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.
Something seem to be going on; don't know what. Nearly 1,000,000 shares traded today; .034-041. Do remember I called this stock as a great buy when it was .005-.01.
SLUPPY
Posted to wrong board. Sorry for the confusion.
I heard Joe Kemplowski(sp) died.
Any thoughts?
This is the First Solar Patent which mentions remediation
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011041561A1?cl=en
I think the lawsuit is related to a patent infringement by First Solar regarding treatment of battery wastes. SLUP has a patent for the same treatment and the FS patent description appears very similar. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6838504
they only look at greys and think that tells the whole story...its mbs..and the mact that they cant dispute because of past agreements ;) that's what intrests me
Should be able to. You are making some smarter moves than others.
lol! yes,but when the other things im in soon move im wanting to buy more
Maybe we need to remind him what MACT is?
your dd is correct and worthy of many reads I enjoy it,looking forward to them raising that mact end of next summer
thankyou very much
IF SLUP and EMHI put together what the've been discussing for some time now, SLUP is an insane good buy at @ $.005.
As for SLUP getting off the GREYS; probably no time soon.
MBS technology belongs to SLUP; the golden egg.
Good luck BUC!!
SLUPPY
whats the cause/basis for the lawsuit? thinking about getting in ...whats your thinking?
trying to ascertain what exact roll they will play when mbs is used and bought from emhi and gtgp
I mean off the greys? trading normally?
will slup get back on track?
New East Morgan Holdings website launched
http://eastmorgan.com/index2.html
East Morgan Holdings website update.
http://www.eastmorgan.com/press_releases.html
Not really; other than First Solar is a large company.
SLUPPY
Any idea what this is about?
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2013cv02006/53795
Solucorp Industries Ltd. et al v. First Solar Inc. (FSLR)
Plaintiff:
Integrated Fixation Systems Co. Inc. and Solucorp Industries Ltd.
Defendant:
First Solar Inc.
Case Number:
1:2013cv02006
Filed:
December 9, 2013
Court:
Delaware District Court
Office:
Wilmington Office
County:
XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:
Gregory M. Sleet
Nature of Suit:
Other Contract
Cause of Action:
28:1441
Jury Demanded By:
Plaintiff
check for what? The Chipsters credentials?!
SLUP
Check the J3 website = Bahhahhha ~That's hilarious!!!
Chipster going like gangbusters!!!
been hearing that now forever
how is the private placement sales going?
SLUP
I'm not worried,
Check the J3 website, MBS being used, tested and evaluated by several Federal Agencies
Good things coming
Product works
actually I disagree strongly
IMO it really doesnt matter if it works or not
these morons have had products that work for a very long time and have never been successful in getting them to market or making money, ever , period
I was also told that even if Global got a contractt hat it is highly doubvted that Solucorp could deliver the producys needed to do the work and with their track record of screwing up verything I agree
here is a great example, what ever happened here?
Solucorp’s Lead Out to Be Sold Worldwide
By Marketwire English | Published: 2011-12-14 19:17:14 UTC | Read more, click here
inShare
39
SOURCE: Solucorp Industries Ltd.
December 14, 2011 14:17 ET
Solucorp’s Lead Out to Be Sold Worldwide
ORANGEBURG, NY–(Marketwire – Dec 14, 2011) – Solucorp Industries, Ltd. (PINKSHEETS: SLUP) is pleased to announce that it has signed an agreement with Franmar Chemicals to market its patented Lead Out Paint Removal and Remediation Products (patent # 7,208,457) under the Franmar Chemicals label.
Established for over 25 years Franmar Chemicals (www.franmar.com) manufactures and sells its soy based non-lead remediation products worldwide. Solucorp currently sells its Lead Out through Environmentally Helpful Products, Inc. and utilizes the Franmar Chemicals soy product as a delivery component for Lead Out.
Franmar Chemicals has budgeted for an aggressive advertising and marketing program which will include repeated ads in-trade magazines and participation in numerous trade shows throughout the U.S.
Lead Out is applied easily by brush to lead paint surfaces and then removed by hand. Since the lead is permanently rendered inert on contact, the removed paint can be disposed of as non-hazardous. Lead Out does not require costly secondary containments when being applied. This further reduces removal and disposal costs making Lead Out a most affordable and effective Lead Paint removal product.
The goal is to sell Lead Out directly to the consumer and to the Lead Paint removal industry by direct order sales and inclusion in national retail stores. Removal of Lead Paint from residential buildings, schools, bridges, overpasses, highways, outdoor storage tanks etc. continues to be ongoing and a constant danger to an already suspect environment.
About Solucorp Industries Ltd.
Solucorp Industries Ltd., www.solucorpltd.com, is a developer and provider of cost effective, permanent technologies for the remediation and prevention of hazardous heavy metal (including lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc, nickel, selenium and cadmium) contamination. Solucorp is the owner of several patents and numerous additional patents that are pending. Solucorp Industries Ltd. has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Solucorp Industries and Integrated Fixation System Company, Inc.
The foregoing discussion contains forward-looking statements, which are based on current expectations. Actual results, including the outcome of demonstration results, timing and amount of revenues recognized, contracts awarded and performed and net income may differ due to such factors as: delays in payment on contracts due to dealings with governmental and foreign entities; fluctuations in operating costs associated with changes in project specifications; economic and other conditions affecting the ability of prospective clients to finance projects; and other risks generally affecting the financing of projects. Investors are cautioned to perform a proper due diligence and consult-licensed professionals prior to making an investment decision.
More importantly,
Does MBS work?
:)
very much agreed
and neither can be trusted is anyone at Solucorp IMO
SLUP
Yea,
Can'trust that Beloyan
SO INTERESTING, THEN WE HAVE THIS HAPPEN, HMMMMM?
insert-text-here
SLUP
WHAT A BUNCH OF WONDERFUL PEOPLE
Home | Previous Page
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 18306 /August 25, 2003
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 1849 /August 25, 2003
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. SOLUCORP INDUSTRIES LTD., ET AL., 99 Civ. 11965 (S.D.N.Y.) (WCC)
SOLUCORP INDUSTRIES LTD. EXECUTIVES
FOUND LIABLE FOR FRAUD
Two Permanently Barred from Serving as Officers and Directors
Company and Three Other Former Officers and/or Directors Settle SEC Claims Against Them and are Permanently Enjoined
On July 25, 2003, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an opinion and order in a civil injunctive action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission finding that the following three defendants had violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws: Joseph S. Kemprowski, a purported consultant who performed duties on behalf of Solucorp Industries Ltd. analogous to those of an officer; Peter R. Mantia, the company's president; and Victor Herman, the former chief financial officer of Solucorp's principal operating subsidiaries and the preparer of Solucorp's consolidated financial statements. The Court's opinion and order, which was entered after a full trial on the merits in March 2003, provides for permanent injunctions against Kemprowski and Mantia and a permanent bar on their serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company. The opinion and order also provide that Kemprowski, Mantia and Herman shall disgorge their illicit gains from selling Solucorp shares while in possession of material, non-public information about the fraudulent conduct. The final judgment has yet to be entered.
Of the six other defendants named in this action, five--including Solucorp, other former officers and/or directors, Arle Pierro, James G. Spartz, and W. Bryan Fair, and the company's former outside auditor, Glenn R. Ohlhauser--entered into settlements with the Commission prior to the commencement of the six-day trial pursuant to which they consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from future violations of the federal securities laws.
The Commission's Complaint, filed on December 13, 1999, as amended, alleged that, over a four year period, from mid-1995 through early 1999, Solucorp's senior management, including Kemprowski, who acted as the de facto head of Solucorp, claimed in press releases and other publicly disseminated materials to have contracts that either did not exist or were subject to undisclosed material contingencies, or that provided for revenues materially below those announced by the company. The Complaint also alleged that senior management falsified Solucorp's financial statements by improperly recognizing as revenue license fees that were subject to material contingencies. Solucorp's improper recognition of license fees resulted in its filing with the Commission periodic, transition and interim reports, including financial statements, on at least five occasions from December 1997 through April 1999, which materially overstated revenue. See Lit. Rel. No. 16388 (Dec. 13, 1999).
In its July 25, 2003 opinion and order, the Court found that, "[o]ver a number of years, Solucorp and its executives engaged in a course of deception through the issuance of false and misleading press releases and financial statements in which, in a number of cases, they reported that the Company had entered into contracts that did not exist, in one case backdated a contract to increase the accrued revenue recognizable thereunder, and in many other cases reported that the minimum revenues to be derived from such contracts far exceeded the actual minimums." The Court found that this "pattern of deception was so consistent and pervasive that it cannot logically be attributed to mere negligence." Accordingly, "the executives responsible for the issuance of these press releases and financial statements, specifically Kemprowski, Mantia and Herman, knowingly and deliberately falsified them with the intention of deceiving shareholders and potential investors or, at the very least, were guilty of reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the disclosures."
The Court found that Kemprowski, Mantia and Herman had violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and that Mantia and Herman had knowingly falsified the company's books, records and/or accounts, or were reckless in preparing or certifying them, and circumvented or failed to implement internal controls in violation of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Rule 13b2-1, and Mantia misinformed the company's outside auditors in violation of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2. The Court also found that Kemprowski and Mantia failed to disclose their equity ownership in Solucorp as of February 20, 1998, the effective date of Solucorp's registration of its stock with the Commission, and to timely disclose changes in that ownership, in violation of Exchange Act Section 16(a).
Each of the five defendants who settled the Commission's action prior to the commencement of the trial in March 2003 consented, without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, to the entry of a final judgment providing for the full injunctive relief sought by the Commission. On March 12, 2003, the Court signed the final judgments against Solucorp, James G. Spartz, a former vice president and a director of Solucorp, Arle Pierro, a former senior vice president and director of Solucorp, and W. Bryan Fair, a former director of Solucorp. The final judgment against Solucorp permanently enjoined the company from violating the antifraud provisions of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Securities Act Section 17(a), the reporting requirements of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-10 and 13a-13 thereunder, and the books and records and internal controls provisions of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B). The final judgment against Spartz permanently enjoined him from violating the antifraud provisions of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the insider reporting requirements of Exchange Act Section 16(a) and Rules 16a-2 and 16a-3, but did not impose a civil penalty based on Spartz's sworn representations concerning his financial inability to pay. The final judgments against Pierro and Fair permanently enjoined them from violating the disclosure rules for insiders, Exchange Act Section 16(a) and Rules 16a-2 and 16a-3 thereunder, and imposed a $10,000 civil penalty on Pierro for allegedly failing to timely disclose her equity ownership in Solucorp and changes in that ownership.
On January 16, 2003, the Court entered a final judgment against another settling defendant, the company's former outside auditor, Glenn R. Ohlhauser, that permanently enjoined Ohlhauser from future violations of Exchange Act Section 10A. See Lit. Rel. 16785 (October 31, 2000); Lit. Rel. 17951 (January 27, 2003).
In its July 25, 2003 opinion and order, the Court dismissed the claims against Robert Kuhn, a former vice president of Solucorp, on the grounds that the evidence did not establish that he had committed any violation of the federal securities laws.
this mark perry?? look at the review!! according to this his work is sub standard...I wonder if that's why jim parted ways with him
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-mark-perry-1253862/reviews.html
and at the bottom theres student reviews
Home > Litigation Lawyers > Florida > Fort Lauderdale > Mark C. Perry > Client Reviews
Mark C. Perry’s Reviews
Mark C. Perry
Back to profile
Average Rating
?????
Based on 1 review
Help make it easier for other Avvo users to choose the right lawyer by sharing your experience with this attorney. It's fast, simple, and safe.
Review this lawyer
Lawyers: Use the Peer Endorsements section to provide input about other attorneys.
Seemed to be friendlier with opposition's attorney than he should have
Posted by a Business client, about 5 years ago. ? Flag
Overall rating????? Fair Trustworthy????? Fair Responsive????? Average Knowledgeable????? Fair Kept me informed????? Average •I do not recommend Mark Perry.
•I hired Mark more than 3 years ago.
•Mark handled my Business matter.
•I have previously worked with more than 10 lawyers.
Mr. Perry represented me for a while in a matter that was baseless and without merit. He continually didn't listen to my pleas to play hardball with the plantiff. Instead he just continued to answer thier motions and attend the depositions that where set up, all the while just racking up the fees.
After I fired him, the case seemed to come to a very abrupt end and we were able to settle the matter very quickly. Coincidence, I think not.
and the reviews of the school I believe he went to
http://www.studentsreview.com/FL/BU_comments.html?type=negative
thats awesome!
which companies are those and who is now forcing them and if so why on earth would it benefit SLUP?
SLUP
Well
For 20 years no one forced companies to clean up after themselves
Now they are
Looking better all the time
seriously?
that is your answer, that is as good as SLUP's answers have been ove the past 20 years!
SLUP
Does the product work?
really?
who might that be, let us all know
and why would any credible organization want to be involved with sucha criminal company as Solucorp?
And there is finally a real engineering firm
Staffed with professionals
Actively marketing the product
That would help also
:)
Good to see that you are catching on
:)
again
why would there be contracts after all these years of nothing but broken promises and lies and fraud?
SLUP
FYI it is back at .005 my guess, year end tax selling, did it myself last year on the BS that was touted to me by the penny stock tout, the other Mark
Followers
|
17
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
936
|
Created
|
04/12/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |