Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
A 2008 post, that's the best you can do? LOLOLOL
You unicorn douches are really pathetic.
Enjoy counting all those ZEROES on your Escrows.
Btw, I still own all my 2012 COOP which I'm up 600%....that's why I'm here you unhinged jackass!
WOW....you corns are a joke.
Now go cry to the Ihub goofs and sob yourself to sleep....flaming Poofter!
Jim Morris is a filthy dirtbag.
LCRE SEC Suspension:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2017/34-81012.pdf
This should be a very clean shell. Wonder why it has not been considered for a RM? Keeping for future plans? Just wondering. Not much else to do here.
Jim Morris is a scumbag.
LCRE was a scam from day one.
There was nothing legit about LCRE. They had product placement to sell shares.
A scam has to have props.
This company was legit. I was even able to see the technology working in a restaurant (the restaurant has recently folded). There was a window of opportunity but now ordering devices are everywhere now, even McDonalds...so great idea, piss poor execution and greed got in the way.
Happy Holidays.
Courtney,
The U.S. Trustee for Southern California Bankruptcy Court is interested in information on Jim Morris.
Please contact her ASAP.
Lecere Corp (LCRE) is "new" according to how it is displayed in my Schwab account. Interesting. Been waiting to claim it as a total loss IF I happen to bring in some profit elsewhere...has not happened yet. So, wouldn't it be nice if it took off. OK...far fetched. I know.
Any idea what's happening here? Happened to notice the pps increase.
Hello. Can you tell me some email via PM? I can not send PM
Hey Courtney, I do not read this board very much and have pretty much written off my loses on the investment. I don't believe it was a total scam at the start (I know it's naïve but I like to look at things from a positive perspective that why these scam can get me sometimes.) Just like many pinkland companies with an idea and hope, which eventually turn bad and becomes a scam once they realize that the dilution is just as profitable as the company can be. I usually don't invest to much in these companies for this reason. I don't have much left and not really gong to worry about it if it ever does do something than maybe I get some of money back. GLTA
I just posted something new regarding Morris of Lecere. You might find it very interesting!!
No one wants this jerk more than I do as he is affiliated with my ex-husband Karl (Casey) Powell who was silently on the board and an active executive of Lecere. I believe the name of their supposed Ukrainian software gig (registered in Henderson Nevada) is Wave-access.com
Additionally, I believe they are associated with a company who "partners with them" called
C4CRM, LLC (consulting 4 CRM). These two are sleazy folks, registered in Belize as well. If anyone has information, please do let me know. They have no office in Henderson but are working out of a home. Only 1800 numbers. I've been trying so hard to research. These guys need to be held
accountable!
No it couldn't have been lecere because this was a scam!
Seems to be involved with an international cartel out of Russia, anyone with info can contact me.
Would love to know of management or major stockholders victimized in this scam - investigating on behalf of a company who was also vicitimized by the same crew.
I am thinking about buying the shell, and renaming it Le'Sears.
Hey james or anybody still out there, I thought this was a dead, never to see the light of day stock; I was waiting turn my loss in some other gains. Does anybody know what is going on, did someone buy this shell for some other reason than restaurant sales? It's just crazy with penny stocks you just never know!!!! Any info would greatly appreciated. thanks
Dude.. Go long ... Go looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.
I still have 10 share of this POS anyone want it or should wait until it go another 80000 percent LOL
$LCRE up 718% on 10 shares LOL!!
The stock is going to take off any day now ;)
Oh well. Given personal computers this past year dropped 7% in sales and tablets have continued rising makes this as common as a car. Thanks for posting, seeing this stock symbol is a blast from the past.
Saw this today on Nations Restaurant News...
Could have been Lecere
Restaurant News Sponsored By
White Castle, McDonald's test touch-screen ordering
A renovated White Castle restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, boasts two touch-screen kiosks that customers can use to personalize their orders at their own pace. In Laguna Niguel, Calif., a McDonald's restaurant is testing tablets on each table that provide the same kind of service. Similar systems are increasingly available in Europe and other countries, feeding younger consumers' higher expectations, Technomic's Darren Tristano said. "It also creates better efficiency between the customer and the back of the house, and reduces order errors," he said. QSR Magazine (1/2014)
what a jerk.. hope someone hunt him down
Lecere was Dissolved in Minnesota on 8/1/2012
http://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=724edbd9-b6d4-e011-a886-001ec94ffe7f
Hmmmmm!
Anybody want to sue? I have 300,000 shares and I was not notified of a shareholders meeting!
I'm open to a class action lawsuit against Jim Morris if anybody wants to join...
ALL shareholders should have been notified of a meeting to dissolve the company!!!
Morris stole a boatload of technology from LCRE as is obvious: http://www.postjobfree.com/resume/tbud3x/livermore-authorization-json-boards-las-vegas-nv
Using our funded server technology: "Since I did not want to modify Lecere's Ruby on Rails server code, I wrote the Android app to look exactly like a browser hitting the Lecere server. "
Good to know where our money went.
"I have been engaged in the last five years starting a new company in the hospitality industry: Lecere Corporation (www.lecere.com). I was the CEO of Lecere before resigning on 12/31/2011."
He resigned because he spent our money trolling for 20 year old Ukrainian girls instead of running a company with the $1.3M raised at our expense.
Jim is no longer with LCRE, I emailed him back in June.. I dont have it any more as I was just looking but I think I deleted it...
But he said and I'm paraphrasing here
That he "left LCRE" and is pursuing another tech startup idea that he has a group of IT guys or what not working out of Kiev.
And yes thats Ukraine.. for those of you remember there were allegations on this board that he was running the LCRE business from Ukraine among a few other things.
I have no reason to lie and had a quiet email communication relationship with him but never posted on this board before.
All that to be said, he told me he is no longer here which means this is just a dead shell... and he has moved on to some other business entity and is working out of the ukraine.
just fwiw
Pardon me for interrupting but if Lecere did a naughty thing or two, but they are worth NOTHING then does that not mean that we shareholders still get nothing?
I can see that being a viable argument.
Remotely possible, Jellogan. It is more likely that each of the companies will be charged with complicity for issuing the unregistered shares to TJM, knowing or should have known those shares would be immediately diluted into the market.
TJM were the sellers but Lecere was the issuer. IMO the original offence lays with the company.
Foreign Issuers
50. Since 2005, Kahlon, through TJM, has attempted to invoke Texas securities law
and a federal securities registration exemption to purchase hundreds of millions of shares of
stock from small issuers in unregistered transactions.
51. TJM participated in the distribution of the Issuers' shares into the public market.
A. Lecere Corporation
52. Between July 2009 and June 2010, TJM bought shares of Lecere Corporation
("Lecere") and resold the shares into the public market when no registration statement was filed
or in effect.
53. TJM's purchase of stock from Lecere between July 2009 and June 2010 did not
occur in Texas.
54. Lecere is a Minnesota corporation formerly based in Naples, Florida. Lecere is
currently based in Portland, Oregon. From July 22, 2009 to the present, Lecere has maintained a
bank account in Rochester, MN, has conducted business through that account, and has had no
substantial offices or operations in the state of Texas.
55. In July 2009, Flomenhaft phoned Lecere to pitch an opportunity for Lecere to
raise $1 million in capital through the sale of Lecere stock.
56. That month, Flomenhafi scheduled a phone call between Gurin and an officer of
Lecere.
57. At Kahlon’ s direction, Gurin explained to a Lecere officer the process for selling
stock to TJM.
58. At Kahlon's direction, Gurin referred Lecere to David Kahn, an attorney in
California to facilitate the sale of stock by Lecere to TJM.
59. On at least eighteen occasions, Kahlon or someone acting at his direction
prepared a term sheet, subscription agreement and other documents necessary to effectuate an
unregistered sale of stock from Lecere to TJM. Kahlon signed these documents on behalf of
TJM.
60. At Kahlon's direction, on at least eighteen occasions, Ed Gurin sent a term sheet
and subscription agreement to Lecere for signature by a Lecere officer.
61. Between July 2009 and June 2010, over the course of eighteen transactions, TJM
purchased 4.2 billion shares of stock from Lecere for a total price of$613,159.
62. Within the same time period, TJM resold all 4.2 billion shares of Lecere into the
public market for $1.4 million in sales proceeds, a 131 % gain over its initial investment.
63. TJM did not purchase the 4.2 million shares of Lecere solely for its own account.
64. TJM bought shares of Lecere for the account of at least one natural person,
contrary to the Texas exemption upon which TJM relied.
65. Between July 2009, and June 2010, TJM purchased shares of Lecere stock on
behalf of Flomenhaft.
66. Between July 22,2009, and June 8, 2010, Flomenhaft transferred money to TJM
to purchase shares of Lecere.
67. Between July 22,2009, and June 8, 2010, Kahlon transferred money from TJM to
Flomenhaft to distribute to Flomenhaft some of the proceeds ofTJM's resale of Lecere shares
into the public market.
68. No registration statement was in effect and no valid exemption from registration
applied to TJM's purchase of stock from Lecere. No registration statement was in effect and no
valid exemption from registration applied to TJM's resale of Lecere stock into the public market.
69. Kahlon and TJM sold shares of Lecere to the general public using interstate
commerce. New York-based Kahlon and TJM used interstate phone, email and fax to review
and execute subscription agreements with Lecere in Oregon and Florida; and used interstate
faxes and email to communicate with David Kahn in California and Lecere's transfer agent in
Denver, Colorado.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp22452.pdf
Renee - i don't have PM. however, why would this be bad for me/us? couldn't it only become better if the Commission receives the final judgement they're after?
"The Commission seeks a·final judgment (a) permanently restraining and enjoining
Defendants from violating Section 5; (b) ordering Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest thereon; (c) ordering Defendants to pay civil money penalties,
pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. §
77t(d)]; and (d) permanently prohibiting Defendants from participating in an offering of penny
stock, pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)]."
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp22452.pdf
i dont even know how to feel on this matter...
DTCC / The Depository Trust Company
DTC has suspended all services, except Custody Services, for the below referenced issues. The suspensions are effective August 24th, 2012.
CUSIP...... SECURITY NAME
52323R200 Lecere Corporation LCRE
http://dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2012/dtc/ope/1222-12.pdf
And, of course, Renee, I meant that in the nicest way possible. You simply bring the information...but your presence isn't unlike Death knocking on a dying person's door.
Go hug a puppy.
Well, it's all coming together. Renee is the equivalent of the angel of death, and this looks like the final stake into this monster.
Yeah, I have two bags for micro stocks (this isn't one of them). Here's to sunnier days in other stocks.
LCRE referenced in SEC litigation.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp-pr2012-165.pdf
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 12 Civ. ----Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
v.
EDWARD BRONSON and E-LIONHEART ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a F AIRHILLS CAPITAL, Defendants and FAIRHILLS CAPITAL, INC., Relief Defendant.
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against defendants Edward Bronson ("Bronson") and E-Lionheart Associates, LLC, d/b/a Fairhills Capital ("E-Lionheart") (collectively, "Defendants"), and relief defendant Fairhills Capital, Inc. ("FCI") ("Relief Defendant"), alleges:
SUMMARY
1. Since at least August 2009, Defendants have engaged in a scheme to purchase billions of shares of stock from small companies and illegally resell those shares to the investing public, without complying with the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The federal registration requirements protect investors by promoting full disclosure ofinformation deemed necessary for informed investment decisions. Investors were deprived of such protections by Defendants' misconduct. Bronson and E-Lionheart have reaped more than $10 million in profits from these illegal sales.
VIOLATIONS
2. By virtue ofthe foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Bronson and E-Lionheart, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will again violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
3.The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Section 20 ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t].
4.The Commission seeks a fmaljudgment (a) permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act; (b) ordering Defendants and Relief Defendant, on a joint and several basis, to disgorge their ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest thereon; (c) ordering Defendants to pay civil money penalties, pursuant to Section 20(d) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)]; and (d) permanently prohibiting Defendants from participating in any offering ofpenny stock, pursuant to Section 20(g) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)].
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b ), 20( d) and 22(a) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a)]. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, have made use of the means or instruments oftransportation or communication in interstate commerce, or ofthe mails, in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of businesses alleged herein.
6. Venue lies in the Southern District ofNew York, pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)]. Bronson resides in this District, and E-Lionheart's principal place ofbusiness is in this District.
FACTS
Defendants
7.Bronson, age 46, resides in Ossining, New York. Bronson is the sole managing member ofE-Lionheart, an entity he used to facilitate his illegal stock sales.
8.E-Lionheart, formed in 2005 as a Delaware limited liability company, also does business as "Fairhills Capital." E-Lionheart is registered in the State ofNew York as a foreign limited liability company. Bronson is the sole managing member ofE-Lionheart. At all times relevant to this Complaint, E-Lionheart has maintained its sole physical office in White Plains, New York.
Relief Defendant
9. FCI was formed in 2010 as a Delaware corporation, and maintains a registered business address in White Plains, New York at the same location as E-Lionheart. Bronson is the President and owner ofFCI. FCI was unjustly enriched by Bronson's transfer to FCI ofat least $600,000 of the proceeds from the illegal stock sales described herein.
Background
10. The Defendants in this case obtained and illegally resold the stock of approximately 100 companies, reaping profits of more than $10 million while depriving the investing public ofthe protections ofthe registration requirements ofthe securities laws. The companies that issued these shares typically had limited assets, low share prices, and little or no analyst coverage. The stocks of these issuers traded only in the "over-the-counter" market and were quoted on OTC Link, an electronic quotation and trading system. At all relevant times, the stocks ofthese issuers were "penny stocks" as defined by Section 3(a)(51)(A) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(51)(A)], meaning that, among other things, they traded below five dollars per share and were not listed on a national securities exchange.
11.Section 5 ofthe Securities Act prohibits any person, directly or indirectly, from offering or selling any security unless a registration statement is filed as to such offer, and is in effect as to such sale, or unless an exemption from registration is available. A registration statement is made publicly available and is required to include disclosures of financial and business information about the company and the particular securities that are being offered and sold.
12.Unless an exemption from registration is available, a registration statement is required for each new offer or sale of securities by any person. In this case, no registration statements were filed or in effect in connection with either the initial issuance of shares to Defendants or Defendants' sales ofthose shares to the public and no exemptions from registration were available to Defendants for their sales ofthose securities to the public.
13.Certain statutory provisions ofthe Securities Act and Commission regulations provide exemptions or safe harbors from the federal registration requirement. States have also enacted laws, known as "blue sky laws," that regulate the offer and sale of securities by imposing state-level registration requirements and exemptions from registration. Certain of the federal exemptions from registration are designed to achieve uniformity between state and federal exemptions in order to facilitate capital formation that is consistent with the protection of investors. One such exemption, Rule 504(b)(1)(iii), adopted as part of Regulation D, 17 C.F.R. §
230.501 et seq. (1999) ("Rule 504(b )(1)(iii)"), provides an exemption for certain limited offers and sales of securities only if the offers and sales are made "[e ]xclusively according to state law exemptions from registration that permit general solicitation and general advertising so long as sales are made only to 'accredited investors' as defined in [Rule] 501(a)." Accredited investors are investors who meet certain income or net worth requirements.
14. Defendants purported to rely upon Rule 504(b )(1)(iii) in connection with their sales of securities. However, the state law exemption Defendants selected and purportedly relied upon was inapplicable to Rule 504(b)(1)(iii). Accordingly, neither the issuers' initial offers and sales to Defendants nor Defendants' subsequent offers and sales to the investing public qualified as exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 504(b)(1)(iii).
Defendants' Illegal Stock Sales
15.Defendants' illegal operation typically followed the same pattern. Operating from E-Lionheart's office in White Plains, New York, Bronson, or E-Lionheart personnel acting at Bronson's direction, "cold called" OTC Link quoted companies to ask ifthey were interested in obtaining capital. Ifthe company was interested, Bronson, or E-Lionheart personnel acting at his direction, would offer to buy stock in the company at a rate that was deeply discounted from the price the company's stock was then trading at.
16. If a company expressed interest, Bronson (or E-Lionheart personnel acting at his direction) prepared a subscription agreement and other documents to effect the transaction. In certain instances, Defendants prearranged with the company to purchase multiple "tranches" of the company's securities in the future once Defendants were able to sell earlier tranches into the public market.
17. Typically, Defendants began immediately reselling the shares to the investing public through a broker within days ofreceiving the shares from the company. No registration statement was filed or in effect as to any ofthese sales at the time Bronson and E-Lionheart sold those shares to the public and no valid exemption was available. As a result, investors purchasing shares did not have access to all ofthe information that a registration statement would have provided and in many instances were deprived of even the basic information of the new issuance ofmillions of shares by the company and the dilution effect thereof. On average, the Defendants were able to generate proceeds from their illegal resales that were approximately double the price at which E-Lionheart had acquired the shares.
18.Bronson and E-Lionheart repeated this pattern with approximately 100 issuers, often purchasing and unlawfully reselling multiple "tranches" of securities from any given Issuer.
The Purported Registration Exemption
19. Despite all of Defendants' activities taking place in New York, and irrespective of the location ofthe company's business, the subscription agreement represented that the company was making an offering ofits stock that was exempt from registration because it was being made pursuant to Rule 504(b)(1)(iii) ofRegulation D and a Delaware state law exemption from registration, Section 7309(b)(8) ofthe Delaware Securities Act [Redesignated as§ 73-207(b)(8) ofthe Delaware Securities Act on November 14, 2011].
20.Before the securities were issued to E-Lionheart, an attorney referred and/or paid by Bronson, but purportedly acting on the company's behalf, provided an opinion letter to the company's transfer agent asserting that the securities could be issued without a restrictive legend. Companies use transfer agents to keep track ofthe individuals and entities that own their stock.
In the absence of a registration statement, transfer agents will issue stock certificates bearing a "restrictive legend" -indicating limitations on the transfer or sale ofthe security -unless the transfer agent receives assurances in the form ofan attorney opinion letter that adequately explains why it is lawful to issue the certificates without a restrictive legend. However, the absence or removal ofa restrictive legend on a stock certificate merely makes the transfer ofthe certificate possible, not lawful.
21.These attorney opinion letters claimed that Section 7309(b)(8) ofthe Delaware Securities Act [now §73-207(b)(8)] purportedly satisfied the requirements of Section 504(b)(l)(iii) of Regulation D, thereby supposedly permitting the issuance of"freely tradable" securities without a restrictive legend. The attorney providing the opinion letter typically was not licensed to practice law in Delaware.
22.Despite their attempt to invoke a Delaware state law exemption in the subscription agreements and attorney opinion letters, the securities offerings had either no nexus, or an insufficient nexus, to Delaware. Bronson and E-Lionheart, both residents ofNew York State, did not prepare, negotiate or execute any of the subscription agreements or other transactional documents in Delaware. The securities were sent to E-Lionheart's business address in White Plains, New York. Many ofthe companies that issued the securities had no business operations in Delaware. The attorney opinion letters were not typically prepared by attorneys licensed to practice law in Delaware. Nor were any ofthe transfer agents to whom the opinion letters were sent located in Delaware. As such, Defendants' purchase of securities could not have been made pursuant to, or in reliance upon, any Delaware state law exemptions from registration. Rule 504(b)(l)(iii)'s exemption was therefore unavailable.
23. The Delaware exemption on which Defendants claimed reliance is also not an exemption that meets the requirements ofRule 504(b)(l)(iii). Rule 504(b)(l)(iii) requires that the state law exemption from registration be an exemption that "permit[ s] general solicitation and general advertising." Section 7309(b)(8) [now §73-207(b)(8)] of the Delaware Securities Act-the state law exemption referenced in the subscription agreements -pertains solely to offers or sales that are exclusively made to several specifically enumerated types of institutions (including certain accredited investors that are not natural persons). This state law exemption does not permit "general solicitation and general advertising," as required by Rule 504(b)(l)(iii), and the Delaware Securities Act prohibits solicitation without registration or an applicable exemption. Rule 504(b)(l)(iii)'s exemption was therefore unavailable to Defendants' transactions.
24. In addition, the Defendants' quick resales were in violation of an existing Delaware exemption that is compatible with the requirements of Rule 504(b)(l)(iii)-Section 503 of the Delaware Rules and Regulations [Rules and Regulations Pursuant to the Delaware Securities Act, § 503]. Any resales of securities made in reliance on this exemption must satisfy a twelve month holding period, with which Defendants did not comply.
The Illegal Profits
25.Defendants' resales ofthe stock ofiCBS, Ltd. (ticker "ICBT"), a small company, exemplify the mechanics ofthe illegal stock distribution operation and the resulting unlawful profits obtained by Bronson and E-Lionheart.
26.On February 3, 2010, E-Lionheart entered into a subscription agreement with ICBT in which E-Lionheart purchased 60,000,000 ICBT shares for $30,000. On February 8, 2010, Defendants deposited the ICBT shares in E-Lionheart's brokerage account.
27. On February 10, 2010,just two days later, Defendants sold 46,230,009 of these shares to the investing public through E-Lionheart's broker. The next day, Defendants sold the remaining 13,769,991 shares through E-Lionheart's broker. No registration statement was filed or in effect as to such offers and sales thus depriving the market ofrelevant information-and no valid exemption from registration was available for Defendants' sales. Bronson and E-Lionheart obtained gross sales proceeds of approximately $58,000 and illegal profits of$28,000.
28.Approximately three months later, on May 14, 2010, E-Lionheart entered into a subscription agreement with ICBT in which E-Lionheart purchased another 110,000,000 ICBT shares for $30,000. On May 18, 2010, Defendants deposited these shares in E-Lionheart's brokerage account. On May 21, 2010,just three days later, Defendants sold 50,000,000 ofthese shares to the public through E-Lionheart's broker. Four days after that, on May 25, 2010, Defendants sold the remaining 60,000,000 shares to the public through E-Lionheart's broker. No registration statement was filed or in effect as to these transactions -and no valid exemption was available for Defendants' sales. Bronson and E-Lionheart obtained gross sales proceeds of approximately $45,600 and illegal profits of$15,600.
29.Defendants engaged in at least 11 additional transactions with ICBT of similar type between September 2009 and May 2011 and resold the shares to the public without registration or a valid exemption. In total, Defendants' unregistered and illegal sales of ICBT stock to the public netted gross sales proceeds ofapproximately $960,000 and illegal profits of $325,000.
30.Since August 2009, Defendants have engaged in similar illegal resales ofthe stock of over one hundred other companies. In the aggregate, Defendants have entered into hundreds oftransactions, involving the sale ofbillions of shares to the investing public, without a registration statement being filed or in effect and with no valid exemption from registration available for Defendants' sales of securities. The following table summarizes the transactions by Defendants in the stock acquired from just ten ofthese issuers during the two-year period August 2009 to August 2011 :
Sierra Gold Corp. SGCP
Acquisition period: 8/09-4/11
Resale period 9/09-5/11
Number of transactions: 30
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 1.1 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $1,713,000
Net Profits: $836,000
Cannon Exploration Inc. CNEX
Acquisition period: 8/10-12/10
Resale period 8/10-11/11
Number of transactions: 11
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 2.9 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $1,304,000
Net Profits: $745,000
LIGATT Security Int'l Inc. LGTT
Acquisition period: 11/10-2/11
Resale period 11/10-4/11
Number of transactions: 23
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 2.6 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $994,000
Net Profits: $591,000
International Power Group Ltd IPWG
Acquisition period: 10/09-5/11
Resale period 10/09-6/11
Number of transactions: 18
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 2.6 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $1,253,000
Net Profits: $579,000
Russell Industries Inc.
Acquisition period: 6/09-12/10
Resale period 8/09-12/10
Number of transactions: 22
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 4.2 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $855,000
Net Profits: $503,000
GoiPGlobal Inc. GOIG
Acquisition period: 9/09-3/11
Resale period 10/09-4/11
Number of transactions: 20
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 400 million
Gross proceeds from resales: $1,117,000
Net Profits: $431,000
HallofFame Beverages Inc. HFBG
Acquisition period: 5/10-3/11
Resale period: 5/10-4/11
Number of transactions: 13
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 2.2 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $1,002,000
Net Profits: $404,000
Green Globe Int'l Inc. GGII
Acquisition period: 6/10-2/11
Resale period: 6/10-6/11
Number of transactions: 19
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 1.6 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $661,000
Net Profits: $298,000
Lecere Corp. LCRE
Acquisition period: 6/10-4/11
Resale period: 6/10-5/11
Number of transactions: 7
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 3.2 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $598,000
Net Profits: $281,000
Imagexpres Corp. IMJX
Acquisition period: 9/09-5/10
Resale period 10/09-8/10
Number of transactions: 7
Number of shares defendants illegally sold: 2 billion
Gross proceeds from resales: $476,000
Net Profits: $147,000
TOTAL number of transactions: 170
Total number of shares illegally sold: 22.8 billion
Total proceeds: $9,973,000
Total Profits: $4,815,000
31. Through this action, the Commission seeks disgorgement ofall ill-gotten gains generated from all of the Defendants' unregistered sales of securities.
Relief Defendant FCI
32.Bronson is the President and owner ofFCI. Bronson registered FCI to do business in New York on December 14, 2010. Less than one week later, on December 20,2010, Bronson transferred $10,000 from the E-Lionheart brokerage account he used to custody the proceeds ofhis illegal transactions to a bank account maintained in the name ofFCI.
33.In December 2010, Bronson also transferred title to a 2011 Mercedes Benz SUV from his name to FCI's name. FCI also holds title to a 2011 Land Rover, a 2007 Ferrari 599 and a 1982 Rolls Royce Silver Spur.
34.On February 10, 2011, Bronson transferred an additional $600,000 from ELionheart's custodial brokerage account to FCI's bank account. FCI, however, does not have any legitimate claim to the more than $600,000 in unlawful profits Bronson transferred to this entity's bank account.
35.None of the shares illegally sold by Bronson and E-Lionheart were transactions on FCI' s behalf and none ofthe proceeds transferred to FCI were in return for any other consideration. The overwhelming majority oftransactions in FCI's bank account, from the account's inception through at least June 30, 2011, were transfers to-and-from E-Lionheart's principal bank account. One ofthe few transfers out ofFCI's bank account not directed atELionheart's bank account concerned a $35,000 payment to an attorney acting on behalf ofGoiP Global, Inc. in connection with its sale of $35,000 of its securities to E-Lionheart, not FCI. This payment to IP Global, Inc.'s attorney came just one day after Bronson seeded FCI' s bank account with $600,000 in illegal profits from E-Lionheart's custodial brokerage account.
36.Bronson is using the FCI bank account to hold certain proceeds. of his illegal trading activity and to facilitate that activity.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections 5( a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act
(Against Bronson and E-Lionheart)
37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants, singly or in concert, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or ofthe mails to offer and to sell securities when no registration statement had been filed or was in effect as to such offers and sales of such securities and no exemption from registration was available.
39. By reason ofthe activities described herein, Defendants, singly or in concert, directly or indirectly, have violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unjust Enrichment Against Relief Defendant FCI)
40.Paragraphs 1 through 36 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
41.In the manner described above, ReliefDefendant FCI has obtained proceeds from Defendants' unlawful conduct under circumstances in which it is not just, equitable or conscionable for FCI to retain these ill-gotten gains. FCI gave no consideration for its receipt of these ill-gotten gains and has no legitimate claim to these funds. As a consequence, FCI has been unjustly enriched.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court issue a Final Judgment:
I.
Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice ofthe injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each ofthem, from, directly or indirectly, violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
II.
Ordering each ofthe Defendants and the Relief Defendant to disgorge, with prejudgment interest thereon, all ill-gotten gains received directly or indirectly as a result of the misconduct alleged in this Complaint, on a joint and several basis.
III.
Ordering Defendants to each pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20( d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)].
IV.
Imposing a permanent bar on Defendants from participating in any offering ofpenny stock pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(g) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)].
Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable and appropriate.
Dated: New York, NY August 22,2012
David Rosenfeld Andrew M. Calamari Attorneys for the Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION New York Regional Office 3 World Financial Center-Suite 400 New York, New York 10281
(212) 336-1100
Of Counsel:
Wendy B. Tepperman (teppermanw@sec.gov)
Kevin McGrath (mcgrathk@sec.gov)
William Edwards (edwardsw@sec.gov)
LCRE: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 22452 / August 17, 2012
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Yossef Kahlon, et al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-517 (E.D. Tex.)
SEC Sues New York Penny Stock Distributor
The Commission announced today that on Aug. 14, 2012, it sued Jossef Kahlon, a/k/a/ Yossef Kahlon and TJ Management Group, LLC, of New York, New York, for selling the stock of several penny stock issuers into the public market in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws.
According to the complaint, Kahlon and TJ Management Group, LLC abused and misused a federal securities law to buy hundreds of millions of shares of stock at steep discounts and to quickly resell all of the shares to the public at market rates, generating at least $7.7 million in profit. The SEC alleges that this conduct deprived investors of important business information to which they were legally entitled for at least the following issuers: My Vintage Baby, Inc., Lecere, Corporation, Landstar, Inc., Hard to Treat Disease, Inc., Good Life China Corporation, VIPR Industries, Inc., ChromoCure, Inc., Atlantis Internet Group Corp, Biocentric Energy Holdings, Inc., Skybridge Technology Group, Inc., and RMD Entertainment Group, Inc.
The SEC alleges that, by these activities, Kahlon and TJ Management Group, LLC violated Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, civil penalties, penny stock bars and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
SEC Complaint:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp22452.pdf
I'm thinking that www.lecere.com is an empty shell now that Morris has sold off the web site. And we are just a bunch of bag holders. :o(
Followers
|
321
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
44027
|
Created
|
05/17/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Business Description: Lecere Corporation, which provides restaurants with pay-as-you-go integrated resource management software, helps restaurants manage and optimize the delicate balance between their resources and their customers' experiences. Lecere's FIRMS (Fully-Integrated Restaurant Management Software) package helps restaurants reduce their operating costs while enhancing customer satisfaction. FIRMS is an integrated set of Software as a Service (SaaS) modules used for optimizing the operation of restaurants on any level, ranging from an individual restaurnat to multinational chain restaurants. The FIRMS Software offers five individual, on-demand modules including Point of sales (POS), Reservations, Accounting, Mapping and Geocoding, as well as Data Mining. Reverse Merger: Lecere Corporation is a Restaurant POS (Point of Sale) Start-Up company that became a public company through a reverse merger with FullcircleImage.com (FCLE.PK) following a 1: 20 reverse split on March, 11, 2009. LCRE assumed the Debts of FCLE |
|
|
Lecere Unveils The New Face of Restaurant Management Software | The Interactive GUI of Lecere FIRMS for Wireless Handheld Devices | |
Lecere FIRMS showing the order status of three tables in the bar. Colors represent the delivery status of items ordered; letters indicate which course is active for each guest. |
Lecere FIRMS showing the orders for a party of five at Table 4 in the Bar. Items in white have been sent to the kitchen. Items in red are "live" and may be altered before being sent to the kitchen. |
|
Lecere Corporation provides restaurants with software to manage and optimize the delicate balance between their resources and their customers' experiences.
|
-
JM's response to pdx's questions There are two things I would like to say in general. First of all, we decided last October not to go to market with our initial, proof-of-concept, Java-based software. The proof-of-concept software had convinced us that SaaS would be suitable for the hospitality industry, but we felt the proof-of-concept software would not provide a stable enterprise platform for a company that wanted to be a large enterprise player. So we decided to completely rewrite the software using Ruby on Rails and Javascript/Dojo. It is not unheard of in software companies to write software twice in the early stages of a company. Consider also that when the proof-of-concept software was started over three years ago, Ruby on Rails was an unproven entity, while Java had been solid for years. The good news is that the new software will be easier to deploy, easier to maintain, easier to adapt, and more stable in the long run. This new software provides us with a killer infrastructure that existing and future competitors will find very hard to duplicate. This was a tough decision to make, but it was the right decision. It delayed us getting customers, and I have had to take a lot of flak for that, but I am pretty much immune to flak. We will survive and go on to become the leader in Restaurant Management Software. Secondly, note that I said we would become the leader in Restaurant Management Software (RMS). This is much, much more than merely a Point of Sale (POS) system. A POS system is our first offering, but it will be only a small subset of what we will eventually offer. And our system is tightly integrated. That is very important to what we are developing, and I have articulated that in several past articles, but I am not sure it has sunk in with everybody. Lecere is not a POS company. We are an RMS company. Focus on the brand name of our software: FIRMS, Fully-Integrated Restaurant Management Software. We did not choose that name at random. Thirdly, because our software is not yet complete, we have not been able to approach customers with a ready-for-prime-time, deployable product. We will be able to do so by April 30, but it will probably take a month after that before our product goes live in a real restaurant setting. New software needs some hand-holding when it stands up for the first time and takes its first few steps. 1. Sales & Marketing- Current Deals Q. It appears the BOD failed to bring any real deals to the table (please correct me if I am wrong on this one- I have been asking about it for a while). Just odd there are not clients lined up to install this with the connections from the group. Look at other PDX SAAS firms (corillian, sabrix, etc.) all had deals signed before they even became a company. Just surprised LCRE wasn’t able to do this. A. I could have convinced twenty companies to sign deals and then announce them later. But until there is a working, deployable product, signed deals aren't worth the paper they are written on. And, by the way, Roger Williams was able to get us in the door at an enormous opportunity. Had it not been for Roger, we would never have gotten into this opportunity. Furthermore, this deal will not be signed until we have successfully demonstrated a working product in several real restaurant situations, as well as our ability to support and maintain that product. I obviously can't say anything more about this opportunity. I hope people can understand that. Q. What really has me concerned though is that it appears the only sales mechanism LCRE has at the moment is the hope of a third party distributor. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the idea of additional sales channels (direct or indirect) but distributor sales are not as easy as they sound. Almost all startups have to commit to assisting in sales, paying for marketing, etc. before the distributor will take it seriously. The distributor will also mandate the software provider also be financially sound enough to ensure they will be around in 3-5 years. This is especially true with SAAS firms. What distributor will want to sell a product (service) from a SAAS firm if the SAAS firm may not be around in 12 months? This leaves the distributor open to significant client managementhassles for a LONG time. Seems to me that LCRE has to 1) get the distributor to actually add the LCRE product / service to their catalog (not easy) and… 2) will have to continually push the distributor to actually sell the product. Once the distributor has a few clients using the product and it proves to be a material profit tool for the distributor (and LCRE can prove it’s staying power), the distributor will open up the sales volume. A. First of all, this is not a software distributor. I can't say anything more about this opportunity, but Lecere and all its advisors are certain that this is an enormous opportunity for Lecere. First we have to deliver, but we can do it, because we have done it before, several times. We need investors to trust us, be patient for another 3-4 months, and give us enough financial backing that will enable us to be financially viable. Some of the concerns in the paragraph are real, and, believe me, I deal with them every day. All we can do is forge ahead to the best of our ability and try to avoid the potholes as they come at us. Q. What I want to know from LCRE is the following: Q a. What is being done by the LCRE management team (Jim) and BOD to beat the trees in their own back yard? What are they doing to line up the 2-3 deals out of their own rolodex necessary to take LCRE to some degree of profitability? A a. On Friday, we got a verbal agreement to begin talks with a first restaurant in the Portland area. Again, that is all I can say at this time. We have been beating the trees in our back yard for several months. We have uncovered numerous possibilities, but nobody will seriously engage with us until we have a deployable product. Finally, last Friday, we found out that even though we are seven weeks away from a beta product, we are ready to begin initial talks with a first customer. Even now, there is some concern we are a tad too early. Q b. What is LCRE doing to mature the indirect sales channel and ensure the sales channel will actually sell their product? (This is not simply “sign them up”) A b. The large opportunity I discussed above is our only planned indirect channel at this time. When we turn that channel on for real in a few months, and we will, it could almost (but not quite) overwhelm us for a couple of years. It is that big. Q c. What is LCRE doing to establish their own direct sales channel? (including the full lead generation mechanism, method for walking prospects through the sales cycle, closing, etc.) A c. We have no money to establish direct sales channels and our product is not ready, so a direct sales force is premature at this time. When we are ready to turn on a direct sales channel, we not only have a lot of experience with sales among ourselves, but we also have an advisor to help us in that area who was CEO of a company that went from nothing to $1 billion in sales. Do you think this guy knows anything about sales? Again, I can't say anything about who he is right now, because we have decided to keep him below the radar for a while, but he has been quietly helping us. Pdxinvestor will most assuredly know who he is. Q d. Related to the above- what is LCRE doing to generate leads / market interest? A single presentation at an industry show is not enough. What is the marketing plan? A d. We don't have enough money to do this right now. We are focused primarily on development. When we need to do this, we know exactly how to do it. Q. All of you out there that are doing the “rah-rah” cheerleading, you need to know that if LCRE can’t clearly state their sales strategy and outline exactly what it will cost, how it will be paid for, how it will work, etc. LCRE is dead. Please do not take this as a bash. This is simple fact… and you need to know “a distributor with the ability to sell to hundreds of clients in 2010” is not enough. It sounds great but is very hollow. A. We are not at this stage yet. We don't have the money to do this. When we do have the money, and we will, we will have a lot of very smart people who have done marketing plans, sales plans, etc., for the last 20-30 years of their lives. Rome was not built in day. 2. Ongoing Capitalization of LCRE Q The other major concern that I have is the ongoing capitalization of LCRE. Getting enough money together to keep the lights on until product release may be a challenge but this is nothing compared to the challenge of funding LCRE until profitable. While SAAS is really cool (great business model) it has a significant challenge; You don’t get a large cash infusion with each sale. You earn your money one dollar at a time on a month to month basis. Let’s assume the product is done and is well received by the market at the upcoming trade show. Let’s further assume LCRE is able to sign up 50 clients right out of the gate. All great news… but LCRE will need funding for at least the entire calendar year 2010 to cover launch costs, integration costs, etc. How is LCRE going to cover this? A. Once we have a viable, deployable product, have a few satisfied customers under our belt, have some revenue, and have proved our worthiness to and inked a deal with the large opportunity I discussed earlier, we will have much less trouble raising large amounts of capital. We have already talked to people who could supply that money. Everybody is waiting to see if we can achieve the first part of this paragraph. Q. The often stated answer to this question for most companies is “well, if we have a lot of client contracts, investors are easy to find!” That used to be true. Capital markets are still funky and investors are much more finicky now days. This is not an easy proposition. What is LCRE’s plan here? Go back to the 504s and ask for a significant cash infusion? Go to the traditional VCs? A. No, that is not the right answer. The right answer is "Once we have a viable, deployable product, have a few satisfied customers under our belt, have some revenue, and have proved our worthiness to and inked a deal with the large opportunity I discussed earlier, investors are much easier to find". Investment is very difficult these days. I know that better than most everybody. But when we achieve "the right answer", we will be able to raise sufficient capital. Trust me, if LCRE has the product production ready for the trade show… there is still a relatively long and challenging road ahead. Not to say that it can’t be done but I just have not heard the solution yet. I know the road is long and challenging. I have been there before. We're not going to make the trade show. Too much money. If any investor wants to put up a significant private placement, we will (in confidence) explain our plans in more detail, and I will disclose the things I have not been able to disclose here, but I can't announce our confidential, detailed plans to the public. Q. Jim publicly stated that he was in process of winning a large lawsuit and would invest $$ into LCRE upon receiving his cash. I have still not heard if he won- and don’t know how much he won. Any updates here? If he puts in 1 mil to cover sales & marketing- and puts in money to bridge LCRE until it can stand on it’s own at some point in the future, LCRE has a real chance of making it. A. I still believe I will win the lawsuit and I believe that will still be a significant source of funding for Lecere, but the obtaining of that money will probably not occur before June. Q. I have a legitimate series of questions that I feel everyone on this board should be asking. If there are answers that I do not know, please post them publicly. If I sound negative at all in any of my posts, I apologize. I admit that I am frustrated with LCRE due to current progress and the feeling that I was misled by Jim. All of that said, I believe in the product and in the market. I am also fully willing to admit that I may have the wrong read on him and LCRE. If I can get my questions answered to an extent that makes sense, I will put $$ back in. A. So if pdxinvestor has any more questions, let him fire away to me. Thanks again for your conduit help. ...Via Jim email to BIO | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Message from the CEO Henry, You have my permission to post this email. Here is a some history on Lecere, and especially the claim that Lecere could raise $7 million in funding. I acquired Lecere when it went under the name Full Circle Image. In late 2008, I was approached by Jerry Hansen, who told me that he had knowledge of a public shell that I could use to raise investment capital. Jerry introduced me to Brady Benson, a Morgan Stanley stock broker in Minneapolis, and to Brady Benson's brother, Charlie Benson, who was the CEO of Full Circle Image. I acquired Full Circle Image (and its approximately $1 million in debt) by putting my proof-of-concept software and my reputation into Full Circle Image for the stock I got in the company, 85% ownership. We changed the name to Lecere just over a year ago. From the time I met Jerry Hansen, Brady Benson, and Charlie Benson in late 2008 until the spring of 2009, I was told over and over again by Brady Benson and Jerry Hansen that they would be able to introduce me to many investors who would invest as much as a total of $5-7 million of investment capital for Lecere at $0.15 per share. They introduced me to three people in the Minneapolis area who were legitimate, professional money-raisers. One of the money raisers had been instrumental in raising $85 million for a professional Minneapolis sports team. Jerry and Brady had raised $5 million of investment capital at $0.25 per share a couple of years before for a company called Indigo Energy (IDGG). Indigo was a reverse merger and then capital was raised. Jerry and Brady convinced me that they had done it for Indigo Energy, and that they could do it again for Lecere. The money-raisers said things to me like, "We'll get the job done for you." Unfortunately, that was not to be. For what reason, I don't know to this day. The reason they gave for their inability to raise any money for Lecere was due to the poor state of the economy and the risk-averseness of investors. There is some truth to that. I will say this in defense of the people who let me down last year. I raised $2 million of venture capital for my first tech startup, Logic Automation, in 1984. It took me a year and a half to do that. I have been raising money and/or trying to raise money for my other tech startups (some never got any funding at all) for 26 years. NEVER in those 26 years have I seen investment money for tech startups (especially software startups) as hard to raise as it has been in the last 3-5 years. I don't see this changing anytime soon. The impact this lack of investment capital will have on the American economy and the standard of living we enjoyed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s will be devastating to future generations. And the federal government has been doing its best to ensure this devastation will be permanent. It is pretty much over for the American dream. In August, 2009 Brady Benson did invest a total of $136,000 into Lecere as a private placement. At about the same time, I was able to start raising 504 money. The only money we have been able to raise since last August has been 504 money. Whatever the iHub investors might think about the evils of 504 investors, just know that Lecere would not be around today if it were not for the 504 investors. Lecere is making good progress. We are getting close to announcing an evaluation project at our first customer. Our software is progressing very nicely and will be released on time on April 30. The critics will be soon be silenced. Jim Morris | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sat, March 27, 2010 10:40:34 PM From: Jim Morris <jim.morris@lecere.com> There is no doubt that SaaS is here to stay. There is no doubt that the world is moving rapidly to the use of handheld devices for just about everything we do: talking on the telephone, getting and sending email, browsing the Internet, getting directions, buying and reading books, etc. The list is almost endless. And very soon Lecere will add ordering food, scanning credit cards, and making dining reservations, just to name a few, to the list of hospitality industry applications. It was Lecere's original proof-of-concept software that proved the Internet was fast enough to handle POS applications. A couple of years ago, most people told me the Internet would not be able to provide the response time to allow SaaS to be used for POS. I proved those people wrong with my proof-of-concept software. Now we are almost finished with the most advanced and most modern enterprise software in the world for the hospitality industry. We may have fallen too far behind? In fact, the rest of the hospitality industry is on the verge of falling too far behind Lecere! Our software is unfinished, but when I look to my left and to my right these days, I don't see anybody running along beside me. I hear some big talk, but it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for large, entrenched companies to transition from an on-premises business model to an on-demand business model. Lecere doesn't have to deal with legacy software, legacy hardware, or a legacy business model. That is a huge advantage for us going forward. And finally, anybody who knows anything about software development will tell you that the only way to develop a really sound software infrastructure for a web application is to have exactly one very experienced, very productive, very capable software developer doing the initial development work using agile development methodology. If we had hired a team of 4 or 5 developers last October, we would not be as far along as we are today and we would not have a product as sound as the product we have today. About funding, we can't raise enough money today to get anywhere near 25 billion shares outstanding. When we start to get some real traction in the next 2-3 months, I predict our stock price will go up pretty significantly. So as we start to raise significantly more money, we will be doing it at a higher market cap, and thus dilution will be significantly less than it is at today's very low market cap. I have said there will be no reverse split, and I meant it. There will not be a reverse split until our stock has had a long upward trend, and I don't expect that to occur until after the first of the year at the earliest. Jim Morris | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Email to CEO Jim Morris & his response to me: On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 22:36 -0500, XXXXX wrote: > Jim, Don't know if you read IHUB, but a lot of posters there are > stating you are a "crook." Is there anything you can say or do that > would help stabilze the stock price? The way this is looking and > acting, it's a classic dump and dilute and reverse split. Just > remember what goes around, comes around. I hope to hell you know what > you're doing. Too late to sell now. > > > > Good luck…we'll need it. His response: On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 20:38 -0800, Jim Morris wrote: > Sigh. > > Have you ever heard of Google? A few years ago, Google was nothing > more than a crazy idea in the heads of two Stanford graduate students. > They developed a business plan, they got investment capital, they > developed their product, they created a brand, and they got busy > trying to figure out how to monetize an idea that started with a > better mousetrap for Internet search engines. For many months they had > no revenue and no customers. They didn't even know how to monetize > their idea for at least two years, maybe longer. In the meantime, they > burned cash and then they burned more cash. When they ran out of cash, > they went and got more cash. Then they burned that cash. And, again, > they went out and got more cash. > > Why do you think the investors who put millions and millions of > dollars into Google over a period of several years continued to dole > out money to Google? The answer is because they believed in the basic > concept and the people and because they were PATIENT. The Google > investors knew that the Google people were not going to get it right > the first time or even the second time. But the investors stuck with it and they were patient. > And look at where they are today. The returns that the early investors > in Google realized were beyond obscene. > > Google "John Doerr". John Doerr was one of the early supporters of > Google when he was at KPCB. Google was not the only company that John > Doerr supported, there were several others (Sun, Amazon, Netscape, > Compaq, Symantec, and Intuit, for example). > > Do you know how long Paul Allen and Bill Gates struggled in obscurity > in their quest to build Microsoft from a two-bit loser into one of the > most powerful companies in the world? About fifteen years. > > We at Lecere are trying as hard as we can to build the next Google or > the next Salesforce.com or the next eBay or what have you. We are > classic capitalistic entrepreneurs: we want to build a great company > and we want to become obscenely rich. > > So ask yourself this one simple question: Why would I or anybody else > on Lecere's team want to settle for the piss-ant little profits we > could make on a dump and dilute and reverse split (whatever the hell > that is) with a company that today has a market cap of about > $500,000!! The kind of money we could make from that kind of > ridiculous little children's game is mice nuts to us. We are after big game. > > The Lecere team knows precisely what we are doing. Between us, we have > been involved in about ten tech startups. Not all of them were > successful, because they never are, but we also made quite a few > investors rich along the way. > > So just be patient. Like John Doerr. We have at least two triggering > events that are 60-90 days out in front of us, either one of which > should give Lecere enormous traction. I can't say much about one of > the events, but suffice it to say that we are looking for a large > company to distribute our product for us. If we find such a company, > we will be kicking ass and taking names. The other potential event is > the lawsuit that I will almost surely win within 90 days. I will > invest a significant amount of that recovery in Lecere, and I will be > buying stock on the street. I am chomping at the bit to be able to get > some Lecere stock at the prices we see today. I am going to make huge > returns on that investment alone, and I will be laughing at the people > who called me a crook all the way to the bank. > > Jim Morris | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |