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.
Agreed, the timing of their appointment, just after the recent increase in AS shares, seems to support the view that they could have recently purchased large blocks of restricted RegD shares. There was no mention of them in the last quarter financial statement, for the period ending June 30th.
That being the case, and also because they are now Independent Directors on the board, we should see none of the shorting antics that parties like Mazuma have almost certainly been involved in with their RegD shares, and which has adversely affected the share price over the last few months.
Agree also that communication is key point that HCPC needs to work on in the furure. As and when their business plan/ product is validated, they will also be in a much stronger position to 'market themselves.
Hopefully, HCPC have sufficient working capital now to get them to deal #1. If they do, we will have a very interesting time ahead of us......to say the least.
GLTA
noth shore: Thanks again. We know you're still out there...you've been here as long as the rest of us longs:)
Expecting more Outside Directors to be announced in due course. The two recently appointed Directors could quite possibly have assisted HCPC with their cashflow until the first deals are closed and, therefore, requested a place on the Board. If that is the case they will be acting in our best interests to ensure their investment is protected and the share structure protected as best as possible. Either way, I think it's good that Independent Directors are now being appointed, with their own personal HCPC shareholdings, to monitor, advise and ensure accountability.
GLTA
bsandy: Thanks for the kind comments......I really enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out what is going on behind the scenes and learning new things along the way.....and happy to share.
I do see a picture unfolding and that's helped me hold on when the share price has been dropping. In fact I've taken the opportunity to add at lower prices.
This board is really quiet at the moment. But I do envisage that changing in due course. I wish you all the best, as I do to all longs here who are holding at present.
GLTA
Independent (Outside) Directors: Some more info on their definition and role within a company below:
http://www.answers.com/topic/independent-outside-director?cat=biz-fin
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/outsidedirector.asp
http://www.investorwords.com/3531/outside_director.html
GLTA
Correction: There are 5-7 seats for outside Directors.
From pr of 20th June
http://heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/hcccprovidesupdates.pdf
"The Chair expects to locate new candidates for the Board of Directors, who ideally will have experience in loan origination, securities, lending, and banking to fill the 5-7 seats for outside directors. It is our expectation that their names will be presented to the Shareholders at the October 18, 2007 meeting. "
GLTA
Comments on pr.
Firstly, it confirms that the anual shareholders meeting is still going ahead on October 18th, 2007.
Secondly, they are both shareholders in HCPC, so have a vested interest to make this succeed.
From a business perspective Mr. Patel looks particularly strong:
"....has extensive experience in loan originations, finance and public relations. He has served as a stockbroker with a Series 7 License, worked as a public relations coordinator for small cap equities and owned and managed retail food establishments in Florida. Mr. Patel brings strong business acumen and knowledge of small cap equities to the Board.
Mr. Patel currently resides in Florida, where he trades his personal investment portfolio and originates real estate loans. He is also Heritage Shareholder. "
Mr. Patel received his B.B.A. degree in Finance and Investments from the Baruch College in New York, (1988).
I will do some more research on the two and post what I find. HCPC mentioned 5-8 new Directors to be appointed, so I am expecting more to be named in due course.
GLTA
PR Tuesday 7th Two Directors Appointed: Through Pink Sheet News Services
http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=hcpc#openNews10688
Heritage Capital Credit Corporation Announces New Directors
Aug 7, 2007
Pink Sheets News Service
Wilmington, DE — Wilmington, DE - August 7, 2007- Heritage Capital Credit Corporation (OTC: HCPC) announced today that James M. Cloud and Prashant J. Patel have joined the Heritage Board of Directors.
Heritage named Mr. Cloud and Mr. Patel to the Heritage Board of Directors on August 6, 2007 to fill two independent member vacancies. Their terms will be confirmed on October 18, 2007, at the annual Shareholders Meeting.
Mr. Patel has extensive experience in loan originations, finance and public relations. He has served as a stockbroker with a Series 7 License, worked as a public relations coordinator for small cap equities and owned and managed retail food establishments in Florida. Mr. Patel brings strong business acumen and knowledge of small cap equities to the Board.
Mr. Patel currently resides in Florida, where he trades his personal investment portfolio and originates real estate loans. He is also Heritage Shareholder.
Mr. Patel received his B.B.A. degree in Finance and Investments from the Baruch College in New York, (1988).
Mr. Cloud is a writer and a pioneer in natural health education, including the co-founding of the Wholistic Health & Nutrition Institute (W.H.N.) in Mill Valley, California. He has extensive education and experience in convalescent hospital administration and is President of Ravensbread Inc., through which he plans to direct his future publishing plans. His first novel is being readied for publication. Mr. Cloud brings strong writing and communications skills to the Board.
Mr. Cloud is a native of North Carolina, now living in California finishing two novels and trading a personal investment portfolio. He is also a Heritage Shareholder.
Mr. Cloud received his B.A. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1970).
About Heritage Capital Credit Corporation
The Heritage business model, which is implemented through its subsidiary, Independent Capital Credit Corporation, is to process, originate, and prepare real property and commercial assets for securitization. Once securitized, they can be delivered to investors for funding. Using proprietary software and loan modeling techniques, Heritage can underwrite real property and commercial projects based on cash flows.
Safe Harbor
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking information made on the company's behalf. All statements, other than statements of historical facts which address the company's expectations of sources of capital or which express the company's expectation for the future with respect to financial performance or operating strategies, can be identified as forward-looking statements. Such statements made by the company are based on knowledge of the environment in which it operates, but because of the factors previously listed, as well as other factors beyond the control of the company, which include the ability of the company to implement its business plans and consummate the proposed acquisition, actual results may differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Heritage Capital Credit Corporation
Email: info@heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com or
Mark Taggatz, WSMG, Tel: 760-329-4169
info@wsmg.biz
The above news release has been provided by the above company via Pink Sheets News Service. Issuers of news releases and not Pink Sheets are solely responsible for the accuracy of the such news releases.
Been doing some more reading around the current credit market issues.
As we know, the main problem at present is within the domestic mortgage market. As a result, the investment banks that bought the debt securities related to this particular market have started pulling out.....hence the number of bankruptcies and Chapter 11's we see at present. It started with the sub-prime mortgages lenders, but has also had some impact on the mainstream domestic market too.
This means that these investment banks will now be looking for alternatives for the allocation of their funds. The commercial mortgage market will stand to gain as a result, as it seems to be more stable than the domestic market and less open to default imo. The following article supports this view:
http://www.commercialpropertynews.com/cpn/finance/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003618414
Any product then that offers greater security to the investment banks, as well as to the borrower, within the commercial mortgage market will be much easier to market in future imo. If, and when, HCPC can obtain the credit rating for their BCLOC Loans and close their first deals, they will have such a product in their hands imo.
Added a bit more info into the i-Box on credit rating and credit rating agencies, copy below fyi:
The finance for the loans (called 'BCLOC loans’) is raised by HCPC selling securities (called 'BCLOC Promissory notes') to institutional investors/ investment banks. The securities are issued by the BCLOC Trust, a Special Purpose Entity or SPE, set up by HCPC. The company has to obtain a credit rating from a National Credit Rating Agency for the securities, before they can be sold. In some instances, investment banks insist on credit ratings being obtained from more than one source. A credit rating measures credit worthiness, the ability to pay back a loan, and affects the interest rate applied to loans. Generally, a security with a higher risk rating provides a higher rate of return for the investor. More information on the credit rating process is provided in the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Statistical_Rating_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch_Ratings
Bit more info on the widely used CMBS loans....Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities.....the characteristics of these loans have fundamental differences from the BCLOC loans being proposed by HCPC and their business model, as mentioned in my previous post.
However, the section on Rating Agency is interesting...extract below. Although it is for CMBS's, the process is probably similar for HCPC in achieving their rating for their BCLOC loans. This is the stage HCPC are working through with the Rating Agency (ies) at the moment imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_mortgage-backed_security
Extract:
"Rating Agency
There will be as few as one and as many as four Rating Agencies involved in rating a securitization. Rating agencies establish bond ratings for each bond class at the time the securitization is closed. They also monitor the pool’s performance and update ratings for investors based on performance, delinquency and potential loss events affecting the loans within the trust."
I think the current difficulties in the credit markets have almost certainly led to the delays experienced by HCPC in obtaining the credit rating for their BCLOC loans/ Promissory notes. Their product is innovative and the current credit markets shakey. I am sure the combination of the two has led to them having to work extra hard to overcome the 'hurdles' necessary to obtain such a rating. Only when such a rating is obtained can the loans be closed, funding raised by selling the notes to institutional investors, and revenues finally generated for HCPC.
However, when you examine the benefits of their business model you realise that they are offering loans that help to protect the borrower from early default as well as the investment of the purchasers of the notes/ bonds which fund the loans. This is something that the markets should really take note of. This is a new concept compaired to the traditional loans offered. The following provides a useful summary compairing BCLOC loans with traditional CMBS loans. I've posted this before but it is important to grasp why HCPC is different imo:
http://www.firstifg.com/id6.html
As a result, it is very timely that HCPC are offering a product that is both attractive to and protects borrowers, as well as the institutional investors/ investment banks who purchase the Promissory notes ( bonds) which fund these loans by ensuring a guaranteed repayment of capital + interest imo.
The creation of such a product at such a time, when obtaining credit is really under the microscope from both borrowers, institutional investors as well as government bodies, could present HCPC, and us, with a tremendous opportunity imo.
Creative solutions will be needed to help resolve the problems that the current credit markets are experiencing. I think the product that HCPC has developed has all the hallmarks of such an approach.
If they can obtain the necessary ratings and close the first deals, I think they have a product on their hands that will be a marketers dream. Marketing the product and it's unique attributes would then be relatively straight forward, be it through trade magazines/ journals, newspapers etc......they have received the 'green light' so to speak. That would almost certainly lead to much bigger demand in the future for their BCLOC loans imo.
The risk is there in whether they can achieve this first milestone or not. But if they do then this stock could really take off imo.
GLTA
Added a few more here today.....think there is a plan that will unfold in due course eom
Think your timeframe could be pretty close to the mark. Added yesterday as well and as you say, patience is the key. Get the first deals closed and the business model is validated.
GLTA
Reflecting on the news I was thinking it was more interesting that these clients had waited for 2 or 3 years already......HCPC had mentioned 26 clients for some time and I was always thinking that if I were the client, it can't be easy dealing with all these delays?
The pr confirms at least that the remaining 21 clients are still there, waiting for the time being...... the original total loan amount of $740 million was based on 26 loans. The remaining 21 loans may total some $500 million + as an estimate.......still enough to produce very good potential earnings for the company. They will no doubt add to these loan amounts for funding in the future.
If they are close to obtaining clarification of the BCLOC Promissory notes credit rating, as the pr intimates by the end of the 3rd Quarter, they may be able to persuade some of these 5 to hold on a little while longer. It confirms my thinking that it is the credit rating of the notes/ loans that has caused the delay as their product is fairly innovative.
The important point is that the loans business from most of their clients is still there, so once the credit rating of the notes is resolved then it is a matter of funding these loans by selling the notes to institutional investors. These institutional investors may already have been lined up as mentioned in pr's earlier this year. I am not sure what effect the delays would have on these investors? My thinking is that if the notes were a good deal for them earlier this year, they would still be a good deal for them now.....despite the delays. We will have to wait and see on this point.
Once they close the first deals I think new clients should be relatively easy to find in the current credit market. I think they would be able to set up a marketing campaign fairly easily selling the virtues of their BCLOC loans. The business would be up and running. Their product has many advantages over conventional loans. Close some deals and the business model has been proven to work. I really think it could get interesting after that.
For more info on BCLOC loans compared to conventional CMBS loans check out the following link:
http://www.firstifg.com/id6.html
Final word. It has been frustrating these last few months. However, the company continues to communicate via PRs and release signed off financials (albeit unaudited for the time being). As a pink sheet stock they are not even obliged to file the quarterly 15c2-11 statements. That is required by OTCBB stocks only. So whilst I am frustrated that they do not reply to emails etc. they do in fact release information through these filings that they don't have to.
As I have said before, I still see the potential here that I saw a few months ago...the timeframe has changed and the share price has given me and many a heartache. But at these prices I am still adding, as I think they will come through in the end imo. The risk is that they are not successful in implementing the business model. If they are successful though, the upside would be tremendous still imo.
It's up to each person to assess that risk/ reward scenario. Do your own DD.
