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.
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.
Well played. The playbook has been wide open for all to see for years; some retail joes know to bet on the Globetrotters while others insist that the Generals are overdue to win one and go all-in on a longshot...
So I am curious as to what a normal retail joe would think if:
...A non-disclosing paid promoter who was a member of JOSEPH ZAMPETTI's criminal CORE group that was handsomely compensated by SCRC to pump its stock (but is too chicken-$#!+ to publicly admit it even though he repeatedly espouses the virtues of JOEY Z and the CORE) who helps JOEY Z moderate the public platform where JOEY Z and his gang setup their pumping operations after he got booted from another platform for failing to disclose his compensated status...
...and this cowardly CORE member had been claiming for years that he never sold a single share and was not only holding but consistently buying more shares even when the sp was $1...
...and this same CORE member is now happily touting how great it is that a small handful of bids are showing up when the stock price has dipped to sub-penny levels...
...whether there truly is any other conclusion to draw other than that this non-disclosing CORE member was lying thru his teeth the entire time (just like every other CORE member) trying to lure newbies into buying stock that THEY THEMSELVES were dumping/flipping...
...after all, I can't come up with any other scenario to explain how anyone who truly held their stock when it was up towards $1 could be tickled pink just because a measly order showed up on the bid at sub-penny prices (since there isn't enough shares even authorized, let alone issued, that could enable anyone to even average down and not still be in a deep deep hole)...
...can you?
Thx for posting. Would anyone have the link to the complete complaint?
By the 7/19/16 date of the filing of this complaint, I am surmising that this directly contributed to SCRC's decision on 7/20/16 to file Form 15. It is clear that they wanted to avoid having to publicly disclose this lawsuit (which is short-sighted and silly considering that court filings can be obtained thru other public channels) as well as all forthcoming court actions related to this lawsuit -- which SCRC would have been mandated to disclose via 8K filings had they NOT filed a Form 20 to delist/deregister.
It is noteworthy that in the final 8K that was filed on 7/20/16, SCRC gave shareholders one last finger by refusing to disclose the suit that was filed the day prior even though that would have been the exact venue for such mandatory disclosures. Instead, SCRC used that 8K to announce a ho-hum change in Directors and sneak in a laughable "Other Items" disclosure about how SCRC decided to delist because it was simply taking too long to get the Q's/K's filed... ...as opposed to the real reason that they were delisting because a lawsuit from Ironridge that has real teeth to it was just filed against SCRC the day prior and they don't want the few retail shareholders who are still left to know about it.
As ESI's investigation into the fraudulent Rx's take shape, what will be fascinating to observe is whether evidence mounts to move ESI's claims from simply being civil to potentially criminal.
Either way, there is the very real possibility that a connection may exist between the fraudulent physician and SCRC (in particular Adam Brosius). If any linkage can be established as part of ESI's investigation that SCRC insiders and officers either knew of -- or heaven forbid, knowingly participated in or otherwise approved -- this fraudulent behavior, you can guarantee that more regulatory eyes will be drawn to SCRC... ...which would also inextricably lead any investigation to the role of Section 17(b)-violating promoters such as SCRC's officially sponsored/endorsed homophobic criminal JOSEPH ZAMPETTI, Walmart's SEAN FITZGIBBONS, BRUCE BERENBERG, and many others.
Why is this interesting? Because once investigators begin going down that slippery slope, it is only a matter of time before public message board operators begin receiving subpoenas to disclose the real identities of these promoters. And that is when the real fun will begin.
It will be a beautiful day indeed when, instead of trading penny stocks, the only thing these criminals will be able to trade are cigarettes in an effort to be the one who decides who gets to be the groom or bride that night...
In pennyland, the only bad PR or news is no PR or news.
As many here have alluded to, the primary problem with SCRC isn't the fact that people aren't sure whether the company is a scam or not. No one knows. There are legit arguments either way.
But therein lies the rub.
The fact that there is even uncertainty about such a question whether SCRC is a real company or not is precisely the problem.
We all have seen SCRC issue much more obnoxious and blatantly false PR's that have done nothing more than enable criminal pumpers like JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his fellow CORE con artists as well as SCRC insiders dump shares and create never-ending new groups of bagholders who have long-since drowned underwater.
Like the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (or in SCRC's case, "fool me 243 times..."), shame on me.
If what is stated in this latest PR is indeed true, then there is a glimmer of hope. Of course, the question then becomes: Why don't they PR some numbers like they used to when SCRC wanted to brag about how much revenues have increased? It is easy to say "revenues increased" or "record revenues", but are we talking at least $1M per month of new revenues? Or are these record revenues simply of the magnitude of going from $20k/mo to $25k/mo? Get my drift?
SCRC needs to quickly catch-up on its Q's and K's. That is the bottom line as these SEC filings are the only documents that the market will believe -- and that is sad whenever a company lies so much and associates with criminal penny pumpers to the point where any PR it issues is met with the "Oh boy, it's the Boy Who Cried Wolf" mentality.
You think JOSEPH ZAMPETTI will ever stop violating securities fraud laws and begin including the mandatory "I've been compensated to promote SCRC" disclosures in his public touts the way that Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 mandates?
I see that the Section 17(b)-violating criminal homophobe JOSEPH ZAMPETTI was pumping about how SCRC went 10 straight days closing over .05...
...Well, let's see here, over that 10 day stretch, the VWAP (which is the truest reflection of how a stock performs) was as follows:
.051
.052
.043
.050
.043
.045
.050
.050
.049
.048
...hmmm, funny what a paintbrush in the hands of a non-disclosing paid promoter can do for a stock, eh?
And over that 10 day stretch, a whopping $61k traded.
As I've been saying folks, in the absence of news, technical indicators will rule when and how the sp moves. Period. Gaps need to be filled. Period. Recovery will be a slow process that will take time. Period.
There has only been 1.1M shares traded in the .05x levels since the crash down to .02x. Do you really think that in the absence of news that the sp will simply forget that 5 comes after 4 and suddenly start trading in the 6's? Only way that will happen is if the stock gets pumped and new retail suckers get lured in... ...enter JOSEPH ZAMPETTI, LOL...
By way of reference, 6.5M shares traded in the .04 levels since the crash, and 8.6M in the .03x levels post-crash -- and that is on top of 20.4M shares that traded down in the .02x levels and 3.4M dumped in the .01x levels by SCRC's own BS Schneiderman.
That's a lot of folks who are waiting in the front of the line at the cage waiting to cash out their chips in the current .04x-.05x levels, before resistance will lighten up enough for anyone to see .06x (at least "natural" .06x prints, and not paint jobs, LOL)...
Continued GLTA...
So I take a break from watching SCRC for a few weeks since it was pretty clear that nothing was going to happen, and I come back to catch up and see that although nothing indeed has happened... ...but SCRC's company-sponsored homophobic criminal and non-disclosing paid pumper JOSEPH ZAMPETTI (aka Celtics2014 on his public platform where he seemingly enjoys pumping to himself) was back to his old tricks, predicting an imminent pop in the sp.
This time, he was pumping that the sp would hit the .06 level by MAR (and, BTW, we are now in APR and the sp has not only not printed .06x but has retraced back to .04x), hoping to lure more retail suckers to buy and hold "just a wee bit longer", and then continue to pump more imminent pops to repeatedly move the goalposts further and further back, but each time close enough to lure suckers to continue holding longer and longer...
...just like during the epic P&D where the sp was at 1.00 and he was pumping that the sp was on the verge of printing 4.00; then when it started spiralling down to the .30-.40 levels, he and his fellow criminal CORE members kept pumping how it was on the verge of popping to the .50-.70 levels; with the funniest pumps always being the annual proclamations of a "November to Remember" coming, then "December to Remember", etc.
Gosh, I really did miss that, LOL! Well, at least we all have one date we can all lock down in our calendars: April 16, 2016.
Why is this date important?
That is the date that JOEY Z will be released from prison and is permitted to rejoin the land of the living.
Maybe one of his CORE lapdogs can create another one of those countdown clocks for this, hmmm?
It's been a while since I've checked in on this board. Hope all the long-timers that are still around are well and have been able to navigate the volatility successfully...
@arper, your points have a lot of merit. To add to your points:
(1)
Sift through the dust and technical mumbo-jumbo and this was essentially a partial early conversion.
(2)
This deal is very difficult to reconcile with Mgmt's prior recent comments about dilution and its cash position.
(3)
VRNG could have paid this down with all cash and avoided any dilution whatsoever, so the argument of "some dilution now is better than total dilution later" that is being touted elsewhere rings hollow.
(4)
Not all shareholders have the same objective. There is a lot of talking out of both sides of one's mouth going on elsewhere when the argument of "Iroquois' interests are aligned with ours" and then concurrently saying that they have to treated in a special way because they are such a big stakeholder.
(5)
It is clear that Iroquois was not happy with either VRNG's performance or the direction it perceived VRNG to be headed, and utilized its significant leverage to extract this deal from VRNG. Not only was the financial swap beneficial to Iroquois in both the short and long-term, but it forced its way to claiming a seat at the table on the Board. Rest assured, their interests are to make the most money possible for Iroquois and they will utilize their new Board seat towards achieving this goal. That is what financiers do. And, frankly, I don't blame them. If any of us were Iroquois or held as significant a percentage of a company's stock as Iroquois does, we would exert whatever influence we could to jockey ourselves for pole position as well.
It has been, is, and will always be a fatal error for retail joes to assume that all TUTs are their friends and that the interests of TUTs are aligned with our own. TUTs that are passive funds (think retirement funds, mutual funds, etc) are fine; but TUTs who are microcap financiers and Hedge Funds who are primarily trading-centric are nothing more than deep-pocketed flippers and opportunists who have the resources to bring a wide array of various financial instruments and derivitaves into play to ensure that they not only hedge themselves but are able to make money regardless of what direction the sp goes, retail shareholders be damned.
Did VRNG have a true bona fide choice in executing this deal? Only insiders know what is really behind the curtain and precipitated their acceptance of these terms, but it is a legitimate head-scratcher and inconsistent with much of the info that is available in the public space.
GLTA...
For those interested in keeping score:
* Approx 3.5M shares have traded (privately) in the .01x levels
* Approx 20.2M @ .02x (largest base ever in SCRC history)
* Approx 12.8M @ .03x (8.8M of it since the crash down to .02)
* Approx 4.5M @ .04x (3.6M of it since the crash down to .02)
* Approx 2.2M @ .05x (only approx 50k since the crash down to .02)
* Approx 6.8M @ .06x
* Approx 6.3M @ .07x
* Approx 9.6M @ .08x
* Approx 3.4M @ .09x
* Approx 3.4M @ .10x
* Approx 3.4M @ .11x
* Approx 1.3M @ .12x
* Approx 16.0M @ .13x
* Approx 1.3M @ .14x
* Approx 700k @ .15x
* Approx 280k @ .16x
* Approx 2.1M @ .17x
* Approx 2.2M @ .18x
* Approx 6.1M @ .19x
* Approx 4.7M @ .20x
No point in listing anything further as it will take forever plus a day for the 110M shares above to churn enough. And each will likely churn multiple times on its way to .20, so we're likely looking at 500M shares needing to churn their way thru multiple white-hot runs before those holding shares over .20 can even get their turn to even break even (unless, of course, they are smart enough to trade the rips and dips and incrementally chip away at their losses and lower their avg cost basis -- notice that I did NOT suggest that they simply lower their avg cost by simply adding more while continuing to hold their shares the way that SCRC's officially endorsed criminal homophobe JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his fellow CORE criminal lap dogs have been and continue to encourage that retail suckers do?)
Although no one knows for sure, statistically, I believe it would be reasonable to estimate that the majority of sellers of the 12.4M shares that have traded in recent months in the .03x-.04x levels have been those traders who bought down in the .02x levels. The rest of the sellers were likely those who bought much higher and saw the brief run-up as an opportunity to get the hell out of SCRC at a slight less of a loss than they were mired in over the past 7 months that the sp was stuck in the .02x levels.
As such, I think that it is reasonable to estimate that of the 20.2M shares that had traded in the .02x levels, that maybe 12M or thereabouts may be left.
Understand the magnitude of the overhang at each price level and combine this knowledge with diligent observations of the technical indicators and you will be able to more successfully navigate the rips and dips.
GLTA...
LOL, I see that SCRC's officially endorsed homophobic criminal JOSEPH ZAMPETTI is out of fresh pump ideas and is resorting to rinsing and repeating past tactics.
He is now using page 4 of the "Pumping for Dummies" handbook and utilizing once again the old "SCRC is the only penny stock to [insert attribute here]" pump.
Here, JOEY Z, let me help you:
What other penny stock ticker begins with the letter "S", ends with the letter "C", has employed homophobes and criminals named JOSEPH ZAMPETTI to pump the stock under public monikers such as "Celtics2014", and has lost nearly 100% of its value ever since these criminal promoters climbed into bed with SCRC's Mgmt and BOD? That's right! Only one penny stock, baby! That's SCRC, baby! So now go load the boat and hold forever w/o selling or trading any shares, please!
Why SCRC continues to permit Adam to have this conflict of interest filled role as "President" is beyond me.
Chew on this:
Adam was part of the Section 17(b)-violating group of non-disclosing paid pumpers that SCRC paid to promote the stock back in the summer of 2013, which is what started SCRC down this death spiral that we are currently mired in.
Adam has zero prior healthcare experience.
Adam formed a new company in late-2014 specifically for the purpose of engaging SCRC to provide marketing services, which, as we saw from the subsequent 10Q's and the just-filed 10K, runs consistent with when Selling Expenses began shooting up to 90%.
As President, this is as blatant of a conflict of interest as there can be. SCRC should have a President who is 100% dedicated to running SCRC (not to mention someone who has at least 1 day of prior pharma sector experience, for crying out loud), and who is not a Section 17(b)-violating stock promoter.
Adam is very directly one of he main reasons there are zero earnings making their way down to the bottom line for shareholders to benefit from.
So it looks like the desperate near-octogenarian CORE member who got screwed by the criminal homophobe JOSEPH ZAMPETTI -- you know, the moron who previously attempted to pump about how PIMD selling to Main Ave meant that SCRC would get to "ring the bell twice" and double-dip by being able to count the same revenues twice -- is now pumping about how SCRC paying its president Adam Brosius' other company $18M in commissions is supposed to translate to another world of endless riches. Egads...
(1)
Have folks so quickly remembered that when Adam first came on board, the commission rate was only approx 40% and then right when he got here, the commission rates shot up to the absurd levels we are seeing to this day.
(2)
The just-released 10K shows us in black and white that Selling Expenses consumed 90%, and after COGS, consumed just about 100% of the gross profit, leaving nothing to pay for any other operating expense of either Main Ave or SCRC's corporate costs.
(3)
That $18M was only the commissions paid to Adam Brosius' company, as this was a mandatory related-party disclosure. And note that he has always been nothing more than an unnecessary middleman. These commissions are paid to marketers. This does not even begin to address the commissions that have to be paid when actual sales occur. This is why Selling Expenses are 90%.
(4)
If anyone wants to know what Main Ave revenues are for 2015, it is not that difficult to ballpark. We know that there were $17.2M of approved orders PR'd from JAN-SEP, excluding JUL for which there was no PR. I think it would be safe to assume $1.0M for JUL (as if it was above avg, we all know SCRC would have PR'd it on the first day of AUG). And if SEP was $1.6M, I think we can conservatively estimate OCT-DEC to be $1.5M each. So that gets us to a total of $22.7M.
Now, if we want to be generous and say that none of the customers who were part of the 6-weeks' worth of backlog valued at $7M at the end of 12/31/14 cancelled their orders, then based on SCRC's revenue recognition policy of recognizing revenues when customers receive their orders, then we can add $7M to this. Now we are at $29.7M.
At this point, we should deduct for the 12/31/15 backlog, but I will be generous and say that if orders were only $1.5M, then this should be a volume that 1 pharmacist can fill without falling behind and creating any backlog.
(5)
For this $29.7M in estimated 2015 revenues, remember that $12.2M of it came before CVS/Caremark left. Since then SCRC has only averaged $1.2M/mo. When I estimated $18M/yr going forward, I was generously using a monthly avg of $1.5M based on their most recent PR of SEP-2015 orders, which was $1.6M.
(6)
Depending on when commissions to both Adam's other company as well as commissions to the actual sales force is required to be paid, it may be possible that SCRC's 2015 earnings may benefit from the backlog. For example, if some of the Selling Expenses related to the $7M of backlog was incurred in 2014, then a good chunk of this $7M may be reported as 2015 revenues without the full burden of the Selling Expenses. It's an accounting gimmick, but legit, so I will take it gladly and not look this gift horse in the mouth.
(7)
As far as the "efficiencies" are concerned, think about how simple SCRC's operations are. Where do you think cost savings could even occur? COGS? Nope. Commissions? Not with Adam Brosius as the wolf guarding the henhouse. Rent/utilities/insurance? Good luck with that one. Pharmacists and other employees taking 50% pay cuts? Guess again. The only place is with billings, and SCRC has already told us this happened. SCRC replaced the 3rd party biller with its own internal billing dept. Based on what is disclosed in the 10K, it appears that billing costs ran at approx 10% of sales/orders, so there could be a couple million saved here -- but the amount will be decreased by the internal costs of the financial systems as well as the 10 employees hired to be billers. So maybe half of that amount? A cool million saved is still not too shabby.
(8)
Problem with the above, though, is that it is still not enough to turn SCRC into the black based on the 2014 financial results. SCRC lost much more than $1M. Much more than $2M. SCRC lost $4.8M, $3.8M just from operations.
It will be very interesting to see the Q3'15 10Q as well as the 2015 10K to see how SCRC executes on their statement that they anticipate having enough cash flow to cover what THEY deem to be the necessary working capital requirements -- remember what I told you all previously about the share-based compensation and how SCRC has a habit of paying for operating expenses by issuing discounted stock in lieu of cash. This is nothing more than indirect dilution.
Remember, even though the recently engaged CPA firm may not itself have a license in SCRC's home state, I had posted many months ago here when they were initially announced as being retained that they were members of a nationwide "alliance" of small CPA firms.
What this means is that it may be possible that via this alliance, they will engage a CPA firm local to SCRC, one that IS licensed in SCRC's home state, and that this local CPA firm will perform the audit and have its licensed partner sign off on the financial statements and audit opinion under some kind of agreement w/the SoCal firm to use its name. Think of it as a commission-type system where a firm who finds the client/work gets a cut from the firm who actually performs the work.
Not saying this is the case or that it will play out this way, but just saying that it is not outside the realm of possibility that this SoCal CPA firm can find a way to make this engagement w/SCRC work.
Of course, this is a separate discussion from whether or not this SoCal CPA firm and/or the other small firm that may be part of any "alliance" are ethical and not willing to simply sell its opinion to any company willing to pay its fee...