alamosa Holdings Inc.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 4, 2003, - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP ("Goodkind Labaton") has been retained to file a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Alamosa Holdings Inc. ("Alamosa" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALMO) between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

During the Class Period issued numerous misleading statements. Specifically, these statements were false and misleading as they misrepresented or omitted that the Company was increasing its subscriber base by relaxing its credit criteria for new customers, that the company was in fact experiencing high involuntary disconnections related to its high credit risk customers, and as a result was carrying tens of millions of dollars of impaired receivables on its financial statements and that as a result of tightening its credit policies, the company experienced lower subscription growth.

If you bought Alamosa securities between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 19, 2002. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Chris Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.

Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with over thirty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Class Action Lawsuit against THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, U.S. TRUST CORPORATION, N.A. and its EXCELSIOR FAMILY OF MUTUAL FUNDS

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 4, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 4, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of The Charles Schwab Corporation, U.S. Trust Corporation, N.A. and its Excelsior Family of Mutual Funds ("Schwab" or the "Company") (NYSE: SCH) between November 23, 1998 and November 14, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that the Excelsior Funds, run by U.S. Trust Corporation N.A., engaged in fraudulent and illegal schemes that enabled certain favored investors to reap millions of dollars in profits at the expense of Excelsior fund investors through secret and after hours trading and timed trading. In exchange for allowing and facilitating this improper conduct, the defendants received substantial fees and other renumeration to the detriment of the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Excelsior securities between November 23, 1998 and November 14, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 20, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Class Action Lawsuit against PORTAL SOFTWARE INC.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 9, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 8, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Portal Software Inc. ("Portal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRSF) between May 20, 2003 and November 13, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Portal and certain officers and directors.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued numerous public statements concerning the Company’s revenue growth, product and marketing initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing to disclose that demand for its products was materially declining. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse information, the Company completed a public offering of stock, raising over $56 million in net proceeds.

On November 13, 2003, Portal issued a press release announcing that it expected net losses of $0.36 to $0.40 per share for the third quarter fiscal 2004 versus prior earnings guidance of net profits of $0.04 per share. Defendants attributed the lower guidance to contract delays and revenue recognition deferrals. Reaction to the negative news was swift. In after hours trading on November 13, 2003, Portal common shares fell more than 42.5% to open at $8.77 per share on November 14, 2003.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Portal securities between May 20, 2003 and November 13, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 19, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

Goodkind Labaton Files Class Action Lawsuit against PriceSmart, Inc.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 9, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 9, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of PriceSmart, Inc. ("PriceSmart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PSMT) between December 20, 2001 and November 17, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against PriceSmart and certain officers and directors.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants, during the Class Period, disseminated or approved false statements about the business and its prospects, which they knew or recklessly disregarded were materially false and misleading. On November 10, 2003, PriceSmart admitted that it inappropriately recorded transactions included in its 2002 to 2003 results, and will have to restate those results to remove millions of improperly reported revenues. In reaction to the news, shares of PriceSmart reacted negatively, falling to $6 per share, from a class period high of $42 per share.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought PriceSmart securities between December 20, 2001 and November 17, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 16, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Lawsuit Against Biovail Corp.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 15, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 12, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Biovail Corp. ("Biovail" or the "Company") (NYSE: BVF) between May 17, 2002 and October 30, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Biovail and Eugene N. Melnyk, Rolf K. Reininghaus and Brian H. Crombie.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants’ statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented that Biovail was aware that its aggressive growth projections could not be maintained due to a rise in internal expenses and growing competition, that its projections were also unattainable due to an increase in production and sales costs and expenses associated with recent acquisitions.

On October 30, 2003, Biovail announced its financial results for the third quarter, ending September 2003. Total revenues increased 3% to $215.3 million vs. the same period a year ago. In addition the company lowered its forecast rate of growth to approximately 10% for the 2004 fiscal year. The market reacted negatively to this news, falling 15%, or $4.25 per share to close at $23.40.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Biovail securities between May 17, 2002 and October 30, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 12, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Class Action Lawsuit against Career Education Corporation

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 22, 2003 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 18, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Career Education Corporation ("Career Education" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CECO) between April 22, 2003 and December 2, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Career Education and John M. Larson, and Patrick K. Pesch.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that the defendants’ statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the company’s strong financial growth was a product of inflated student records, that student records were falsified in order to show a higher rate of enrollment, retention and graduation, and that the Company forced its employees to falsify such records.

The true facts concerning the company’s record growth began to emerge on November 11, 2003, when the Record, A Bergen County New Jersey newspaper, reported that a former director of Gibbs College, a school owned by the defendants, had filed a lawsuit against the company. The former director accused the defendants of falsifying student records to show higher enrollment. On this news shares of Career Education fell more than 13% or $7.10 to $45.18. Then on December 3, 2003, The Santa Barbara News-Press reported that another former employee at a school owned by the defendants had filed another lawsuit alleging that defendants falsified student records. On news of this, shares of Career Education fell nearly 28% or $15.28 per share to close at $39.48 on December 3, 2003.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Career Education securities between April 22, 2003 and December 2, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than February 9, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Network Engines, Inc.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – January 6, 2004 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on January 5, 2004 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Network Engines Inc. ("Network Engines" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NENG) between November 6, 2003 and December 10, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Network Engines and certain officers and directors.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants knew but failed to disclose that Network Engines was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract with EMC, and that EMC was calling for price reductions, which if agreed to, would negatively impact the Company’s financial results. Nevertheless, throughout the class period, the Company continued to issue positive statements, touting the company’s financial performance and the success of its relationship with its largest customer EMC.

On December 10, 2003, the Company announced, along with other items, that it had renegotiated its distribution contract with EMC. The amendment to the contract would negatively impact the company’s results. Following this announcement, shares of network Engines fell $3.92 per share, or 39% to close at $6.10 per share.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Network Engines securities between November 6, 2003 and December 10, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than February 17, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

Goodkind Labaton Files Class Action Lawsuit Against AEROSONIC CORP.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – January 6, 2004 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on January 6, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Aerosonic Corp. ("Aerosonic" or the "Company") (AMEX: AIM) between May 3, 1999 and March 17, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Aerosonic and certain officers and directors.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants artificially inflated the price of Aerosonic shares during the Class Period. Specifically, on March 17, 2003 Defendants revealed what appeared to be certain discrepancies in previously reported financial information concerning inventory accounting and revenue recognition. The market reacted negatively to this news, sending the share price of Aerosonic 24% lower to $3.32 per share.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Aerosonic securities between May 3, 1999 and March 17, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than January 13, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.


###



CONTACTS

Jonathan M. Plasse
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax


Christopher J. Keller
Attorney
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
100 Park Avenue
12th Floor
NewYork, NY 10017-5563
[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] fax

[thepennyking]

GLRS Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Ibis Technology Corp.

NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) – January 8, 2004 - Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on January 8, 2004 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ibis Technology Corp. ("Ibis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IBIS) between October 2, 2003 and December 12, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Ibis and Martin J. Reid.

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online.

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning Ibis’ new generation SIMOX-SOI implanter. Specifically, Ibis had indicated that the company had several orders from Japanese manufacturers for tits implanting machines, which are individually sell for approximately $8 million each and that these orders would close prior to December 31, 2003.

Then on December 15, 2003, Defendants filed a Form 8-K with the SEC admitting there would be no sales of the i2000 implanters to Japanese wafer manufacturers and that they now predicted that they expected to receive an order for one implanter sometime in 2004. Additionally, Defendants further admitted that they would record a "material charge" due to the impairment of its smaller production size equipment.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP of New York, New York and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Goodkind Labaton is a pioneer in the field of investor protection, with forty years experience litigating securities class actions in courts throughout the country. Goodkind Labaton has over 50 attorneys in two offices and maintains an in-house staff of finance and accounting specialists. Goodkind Labaton also has extensive trial experience and, most recently, concluded a class action trial resulting in a landmark $185 million verdict for the plaintiff class.

If you bought Ibis securities between October 2, 2003 and December 12, 2003, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than March 7, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at [e-mail] or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.

[pantherj]

Lecture someone else, penny. I am quite happy with my life and have been amply rewarded by God. If you wish to be philosophical ... I am more concerned about whether I am on His side, than whether He is on my side. Let me add this, some things I believe He requires are honesty, integrity and fidelity in our dealings with our fellow men and women. As I understand it, you have broken a bond of confidentiality with a certain person and used the information gained for your own advantage. You violated a trust without regard to the consequences to anyone else, putting your own interests first. There is no honesty, integrity nor fidelity in that. IMO, you have shown that your own interests take precedence over personal integrity; a common, but serious, character flaw. I choose to associate and converse with those whom I can trust. Wallow away, penny ... on your own.

[janice shell]

Ooooooh!! Can I buy that at Amazon?

Look for them soon under the pen name Alex S. Gabor, who also wrote "Confessions of a Sex Crazed Money Man!".

[thepennyking]

Yes I have heard of those. Usually the first person to point a finger already has three pointing back at them. Watch and learn fellow muckraking sister. You haven't seen the three books already written about Mr. Bernstein come out yet. Look for them soon under the pen name Alex S. Gabor, who also wrote "Confessions of a Sex Crazed Money Man!".


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 16163 / May 27, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hartley T. Bernstein,

No. 99 Civ. 3885 (S.D.N.Y.)

ATTORNEY SETTLES CHARGES THAT HE PROFITED BY MORE THAN $500,000 FROM

ROLE IN LARGER MICROCAP SECURITIES FRAUD

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today filed its
third civil action arising from the massive securities fraud that was
conducted through Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. ("Sterling Foster"), a
registered broker-dealer. In today's Complaint, which was filed in
federal court in Manhattan, the Commission charged an attorney with
fraudulently obtaining over $500,000 by selling securities shortly
after the initial public offerings ("IPOs") of five companies for
which the defendant's law firm acted as counsel.

Named in the Commission's Complaint is

HARTLEY T. BERNSTEIN ("Bernstein"), age 49, of Armonk, New York, who,
at the time of the transactions and events alleged in the Complaint,
was a partner in the law firm of Bernstein & Wasserman, LLP.

According to the Complaint

Bernstein acquired unregistered securities of Advanced Voice
Technologies, Inc. ("Advanced Voice"), Com/Tech Communications
Technologies, Inc.("Com/Tech"), Embryo Development Corp. ("Embryo"),
and Applewoods, Inc. ("Applewoods"), companies whose IPOs were being
underwritten by Sterling Foster, and of Perry's Majestic, Inc., a
company whose IPO was co-underwritten by VTR Capital, Inc. and
Investors Associates, Inc. ("Investors Associates"). The unregistered
securities of those issuers that Bernstein acquired were registered
along with the securities that were to be sold in each of those IPOs.
In all of the IPOs except Applewoods, Bernstein knew or was reckless
in not knowing that he would sell those securities at below-market
prices to one of the underwriters soon after the commencement of the
IPO. In the Applewoods IPO, Bernstein and Sterling Foster agreed that
Bernstein would sell his Applewoods securities to Sterling Foster,
through another broker-dealer, immediately upon the opening of the
first day of after-market trading. Bernstein's sales of securities to
Sterling Foster and Investors Associates provided those firms with a

Consider that post a sneak preview of the works! Part I, Part II and Part III.

[janice shell]

Very poor advice when dealing with penny stocks. Or with penny stock Kings.

Therefore trust to thy heart, and to what the world calls illusions.

[janice shell]

You're more than a little hard on Hartley Bernstein, aren't you? Ever heard the one about people in glass houses?

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 18307 / August 25, 2003

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GABOR S. ACS and PENNY KING HOLDINGS CORP. SEC v. Gabor S. Acs et al., Civ. No. CV-N-03-0463-ECR-VPC D. (Nevada)

On August 21, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Gabor S. Acs ("Acs") and his alter ego company, Penny King Holdings Corp. ("Penny King"). The Commission's complaint alleges that between January and May 2002, Acs wrote, edited and approved six false and misleading press releases concerning Quintek Technologies, Inc. ("Quintek") and Eknowledge Group, Inc. ("Eknowledge") and that between at least March and August 2002 he created and maintained two Internet websites containing false statements. The complaint further alleges that the releases and websites contained false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, the financial prospects of Quintek and Eknowledge, a business combination between these two companies, Penny King's assets and Acs' financial experience. According to the complaint, Acs and Penny King also failed to disclose payments made by Quintek and Eknowledge in exchange for touting services.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Acs and Penny King violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and third tier civil penalties against both defendants, and as to Acs, a penny stock bar.

SEC Complaint in this matter

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18307.htm

[thepennyking]

Knights in White Satin

Never seeing the end
Just what I'm going through
You'll know at my end.

Oh how I love you
Gazing at people
Some hand in hand
Letters I've written
Never meaning to send.

But I love you.
Oh how I love you

Breathe deep the gathering bloom
Watch lights ignite in every board room
Beckon the people who have been lost in lament
Another days useless in another years spent.

Warm hearted orb that rules these Knights
Whom add infinite colors to their long sights
Wrong is grey, right yellow flaming love light
But in the end, we can all decide which is right.

And what is an illusion!

[mbobok]

http://www.stopesso.com/funstuff/nose.html

[pantherj]

under the golden bush of silence!

Under what Bush lay these defendants?

[thepennyking]

Deutsche Bank to Build-up US Equity Energy Research Team
Tuesday January 6, 2:43 pm ET
Paul Sankey and Nick Aldridge to Relocate from Edinburgh to New York


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 6, 2004--Deutsche Bank Securities' today announced it is building-up its US equity energy research team by relocating Paul Sankey and Nick Aldridge from its oils team in Edinburgh to New York City during the first quarter of 2004. The analysts will bring coverage of the global large-cap integrated oils to the US and substantially enhance the Bank's US-based coverage of key energy names.
"Paul and Nick's integration into our US research energy team will serve to further boost Deutsche Bank's research product and assist in expanding our franchise in the US," said Tim Andrew, Head of North American Equity Research. "These changes underscore Deutsche Bank's considerable commitment to energy research and the oil sector."

Sankey, with over 13 years of energy industry experience, has been part of Deutsche Bank's global oil and gas team since 2000 and has been responsible for covering the large-cap oils market. Previously, he held positions at Wood Mackenzie and the International Energy Agency.

Since joining the global oil and gas team in 2000, Aldridge has supported the coverage of large-cap oil stocks. He has specialized in oil growth themes and his in-depth knowledge of the international oil industry's developments in Russia's upstream and worldwide deep-water exploration business has been an integral part of the Bank's oil coverage.

Sankey and Aldridge will work closely with Jay Saunders, who will continue to cover the North American mid-cap integrated oils and refiners, as well as his contribution to the team's oil market analysis.

JJ Traynor, co-head of Deutsche Bank's Global Oil & Gas team, will continue to be the lead analyst on US large cap stocks. Caroline Cook, Nick Griffin and JJ Traynor will continue covering the Pan-European oil stocks.

About Deutsche Bank

With roughly EUR 864 billion in assets and approximately 68,500 employees, Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - News) offers its 13 million clients unparalleled financial services in 76 countries throughout the world. Deutsche Bank competes to be the leading global provider of financial solutions for demanding clients creating exceptional value for its shareholders and people.

Deutsche Bank ranks among the global leaders in corporate banking and securities, transaction banking, asset management, and private wealth management, and has a significant private & business banking franchise in Germany and other selected countries in Continental Europe.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is the investment banking and securities arm of Deutsche Bank AG in the United States.

www.deutsche-bank.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Deutsche Bank
Juanita Gutierrez, 212-250-4592

[mbobok]

Therefore trust to thy heart, and to what the world calls illusions.
Author: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

[mbobok]

pennyking, your Securities and Exchange Commission Surveillance (SECS) post made some excellent points. I really do not know much about how fair and accurate stockpatrol.com really is. And would not be surprised to find out eventually that they have particular agendas. In regards to IFTA, however, their articles were not the primary problem with the company. The B.O.D. was corrupt and Mark Valentine continued to finance their operations despite now apparent evidence of embezzlement by directors. Shareholders were set up.

That said, I really do like two points you made in that post:

"According to current SEC rules its against the law to tout stocks, so why hasn't the SEC slammed down on the hundreds of thousands of analysts who work on Wall Street? One simply can look not far to find that every analyst report ever published by any Wall Street firm is not only a tout and form of promotion, it wreaks of falsity."

"Maybe we should be asking whether there really is a Securities and Exchange Commission devoted to protecting investors or is it just a political cabal of past, present and future lawyers who have taken public character assasination to new levels of political science??"

[thepennyking]

Breathe deep the gathering bloom
Watch lights ignite in every room
Beckon the people who are lost in lament
Another days useless in a years spent.

Warm hearted orb that rules the Knights
Who adds infinite colors to their sights
Wrong is grey and right is might
But in the end, we decide which is right.

And what is an illusion!


By your leave me'lady!

[thepennyking]

Under what Bush lay these defendants? Senior or Junior?

[thepennyking]

Opinions do not equate to facts. Let ye wallow in the past while the knights of the future ride into your next sunset! Life is in you today and you make your own tomorrow! Thou art the cause of thine own miserable existence. Seek ye not to shift the blame to God lest he answer your prayers.

[thepennyking]

There are two sides to every coin:

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2000806

Your question should be, who will hold the "coin" when the game is over? Will it be a disbarred corrupt lawyer or the King of the meek and mild? Prepare the boy scouts to do their bidding!

That whole legal barf is a bunch of jabberwockies gibberating much ado about nothingness.

It is interesting how there are so many hostile elements that bite the hands that try to feed them.

Will you take me higher? To that place where blind men see?

Reminds me of the story of the guy who knew he was going to go to heaven. There was a flood, and along comes a boat with a person yelling "Hurry, jump in, we'll take you to dry land". The fellow says "No, God is going to come soon".

Then along comes a helicopter with a rope lowered and a booming loud speaker that beckons the man to "Climb off your roof!" as the water rises higher and higher. "Nope, God is going to come and get me soon!"

Then the man drowns and sees a glaring blinding light before him as he screams, "Oh, God!"

"Yes?", bellows the voice!

"What happened?" cries the dead man.

"You drowned!", says the ominipotence!

"Oh, how could he have forsaken me," weeps the poor soul!

And the omniscient sent him this message without another spoken word:

"You asked for me, I sent you a boat. You asked for me again and I sent you a helicopter. Who has forsaken who?

And the soul was silent forever thereafter!

Forsake:

To give up (something formerly held dear); renounce: forsook liquor.

To leave altogether; abandon: forsook Hollywood and returned to the legitimate stage.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forsaken

Till death do us part good stake holder.

Stake:

A piece of wood or metal pointed at one end for driving into the ground as a marker, fence pole, or tent peg.

A vertical post to which an offender is bound for execution by burning. As in the "Pantherj held the stake to which he sought to bind the King who had escaped the clutches of ignorance".

Execution by burning. Used with the: condemned to the stake.

A vertical post secured in a socket at the edge of a platform, as on a truck bed, to help retain the load.

Mormon Church. A territorial division consisting of a group of wards under the jurisdiction of a president.

Money or property risked in a wager or gambling game. Often used in the plural. See Synonyms at bet.

The prize awarded the winner of a contest or race.

A race offering a prize to the winner, especially a horserace in which the prize consists of money contributed equally by the horse owners.

A share or an interest in an enterprise, especially a financial share.

Personal interest or involvement: a stake in her children's future.

A grubstake.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stake

In the name of the infinite infinitor of infinities, put down thine own mighty torch that burns ye eyeballs in the dead of knights and raize the dead, lest ye wish to start a war over the infinite abundance of the universe. Then come be my guest!

omnipotence

\Om*nip"o*tence\, Omnipotency \Om*nip"o*ten*cy\, n. [L. omnipotentia: cf.F. omnipotence.] 1. The state of being omnipotent; almighty power; hence, one who is omnipotent; the Deity.

Will Omnipotence neglect to save the suffering virtue of the wise and brave? --Pope.

Unlimited power of a particular kind; as, love's omnipotence. --Denham.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotence

[mbobok]

panther, I understand. But am also all too aware of how easily it is to misunderstand one's intentions behind their posts. At the present time; I really would prefer that we give thepennyking the benefit of doubt and see if we can have a productive discussion if it is considered warranted.

Pennyking, I can only request the same consideration from you as well. Pretty please?

[pantherj]

M, If his intentions were altruistic, there was no need for him
to challenge me to prove him wrong, nor to rip StockPatrol
or Janice, both of whom were 100% correct about IFTA/P from the beginning. You know my opinion of the "pennyking", as he likes to call himself.

[mbobok]

I would like to add here that the pennyking is right that there is very little real justice available for shareholders of companies caught up in market corruption scams. What should never be implied, however, is that shareholders fighting back, in spite of the risk, is a waste of effort.

Pennyking, I do like where your group is coming from in respect to fighting market corruption. I would just appreciate, if it is at all possible, that we all can learn to speak from the same page, even if the activity of others on these boards are separate from what your group is attempting to accomplish.

[mbobok]

panther, provided that the main point the pennyking just meant to point out was how little justice there is for the shareholder's in our lawsuit; let us just calm down here a bit.

Pennyking; next to myself, pantherl was the next most active organizer of our lawsuit. We are consequently very protective as to what gets said about our lawsuit. We do not discuss details of the lawsuit other than that which is part of court records. And I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

[pantherj]

I don't talk about on going legal matters, so if your trying to bait me into divulging something you are out of luck. I don't know exactly what your interest is, but you seem to be hoping the lawsuit fails. Why is that? Why would you care one way or another? BTW, VIVA La StockPatrol. (They helped save me a lot of money ...as did Janice)

[thepennyking]

Prove me wrong!

[pantherj]

inaccurate... and incomplete info., Sandor

[thepennyking]

Your faith proved prophetic and self fulfilling, who gets this email when this email is used:

infotopia.tv

CA

US

[e-mail]

[thepennyking]

'ifta.ob' is not a valid ticker symbol.

Request permission to take over this Board and put the show on the road.

[thepennyking]

Looks like the stockholders ran out of money or ran out of defendants one way or the other. Where's the justice eh?

[thepennyking]

I am whoever you want to percieve me to be Ms. "Shell".

[janice shell]

Ahhhh, are you by any chance Sandor Gabor? If so, you're not a fool, so stop playing one.

Now then: just what is your interest in this company at this stage of its non-life?

[thepennyking]

Its just interesting how many articles this guy wrote about Infotopia. Would the stockholders have lost so much money if Mr. Felonious Bernstein had not cast so many stones at it?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2000806

[thepennyking]

Consider the source:

"Through his law firm, Bernstein & Wasserman, he worked for some of the most notorious penny-stock manipulators of the past two decades: Stratton Oakmont, Biltmore Securities and Sterling Foster. He also worked for a host of forgettable little companies whose stocks those firms manipulated.

But in reality, he worked for Randolph Pace — a wily Wall Street veteran who, with Meyer Blinder and Robert E. Brennan, make up what one lawyer has called "the three tenors of the penny-stock world." (Mr. Blinder was jailed for securities fraud in 1992, after the collapse of his firm, Blinder, Robinson & Company. Mr. Brennan, the smiling force behind the equally infamous First Jersey Securities, is serving a nine-year prison term after being convicted of fraud in 2001.)"


http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2043620

The blinder you get the more you get robbed son!

[Bichon]

Big news about scandal involving Mark Valentine. http://www.stockpatrol.com/schlock/articles/valentine.html

[Joemoney]

Matt, what would you do without the ability to read each poster's IP address? LOL

[Mattu]

I get a kick out of you folks that paint yourselves to be 'honest, negative posters'

Whether or not your information is true or false isn't a concern of mine. I'm just here to enforce the rules of the game.

I just quite hypocritical that you go around accusing people of pumping and falsehoods, but you yourself post under multiple aliases.

Don't you?

[Bichon]

Hey Joe Money. The truth isn't advertising. Why do you fear facts? Stockpatrol.com has now exposed Infotopia and Joshua Tree in a new series. Get over it or tell us who you really are. Is that you Dan?

[Joemoney]

No advertising is allowed on this thread. sorry

[Joemoney]

Me?????