GLTA
PR Monday 30th July
Not surprised by news given the time taken to date. Clarification of BCLOC Promissory Note credit rating, however, appears to be progressing. Company anticipates this being resolved by the end of the 3rd quarter. This is the key imo to the remaining loans being funded and closed.....and the company achieving revs at last.
UPDATED: Heritage Capital Credit Corporation in Discussions with 5 of 26 Business Clients
Wilmington, DE - (WORLD STOCK WIRE) - July 30, 2007 -- Heritage Capital Credit Corporation (OTC: HCPC) announced that it is engaged in discussions to refund loan application fees paid by 5 of their 26 Business Clients, in 2004 and 2005, totaling $93,386. The 5 Business Clients have expressed dissatisfaction over the length of time that the Company has taken to consummate their respective financings.
Chairman and CEO, Gwendolyn Johnson stated: “We value our business customers and appreciate their patience over the past three years. Yet, we respect their needs to seek other sources for their business plans for funding in this current credit climate.”
Although the credit markets are getting tighter, the Company believes that by the end of the third quarter of 2007, it should be able to clarify the credit markets’ understanding of risk related to the BCLOC Promissory Notes, which are secured by direct pay insurance contracts
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking information made on the company's behalf. All statements, other than statements of historical facts which address the company's expectations of sources of capital or which express the company's expectation for the future with respect to financial performance or operating strategies, can be identified as forward-looking statements. Such statements made by the company are based on knowledge of the environment in which it operates, but because of the factors previously listed, as well as other factors beyond the control of the company, which include the ability of the company to implement its business plans and consummate the proposed acquisition, actual results may differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.
Richard Razecca
Heritage Capital Credit Corp
200 West 9th St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
USA
Phone: 866-437-4222 ext. 1018
Fax: 302-778-1023; email: info@heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com
Source: Heritage Capital Credit Corp
Note: The following press release was submitted by: Heritage Capital Credit Corp, and World Stock Wire, Inc. is not liable for the contents of this press release.
Source: World Stock Wire (July 30, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST)
News by QuoteMedia
www.quotemedia.com
Just a few points
Firstly, I have updated the i-Box including share structure. Please note that the company has raised the AS shares to 1.5 billion on 17th July 2007 (see Florida link in ibox above). This is a concern and could signal further dilution to raise funds. I'll comment on this further below.
Through the last few months, the company has elected to raise cash through a RegD offering. These we think have been used to short against and is a big factor in explaining the current share price imo. The increase in the AS may then have been forced (by external factors) upon the company as an avenue to raise further equity if needed.
During this time, however, neither Ed Johnson or Carol Johnson have sold a share. Carol has received 5 million shares at a price of 0.06 in lieu of her annual allowance of $300k.
Departing directors have sold, Walter Hinchcliffe (432 k) and Kevin Pickard (1.1 million or so). They may have been forced out to assist in cleaning up the company image due to their previous links with MERL.....but that is conjecture.
The other remaining officers, although not adding, have at least not sold either.
This lack of selling by these people at least gives me some comfort at present. If Ed or Carol (and the others) saw no future for the business would they not just offload their shares......before maybe doing a RegD? If they thought they couldn't get a credit rating/ investor funding for the notes etc wouldn't you begin selling your own shares?
Whilst I think the company is being too secretive in it's actions and needs to communicate with shareholders more, including responses to individual enquiries, this lack of insider selling to me seems strange. Ed or Carol (and the others) could have cut their losses by selling their shares, but they chose not too. Instead they opted to have a private placement and issue RegD shares. The only way they can make money for the company, without closing loans and producing revenues, is by selling company shares. At this current share price it could lead to big dilution which would hurt their own holdings too.
However, I still think the current share price has been greatly influenced by the external factor of shorting. Their failure to close loan deals to date, however, has made the current situation worse. The issue of whether the fundamentals of the company are still promising and in divergence with the current share price still remains imo. However low the share price goes, the issue of whether they will ultimately succeed or not with their business plan remains.
The current share price and AS, whilst not positive news, does not change the fact that if they do succeed with the business plan then we are ok.
The key now is what further dilution will be needed to keep the company running imo. If they see loan deals happening soon this should be kept to a minimum for everbody's sake. If they have no choice and need to use up a lot of the AS to raise finance short-term, then they may do that.
If that gets them enough finance to get to the loan closing stage then maybe they could always do a reverse split after to get the share structure to a more reasonable level? Not desirable but a possibility.
These are just thoughts....I know some of you see this current price as an opportunity to add and some of you the complete opposite. I will wait and see how this one plays out over the next few weeks and months. It's not over yet imo.
GLTA
Key points regarding RegD and Share Structure.
Share Structure
We are authorized to issue 250,000,000 shares of common stock,
(ii) As of the current date, July 13, 2007) we have approximately 231,552,123 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, held by approximately 550 shareholders of record.
No change to insiders save the departing officers (Kevin Pickard and Walter Hinchcliffe) selling their shares as previously thought.
RegD Offering
As of the date of this Disclosure Statement, we issued 28,200,677 shares of common
stock to TJ Management Group, LLC, pursuant to a Regulation D offering.
As of the date of this Disclosure Statement, we issued 33,500,000 shares of common
stock to Mazuma Corporation, pursuant to a Regulation D offering.
The RegD and OS figures really support our earlier theory with regard to the share price at present and the shorting of the RegD shares to increase the float. See the following post for more detail:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21293195
Current Share Structure
Authorised: 250 million
Outstanding: 231, 552, 123
Float: 15,419,557 + 14.5 million + 47, 210, 677 = 77, 130, 234
The above float figure is based on the original float of 15,419,557 plus the 14.5 million RegD shares issued to Mazuma in the first quarter 2007 (assuming these were used to short the stock with as previously suspected) + the additional 47, 210, 677 RegD shares issued to Mazuma and TJ Management Group LLC in the second quarter (also assuming these were used to short the stock).
Links to Quarterly reports below. I will review shortly and post key findings here.
http://www.pinksheets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById?id=11242
PR 2nd Quarter Financials
Heritage Capital Credit Corporation Posts 2nd Quarter Financials
Wilmington, DE - (WORLD STOCK WIRE) - July 27, 2007 -- Heritage Capital Credit Corporation (Pink Sheets OTC: HCPC) announced today that the Company has published its Second Quarter Disclosure Statement using the Form 15c211 Format on www.pinksheets.com and on its website, www.heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com.
The Disclosure Statement provides a succinct description of the Company’s business, the second quarter financial statements and current information.
The second quarter 2007 Financial and Disclosure Statement reflects a second quarter loss of $243,000 or ($.0011) per share, fully diluted at June 30, 2007. This is an increase of $6,000 from its 2006 second quarter loss of $237,000 or ($.0015) per share fully diluted at June 30, 2006.
About Heritage Capital Credit Corporation
The Heritage business model, which is implemented through its subsidiary, Independent Capital Credit Corporation, is to process, originate, and prepare real property and commercial assets for securitization. Once securitized, they can be delivered to investors for funding.
Using proprietary software and loan modeling techniques, Heritage can underwrite real property and commercial projects based solely on cash flows.
I have emailed my thoughts and links to the company, as have others. Although I have not had a response I am sure they know now, if they did not before, the price of dealing with such organisations.
As I said in my previous post, I don't think you do these kind of RegD offerings unless you have too. There is a short term price the company and the shareholder have to pay. Hopefully the RegD offering will have raised enough to see them through.
You can, therefore, look at the current share price as either a problem or an opportunity. I think there are people here who will view it in both ways. I bought shares at much higher prices too, but I certainly see this as an opportunity at the moment.
GLTA
Been adding at these levels too....
Almost certain the shares are coming from the RegD holders who have been shorting against what they own. As soon as Mazuma knew they were receiving their RegD shares in February this year, they started shorting against them, that is how they (and others like them) operate and get their money and profit back quickly. In effect, they are pink sheet loan sharks. The company needed to raise finance to maintain operations and this is the short term price they,and we,have to pay for the finance. The following link shows how they have operated in a similar way with another company's RegD offering:
http://nashvillerecords.com/barber_legal_opinion.pdf
They (ie Mazuma) buy much lower than the market price and start shorting at higher levels immediately they know they will receive the RegD shares. Although their shares are restricted, they in effect become part of the float through this shorting 'loophole.' When they want to cover they just use their restricted shares...they do not have to cover by buying back in the open market.
We know Mazuma received 14.5 million shares in the first quarter as part of the $1 million RegD offering. This raised $180k for the company, costing Mazuma 0.012 share. When these are sold short by Mazuma that raises our float to c. 30 million (existing float of 15.5 million + 14.5 million) with the OS being 184.5 million.
It is quite likely that further shares were sold by the company under the RegD offering to Mazuma or others. We will find out more hopefully when the last quarters financial statement is published. The figure could be anywhere from an additional 20 - 40 million, raising the OS to to c.200 mllion, possibly up to c.220 million. The float could then now be anywhere between c.50 and 70 million imo.
Such a large number of shares flooding the float in a short space of time has lead to the price decline we have seen imo. The increase has not been offset by sufficient demand at this time. The recent share price decline could be interpreted as company weakness or just a result of dilution brought about by the shorting of RegD shares 'flooding' the float. In my opinion it is the latter. There has been a delay in closing the loans but the basic fundamentals and potential that I saw initially has not changed. Again, I ask the question, why would the company raise capital through a RegD offering, knowing full well the likely short term impact on share price, when they own so many shares themselves? Why carry out an audit for 2006 and why engage a reputable (and therefore not inexpensive) PR firm?
We know the AS shares are still fixed at 250 million so that is the ceiling or worst case scenario for the OS as well. In reality it is likely to be less than that. So share structure estimate at the moment is:
AS 250 million
OS 200 to 220 million
Float 50 to 70 million
So the float has probably increased by quite a large % in the last few months, but the OS has shown only a relatively modest increase from the last known amount of 184.5 million on April 19th. This is important for the following reason. The company valuations based on their earnings per share estmates published earlier this year will not been affected dramatically. I have noticed that they have been very careful to control the OS over the last few years and for very good reason. They own most of it. I think the dilution we have seen through this RegD offering was forced upon them to maintain operations imo.
The question now is can they continue operations and close out some of the loans and generate revenues in the near future? Hopefully the RegD offering generated sufficient capital to see them through. If they could have avoided it then I am sure they would have done but it was probably a price they had to pay. If they can close some deals then we have a winner as the valuations have not changed much, even though the share price has dropped considerably in the last few months.
If you consider the company's fundamentals have not changed and they will come through with these deals at some point, then the current share price presents a great buying opportunity.
That is up to each person to assess, evaluate the risk reward and come to their own decision.
GLTA
I hope that we receive a 2nd quarter update in a similar way that we did on April 10th for the 1st Quarter "Heritage Capital Credit Corporation First Quarter Update"...
also good possibility that the 2nd quarter financials are posted at the end of next week.....company also really needs to communicate to us about the status of the loan deals and reasons for delay in closing/ current timeframe etc.....as well as share structure info. Share structure should be clarified in financial statement when it is issued.
GLTA
Noted the increase in volume too, been adding here as I see limited downside risk now. If Mazuma were shorting, as we suspect, then that game appears to be over at this level.
Selling shares at this price doesn't makes sense either as the company would damage the share structure that is has been so careful to keep under control over the last few years (due mainly to their own high insider ownership imo) and for limited financial return.
If we can put in a solid bottom now that will be good for all concerned and will also attract new interest imo. A positive pr or two and we should be heading north again imo.
GLTA
Agree with you noth shore.
Share price is also a reflection of shorting activity by the holders of the RegD shares (Mazuma Corp)imo (of which the company has little control over). The RegD offering was used to raise much needed capital for company operations imo. If the company wasn't legit why bother with a private placement memorandum (ppm) to raise such capital with a third party and the dilution/ shorting risk that goes with it in the first place? Especially when you hold (and still hold) so may insider shares yourself? Doesn't make sense to me imo. If they did not have real business operations/ potential surely they would just pump and dump their shares like most pinks/ rather than issue shares via a ppm to a third party and risk the kind of shorting activity/ share price decline that we have witnessed of late imo?
The float will have increased during this period as a result of the RegD share issue and I expect to find out more info in the next filing of quarterly financials (expected mid-July).
The float increase during this period, without sufficient demand generated by 'significant news' to absorb it, has led to the decline imo. Insiders are not selling beyond the Directors that have departed. Insiders will be hurting when they look at the current share price, as we are. They have invested over $3 million of their own money over the last 4 years with shareholdings at a much higher purchase pps than at present (puchase price ranging from $0.027 to 0.05 pps). The lack of 'pump prs' during this period imo, which would have helped to offset the price decline, is because the company is legit and is playing it by the book, whether we like it or not.
What we wait for now is news that the company has closed it's first loans. This may be delayed by waiting for the credit rating of the Promissory notes, from a National Credit Rating Agency. Only when we receive such news.... that loans have been closed, funded by institutional investors purchasing credit rated Promissory notes will we see a change in fortunes imo. The fact that they have engaged an auditor to prepare audited financials for 2006, Gregory FCA to act as PR consultants and begun upgrading their corporate image such as the website enhancements, and have a shareholders meeting lined up for October 2007, gives me hope that all our fortunes can change in due course.
GLTA
Should get 2nd Quarter financials in a week or so eom
GLTA
The fact that the float has increased so much (probably doubled to c. 30 to 40 million) in this short space of time is why the share price has been hit so hard.
Lack of investor awareness and no pump pr's during the period has added to the impact for sure. But I also think too, that at some point it will hit a bottom and stabilise. Once Mazuma and any other holders of RegD shares are done selling we should see a turnaround, assuming we get some good news on the loans.
I also see positives in the fact that the OS has been kept under control. The possible share price/ upside valuations we could have if they close the deals and achieve the EPS figures they have talked about, has not been effected significantly.
The fact that they are having last year audited, propose to uplist onto OTCQX, hired a PR company and even agreed at all to this RegD financing (given their own high insider interests), suggests to me that they have confidence in future revenues. If they weren't confident in future revenues why would they do/ spend money on any of these things? Why dilute with a RegD issue to a third party to raise a relatively small amount of finance (and at prices lower than they bought their own shares at) whilst probably knowing that it would hurt the share price short term? I think you only enter into such agreements if you really are pushed into a corner financially and have no other means at your disposal.
Apart from the Directors who have recently left the compamy, the main shareholders have not sold. The CEO actually received 5 million shares this year instead of her $300,000 annual salary (0.06 share).
If they didn't see future revs coming in surely they would not issue RegD shares and just sell their own shares (along with pump prs) and try and get their own investment back (which stands at over $3 million)?
Don't get me wrong...anyone who bought higher and who is not adding here will not be happy with the share price at present, but I do see positives looking forward irrespective of current price.
The key points now is do they have sufficent cash for short term operations (or can they raise what they need with 'acceptable' terms) and can they close out some of these deals this year, by raising institutional investment funding through selling (credit rated) Promissory notes i.e can they make their business model succeed.
If they can and keep the share structure under control we will still all have a big winner.
GLTA
From my analysis of the share structure from December 31st 2006 to April 19th 2007:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19093983
The OS and Float were:
OS: 184,341,446 ( as of 19th April 2007)
Float: 15,419,557 or 8.4 % of OS
This corresponds closely to what is stated on Pink Sheets on the company page.
The OS figure above includes the 14.5 million restricted shares issued to Mazuma Corp.
If, however, these restricted RegD shares were somehow sold into the market the float could in theory be as high as c. 30 million.
If these shares were sold short into the market there could be the original 15,419,557 float + theoretically up to 14.5 million short shares.
I am not saying all these shares were sold into the market or sold short into the market, but both scenarios could have a big impact on the available float/ supply. Any buying pressure may have just absorbed these shares, either buying them or being sold shorted shares.
The point is that if either of these scenarios is true, how come restricted RegD shares were used?
People have noted that on certain high volume days the price did not move like before.....perhaps one of these scenarios is the reason why....?
Hopefully we will find out some more info on changes in the share structure in the next quarterly statement filed mid-July. If the OS has not increased significantly since April 19th 2007, it will not, however, reveal whether Mazuma Corp have influenced share price by one of the above scenarios.........if Mazuma Corp have been using the restricted RegD shares illegally to affect price, I think it will have been through selling short into the market imho. In that respect they wouldn't care how low the price went.
I have contacted the company on this issue....it may be a good idea if you see similar concerns in all this to do the same.
GLTA
Further info on RegD and Mazuma
HCPC PR April 20th
http://heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/pressrelease42007_final_.pd....
"To cover the costs related to pre-closing loans for the BCLOC Trust Pool 2007-1, to date the company has raised $180,000 from a $1 million Regulation D Offering. "
First Quarter Financial Statement (ending March 31st 2007) Page 10, Item 11
http://heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/heritagedisclosureq107.pdf
"As of the date of this Disclosure Statement, we issued 14,500,000 shares of common stock to Mazuma Corporation, pursuant to a Regulation D offering."
So they bought the stock for $0.012 share
RegD filing mid February with SEC when share price was c.0.035 to 0.04
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001390699&owner=include&c....
GLTA
Another post related to the breach of RegD share sales of Nashville Records (OTC: NSVH) and the earlier post I made of the case.
http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=66489812
Mazuma Corp bought the 14.5 million shares at price of 0.012. A recent pr stated that $180,000 had been raised by the RegD issue to date. The last quarter financials stated Mazuma Corp had purchased 14,5 million shares. They were the only change to the share structure save insiders. See the following post for a full summary.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19093983
I think these shares may have been sold into the market (even though officially they are restricted) or used to enable Mazuma to short the stock (also illegal imo if they are restricted shares). If one of these is correct the decline in the share price may have been heavily influenced by the actions of Mazuma. I don't know for sure, but if they have done that with other stocks, then why not HCPC?
If they are restricted shares they would have that noted on the share certificates and so the MM's should not sell them into the market or used to sell short.
If anyone has thoughts on all this, including possible courses of action, then please post. If additional shares have come onto the market/ added to the float, it would explain why the share price has fallen.......dilution, although not from the company but from a RegD restricted shareholder. If shares have been sold short into the market (using again the restricted RegD Shares Mazuma hold to borrow against), again this will also have the effect of causing the share price to fall. Particularly if aided by a 'compliant' MM (s).
I will send these and previous links posted to the company for their info.
GLTA
Selection of posts relating to Mazuma from other boards for your info.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20607810&txt2find=mazuma+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20636386&txt2find=mazuma+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20835032&txt2find=mazuma+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20835572&txt2find=mazuma+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16283647&txt2find=mazuma+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=16602528
HCPC Share Price and possible illegal shorting of restricted RegD Shares
These are interesting links to a post that infers that Mazuma Corp were involved in the illegal shorting of another stock in which they bought RegD restricted shares.
Post
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20578820
Original letter in pdf format
http://nashvillerecords.com/barber_legal_opinion.pdf
The HCPC Reg D offering was filed mid-February 2007. In the last quarterly statement, it stated Mazuma Corp held 14.5 million shares in HCPC. The similarities between the two stocks seem very close.This could be a reason/ factor for what has happened to the share price since February. Refer to points 1 and 2 on pages 3 and 4 of the letter. Comments/ thoughts appreciated.
I have copied the post and letter to the HCPC.
Full article copied below.
Copy of above link:
Posted by: pennypusher1
In reply to: 53chevy who wrote msg# 2162 Date:6/19/2007 2:17:14 PM
Post #of 4650
I bought 50k with scottrade this morning at .02 no problems...But I dont have a margin account...
Also dint see this posted yet to the board so here is the full document. it can be found here.
http://nashvillerecords.com/barber_legal_opinion.pdf
JAMES N. BARBER
Attorney at Law
Suite 10, Chase Tower
50 West Broadway
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) ***-****
Facsimile: (801) ***-**** E-Mail: ******************
May 30, 2007
Nashville Records, Inc.
1216 16th Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37212
Continental Stock Transfer
17 Battery Place
Eighth Floor
New York, NY 11520
Delivered by Fax: (212) 616-7609
Re: Shares issued in Rule 504 D transactions
Dear Interested Parties:
This letter is in response to information I received last Thursday and Friday related to the
sale and resale of shares offered, sold and delivered after sale by Nashville Records, Inc. without
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”) in reliance on the
exemption from registration provided by §3(b) of the Act and Rule 504(b)(iii) of Regulation D
promulgated thereunder. This letter constitutes notice that on Friday, May 25, 2007 I advised
Nashville that it should immediately terminate this offering, take any available measures to
recover the shares sold, and prevent further sales of shares distributed on this offering into the
market because in my judgment, the exemption on which Nashville relied to sell these shares
without registration may not be available and because resale of the shares into the market by the
person who bought them directly from the issuer (and those to whom it has redistributed the
shares on the second level) very likely constitutes an unlawful distribution of shares in violation
of the Act.
The critical aspect of this offering is that whereas most shares distributed in reliance on
Rule 504 and the other rules encompassed in Regulation D are subject to the following provision
of Rule 502(d):
(d) Limitations on resale. Except as provided in §230.504(b)(1), securities acquired in
a transaction under Regulation D shall have the status of securities acquired in a
transaction under section 4(2) of the Act and cannot be resold without registration
under the Act or an exemption therefrom. The issuer shall exercise reasonable care to
Nashville Records, Inc.
Continental Stock Transfer
May 30, 2007
Page 2
assure that the purchasers of the securities are not underwriters within the meaning of
section 2(11) of the Act, which reasonable care may be demonstrated by the
following:
The rule goes on to list several steps the issuer can take to demonstrate that it has taken sufficient
measures to prevent unregistered secondary distribution of Regulation D shares. The exception
noted in Rule 502(d) is found in Rule 504(b)(1)(iii) which, insofar as it is relevant, contains this
provision:
(b) Conditions to be met – (1)General conditions. To qualify for exemption under this
§230.504, offers and sales must satisfy the terms and conditions of §230.501 and
§230.502 (a), (c) and (d), except that the provisions of §230.502 (c) and (d) will not apply
to offers and sales of securities under this §230.504 that are made:
(iii) Exclusively 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 §230.501(a).
I am advised that the state law exemption from registration relied upon to exempt the shares
issued in this offering from the resale restrictions imposed by paragraph 502(d) was Section
80A.15(2)(g) of the Minnesota statutes of 2006 and Rule 2875.0170 adopted thereunder which
includes sales to accredited investors within the exemption provided by that section. Based on
reliance on the aforesaid Minnesota provisions, Nashville instructed its transfer to issue
certificates representing these shares to the purchasers without restrictive legends. While we are
concerned about all the shares issued in this offering, we are particularly concerned about the
following certificates.
Cert. No. Registered Owner No. Shares
50 Ameritrade _ T Violette 5,000,000
51 Perlinda (1) 5,000,000
4 TJ Management (1) 2,083,333
1 Mazuma Corporation 1,714,285
8 Mazuma Corporation 3,428,571
46 Mazuma Corporation 8,000,000
25,226,189
Numbered paragraph 6 of the Preliminary Notes to Regulation D reads as follows:
6. In view of the objectives of these rules and the policies underlying the Act,
regulation D is not available to any issuer for any transaction or chain of transactions
that, although in technical compliance with these rules, is part of a plan or scheme to
Nashville Records, Inc.
Continental Stock Transfer
May 30, 2007
Page 3
evade the registration provisions of the Act. In such cases, registration under the Act
is required.
It is my opinion that the exemption provided by Rule 504(b)(1)(iii) of regulation D under the
Act is not available to exempt the sale of the foregoing shares or any other shares on this
offering as free-trading common shares of Nashville Records, Inc. because the circumstances of
the offering establish that reliance on that exemption is nothing more than a device to avoid
registration of the shares under § 5 of the Act. Without limitation, the following facts support
this opinion.
1. While Mazuma Corp. is a Minnesota corporation in good standing, its business office
is listed as 7900 International Drive, Suite 200, Bloomington, MN 55425, a location
that features itself on the internet as the “Davinci Virtual Offices.” Literally hundreds
of businesses list this building as their address; and other evidence in my possession
establishes to my satisfaction that Mazumas address is nothing more than a mail drop
designed to create the illusion that Mazuma actually maintains a business presence in
Minnesota so as to avail itself of the 504(b)(iii) exemption. The evidence supports
the inference that this is a sham.
2. There is also an overwhelming inference that transactions in these “free-trading” 504
shares being effected by Mazuma corp. and persons to whom it has distributed
shares it purchased from Nashville under Rule 504(b)(iii) are constituting an
unregistered secondary “distribution” of Nashville shares which is sufficient to make
the sellers “underwriters” as that term is defined by § 2(11) of the Act and deprive
them of the right to rely on § 4(1) or any other exemption from registration to resell
the Nashville shares it purchased under Rule 504 without registration. That evidence
is derived in substantial measure form price and volume information that is publicly
available regarding Nashville common shares on the Pink Sheets market over the last
six weeks. Nashville received the first funds from this offering on April 12, 2007 and
it can be presumed that certificates representing the shares sold thereon reached the
registered owners approximately ten days later, i.e., approximately April 23, 2007.
On the latter date, the bid price of Nashville shares on the Pink Sheets was $.029 per
share. That price represents a drop of $.041 from the bid price of $.07 quoted on
April 12, 2007. That drop occurred over the ten days immediately after Mazuma as
assured it would be receiving large blocks of Nashville shares and raises a compelling
_________________________
47 FR 11262, Mar. 16,1982, as amended at 47 FR 54771, Dec. 6, 1982; 55 FR 18322,
May 2, 1990
Nashville Records, Inc.
Continental Stock Transfer
May 30, 2007
Page 4
inference that Mazuma may have been shorting stock against the position it had
purchased during that ten day period. The reported volume on April 12, 2007 was
45,300 shares and fluctuated between 25,200 and 800,241 shares until May 7. The
price stayed around $.025 per share during that period. During the next fifteen
trading days (until Nashville served notice that it intended to stop transfer of the
shares) the average trading volume increased to 2,406.836 shares per day and the
price dropped to $.014 on the date of this letter.
In the Preliminary Note to Rule 144 under the Act the Staff of the Securities and
Exchange Commission made the following comment regarding the definition if
“underwriter” and availability of § 4 (1) to cover unregistered sales of shares:
A third factor, which must be considered in determining what is
deemed not to constitute a “distribution, “ is the impact of the particular
transaction or transactions on the trading markets. Section 4(1) was
intended to exempt only routine trading transactions between individual
investors with respect to securities already issued and not to exempt
distributions by issuers or acts of other individuals who engage in steps
necessary to such distributions.. Therefore, a person reselling securities
under Section 4(1) of the Act must sell the securities in such limited
quantities and in such a manner as not to disrupt the trading markets.
The facts reflected on the price and volume attachment to this letter clearly establish
that resale of the more than 25,000,000 Nashville shares sold in reliance on Rule
504(b)(1)(iii) has had a profound detrimental effect on the market for Nashville
shares which is sufficient to create an overwhelming inference that Mazuma and
persons to whom it has distributed shares on the second level are effecting an
unregistered distribution of Nashville shares in violation of § 5 of the Securities Act
of 1933.
Based on the foregoing I support the actions of Nashville in placeing stop-transfer
instructions on the referenced shares with its transfer agent and advising Mazuma Corp. and all
persons to whom it has distributed shares it purchased from the issuer in reliance on Rule
504(b)(1)(iii) of the issuer’s opinion that resale of the shares is constituting an unregistered
distribution of Nashville shares in violation of § 2(11), § 4(10 and § 5 of the Securities Act of
1933. I have advised Nashville to retain counsel to file suit to enjoin further resales of these
shares, and to take all such other measures as may be available to limit the damage being inflicted
on other owners of Nashville Records, Inc. common stock by the conduct of the owners
Nashville Records, Inc.
Continental Stock Transfer
May 30, 2007
Page 5
of the shares referenced in this letter, as well as other shares sold in the subject offering.
I will be available to address any questions that may be raised about the legal conclusions
expressed in this letter or the factual predicates on which they are based.
Encl.
Certainly hope we have put in a bottom now. Hopefully we have a 'pipe bottom' reversal chart pattern in the making here.......
GLTA
This mornings trades so far:
0.004 5000 OTO 10:26:07
0.005 150000 OTO 10:24:54
0.005 100000 OTO 10:05:06
0.005 10000 OTO 09:45:15
After the single 5000 trade at 0.004 the MM's dropped to 0.0036 x 0.004
MM games it seems.....
GLTA
The share price at present is a concern, but the positives I see at the moment are as follows:
Auditor appointed/ Audited financials being prepared for 2006
Proposed uplisting to OTCQX
Gregory FCA PR Firm appointed June 1st 2007: a reputable firm
Shareholders meeting arranged for October 18th
Good earnings projections, as and when, loans close
Website improved
also:
High Insider ownership.
It is perhaps this last point that makes me think that the company will be doing all it can, at some point, to increase the share price. If we are getting hurt by the current share price, then they are too. I see no benefits to them of letting the share price slide imo. Their personal investment gets hit and the company selling shares at this level loses out. The big money will be made by them (personally and as a company), if the share price heads north. Simply put, that means making a success of the business, closing loans and raising funding by selling credit rated notes to institutional investors. If they don't achieve that then they will lose a lot of money.
That should be incentive enough to focus their minds to make things work.
GLTA
Agree with you Hawk, am looking to add some more at these levels.
Been looking through some of this years pr's today, to try and put some of the pieces together. The following just caught my attention.
PR of February 12th 2007.
"The Company has $740 million in contractual obligations to close and funding the first $40 million is expected to produce estimated pre-tax earnings of $0.017 per share in the 2007 first quarter. Some of the current contractual obligations may be replaced with new projects."
Admittedly, we have seen a delay in closing these loans which I think is due in part to the time taken to obtain a credit rating from the National Rating Agency and the enormous amount of DD for the pre-closing stage by all parties (HCPC/ Investment Bankers/ Loan Applicants). Having said that if the company only closed $40 million of the $740 million in this financial year, we are looking at a net EPS of over c.$0.01 for the year, taking into consideration tax costs and the slight increase in OS shares. That alone would generate a much higher potential valuation than at present. Above and beyond that $40 million figure and we are looking very good indeed imo.
Closing the first set of loans is the key. Once that is achieved the mechanics are in place for the company to duplicate the process with further loan closing in the future imo. The company would then have some very strong financials to report and would then certainly get more attention imo. With a reputable PR company now engaged, the possibilties with regard to generating further business/ loan applications through a targetted media campaign and also increasing interest from the investment community, means that it could get very interesting imo.
GLTA
Credit Rating for BCLOC promissory notes from National Rating Agency.
I think the other outstanding factor is the allocation of a credit rating to the BCLOC Promissory notes/ securities, before they can be issued by the NASD member broker/ dealer to the institutional investors/ investment banks.
PR of February 12, 2007 states:
"The BCLOC Trust Notes are expected to receive “CCC” ratings from a national rating agency and have been priced to the institutional investor under a Private Placement with an average coupon of 9% with a 9-month call provision.
The BCLOC Trust Notes when purchased will be restricted securities as provided by Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The notes are also expected to be book entry form through the Depository Trust Company. "
Some background on NRA's can be found in the following link:
http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/032002tsih.htm
From which an extract follows:
"For almost a century, credit rating agencies have been providing opinions on the creditworthiness of issuers of securities ( Note: Such as BCLOC Promissory notes ) and other financial obligations. During this time, the importance of these opinions to investors and other market participants, and the influence of these opinions on the securities markets, has increased significantly, particularly with the increase in the number of issuers and the advent of new and complex financial products, such as asset-backed securities (Note: such as those being offered by HCPC) and credit derivatives. "
It may be that the allocation of the credit rating is the only thing that is now holding up the process of closing out some of the loan deals/ sale of the BCLOC Promissory notes/ securities to the institutional investors and/ or the investment bank.
GLTA
Been doing a bit more digging and some lateral thinking......
On the weblink I posted earlier there was some background info on an investment banking firm which was also NASD listed broker/ dealer. This firm is not associated with HCPC, but I posted the link to give some background info to the process of raising debt/ equity financing:
http://www.bristoldirect.com/adobe/Brochure_CRC.pdf
on Page 4 of the website it states (extract only):
"Why use Bristol Investment Group for raising capital?
An important reason to use Bristol Investment Group to raise capital is that it is a registered NASD broker/dealer with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). ...............
Most small investment banks and agents are not broker dealers and cannot legally facilitate the sale of securities. The private placement or sale of securities must be handled by a registered broker/dealer. If the sale is not conducted by a registered broker/dealer, the Securities and Exchange Commission may intervene. "
Interesting then that HCPC announced in yesterday's pr that a NASD listed member firm has been appointed.
In the HCPC PR of April 10th 2007, it states:
"Concurrently, the BCLOC Trust Pool 2007-1 sponsor is in talks with an investment banking firm, which is expecting to finalize the due diligence on the pool of loan documents to be delivered to attorney’s title escrow companies for pre-closing, before the BCLOC Trust issues securities to fund the Pool."
It is quite possible then that this investment banking firm mentioned in the pr is not a NASD registered broker/ dealer, hence the need to engage a NASD member firm as stated in yesterdays PR for the issuance of the BCLOC Promissory notes/ securities.
The funding for the purchase of the Promissory notes could come from the investment banking firm or from institutional investors that the investment banking firm has dealings with.
It was also mentioned in the pr of February 27, 2007 that "one of its affiliates (i.e. meaning HCPC's Independent Capital Credit Corp.) has secured an institutional investor to purchase up to $300 million in BCLOC Trust Notes, which will fund commercial projects. The closing on this funding is scheduled to begin on March 15, 2007. "
If this institutional investor is still on board, then the finance could already been in place for the first set of loans. If not, then it maybe that in the interim period that the investment banking firm mentioned in the PR of April 10th has become involved to either:
(i) Fund the loans, or some of them, through the purchase of the BCLOC Promissory notes and/ or;
(ii) Locate suitable institutional investors who will purchase the notes
Either way the pr of April 10th states that, " the pool of loan documents to be delivered to attorney’s title escrow companies for pre-closing, before the BCLOC Trust issues securities to fund the Pool."
Issuance of the securities/ Promissory notes will be via the NASD listed member broker/ dealer whose appointment was made in yesterday's pr. That being the case HCPC may be getting much nearer to closing some of these deals....imo
GLTA
Hawk: Good to see you are still around....totally agree that this will move on news and there should be plenty within the second half of this year imo.
GLTA
Financials/ OTCQX: Checked back on status of financials for year ending December 31st 2005 and it seems that at present they are unaudited.
http://www.pinksheets.com/pdfservlet?id=7117
However, checked the criteria for applying for listing on the OTCQX Prime QX tier (basic entry level). "Designed to identify issuers that are operating companies with audited financials, but not of sufficient size to be PremierQX. Entry to the PrimeQX tier requires: (relevant extract only)
- Ongoing quarterly and annual financial reports posted on OTCQX.com"
So it does not state a certain time perioid. Financials audited for 2006 only, may be sufficient then to allow HCPC to list on this tier as they have stated in the pr of April 10th 2007 as a goal:
http://heritagecapitalcreditcorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/hcpcpressrelease4.10.07.pdf
For more info on OTCQX requirements see:
http://www.otcqx.com/otcqx/listingRequirements#prime
GLTA
Financials: Problem with links so here is copy of PR.
2003/2004 Audited Financials: PR ( Can check actual financial statements on Pinksheets)
CORRECTED / NEWS RELEASE
Heritage Capital Credit Corporation
Posts Its Year End and Its Subsidiary’s 2004 Year End Audit
WILMINGTON, DE (January 23, 2006) - Heritage Capital Credit Corporation (OTC: HCPC)
announces the availability of the audited financial statements as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 of
Heritage Capital Credit Corporation and its loan origination subsidiary company, Independent Capital
Credit Corporation (“ICCC”).
The Heritage Capital Credit Corporation and the ICCC Financial Statements have been prepared in
accordance with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) requisites. The
position of the Company and ICCC as of December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 are in
conformity with the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
(GAAP).
The audited financial statements reflect that the Company had revenues of zero at year end 2004 and
2003. The Company had net income of ($16,722) at year end 2004 and zero at year end 2003. The
Company operates through its only subsidiary ICCC, a commercial loan origination company. The
financial report can be found on www.HeritageCapitalCreditCorp.com.
The ICCC audited financial statements reflect that ICCC had revenues in the amount of $405,416 and
$5,850 at year end December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. ICCC had net income of ($275,350)
and ($117,350) at year end December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. This financial report can be
found on www.IndependentCapitalCreditCorp.com.
The Company has provided the 2004 and 2003 audited financial statements for Heritage Capital Credit
Corporation and ICCC on www.pinksheets.com.
For more information visit our websites: www.IndependentCapitalCreditcorp.com and
www.HeritageCapitalCreditCorp.com.