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.
I get that, but it clearly states it's going after entities that have defrauded the government.
The sad truth of the matter is that there are countless penny stocks of companies that are run by thieves. I don't think the SEC can deal with all the dishonesty that happens in this area of the stock market.
I was involved with one, DSNY, for years, had lunch with the CEO, etc. He was a friendly guy who just happened to be continuously lying about some software they were trying to develop. He went so far as to reward management with stock because the development stage was supposedly over and it was time for marketing. He was another, "next quarter" guy, but actually, the software was never fully developed.
At this point, whoever buys ZRFY stock gets what they deserve. There's certainly enough info in the public domain to understand the situation. Caveat emptor.
Maronti, but what this have to do with ZRFY:
"You’ll find in-depth information regarding securities fraud against the government under the SEC Whistleblower Program...."
Maybe it's the wrong division or the wrong agency?
Yes, but they didn't spend anywhere near $1.5M on patent litigation. BlankRome was working on contingency and Ropes & Gray only did a little bit of work for SFOR.
Another hustle to put money into management's pockets, they are truly Trumpian in their grifts.
Thanks, I monitor this joint, obviously, and am sometimes tempted to jump back in.
Thanks for the update, it's great to be the King.
An interesting insight into human nature, that paying renewing bills for stuff we don't use, it's easier I guess. It is a tax write off for businesses but so would be that same money used for lavish client dinners.
Ram is listed as having 19M shares, George 11.5M, per CNBC, but Kay's holdings aren't listed. Overall, in the past 30 days, 23.6M shares have been bought and 106K shares sold, which would be a good sign in any other stock that wasn't diluting to pay the bills.
The last insider buy at market price was 10 years ago. The 6 month chart looks ok at first glance until you notice that volume went down on periods when the share price when up. Each member of the management team gets paid more than the company's gross revenues.
Is it possible for a company's stock to smell worse than this one?
I thought Kay's salary was closer to $175K, but I haven't been keeping up.
Don't underestimate Kay's intelligence, you don't get into the C-suite at Morgan if you're a dummy. The thing to understand is that Morgan was and is a universe devoid of ethics and that's where Kay's from. Sure, if he gets caught..... but that's unlikely, the SEC is overwhelmed with complaints about dishonest management of penny stock companies. And the IRS enforcement capabilities have been gutted.
Even so, I expect he expects he would just get fined, just like in the old days:
https://www.southflalaw.com/jp-morgan-chase-settles-with-justice-department-for-13-billion.html
Here's where I go down the black hole of Kay & Co running money through an offshore account.
Consider the Dietl thing of a few years back. Dietl claimed in public, in print, that he had paid SFOR and Kay said he hadn't. What's the one scenario in which both statements can be true? Now consider the BlockSafe venture - they've spun that off into its own company apparently and that's the last we ever heard about it.
A reseller doesn't care where it sends the checks, be it to ZRFY headquarters or a bank in the Caymans. It's still a write off for the re-seller and the revenue for ZRFY can be easily hidden. For all we know this distributor you reference followed suit, I think it's possible, if not probable, that monies were sent elsewhere.
There have been so many fiascos it's hard to keep track.
Besides HSN, what happened with the Bo Dietl thing? Or Ecuador or SE Asia or all of those major companies testing the software for months on end, the "whales".
They've come through on nothing, ever. Even the BlankRome offices don't use their software.
And yet they've been able to shrewdly calculate that an unending supply of rookie penny stock investors could be enticed to enable them to continue to live the lifestyles they've become accustomed to.
Remember when SFOR did segments on HSN to try to sell anti-keylogging software? That was such a boneheaded idea that everyone whose name isn't Kay should have sold their shares asap.
They tried selling software the way appliances were sold in the 20th century. These guys would have to get seriously clued in just to rise to the level of cluelessness.
It's a crap company with a crap stock that seriously overpays management. I can't see any other way to look at it.
To put it in one perspective, ZRFY is going to have 10B shares outstanding and Amazon currently has 10.2B.
What does that mean? It means, for one thing, that they have a crap business plan (duh) and that a reverse split is headed our way.
About this there is no doubt. Kay is flat out a sociopath.
That's a silly and pointless comment. Stick with stuff you know something about, whatever that might be.
And this surprises you, why?
When it comes to SFOR / ZRFY, Kay left the reality based community years ago. His is a construct of "alternative facts".
As proof of this I refer you to anything he's publicly stated about the company at any time.
But they did have the choice of either awarding themselves an ungodly number of shares or giving something back to long suffering shareholders.
What I meant was the money in their bank accounts, thanks to us - of course the company is worthless, but not so their personal wealth.
I think the investment universe has confirmed that the patents are worthless, too.
An expected deal fell through? Another entity went back on its word to invest in SFOR? I think all he needs to do is come up with plausible deniability.
We all know he's a lying, two-faced, weasel. Proving it in court is a whole different thing.
As I asked Maronti: if things get too hot for them on the legal front, what's to keep them from declaring bankruptcy and walking away with our money?
I'm no lawyer, but I think you'd have to prove something along the line of malicious intent. I mean, not to excuse Kay, who's a rat of the first order, but he could possibly claim that even though they had filed for a reverse split, that he was hoping, and had reason to believe, it might be avoided.
You buy fire insurance and don't get a refund if you don't have a fire, right?
Where did you get "joking" from?
Who was punished for the bank-caused collapse of 2008?
"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime" - Balzac
If, against all odds, the lawsuit against the Three Stooges looks like it's going to succeed, what's to keep them from declaring bankruptcy and walking away. It's another whole heavy lift to prove them personally responsible for our losses, which you would then have to do.
Really, man, turn the page, it's over - there's limited satisfaction to be gained by continually banging your head against a wall.
I just can't see how you would prove malfeasance in this particular case, that is, intent to do harm.
Kay will simply claim that those previous statements of his (lies) were made in good faith and just wound up being wrong or not working out.
Where's the evidence that he intended harm to share holders? Isn't that what's necessary to prove your case? I mean what, exactly, is the crime?
So, I think that you approaching other exhibitors at the Meadowlands event or maybe attendees, as it seems you did, comes a little close to harassment, if not stalking.
If no one bought this crap stock, the company would die on the vine, they certainly don't make much in sales. It's the never ending new generations of sucker investors who are enabling this.
Listen, Jimmy Carter once said that life isn't fair. This is what he meant. People get away with crimes 24/7, this is just another one. If you want to spend $10's of Ks (at least) going after these guys legally, have at it. The SEC is overwhelmed and understaffed to respond to all of the complaints about all of the crooked management teams of microcap stocks, of which there are very very many.
In the meantime, social media is a powerful tool for giving companies bad reviews and spreading the word. Surely you can find a place to warn people off this company and these products.
Aah, got it. Yeah, but it's probably not a good idea to try to negatively influence participants in a CofC conference about another participant. I agree with your description of Kay, but be careful of the libel laws.
Your posts are confusing me in that many people have written stuff, here and elsewhere, trashing Kay's ethics and the company's lack of accomplishments.
It doesn't completely make sense that they'd single you out for legal harassment. There must be more to the story, I'm not sure you're being completely candid.
Where are you going to get the money to go up against BlankRome, ZRFY's attorneys of record? They're not going to jail and we're not getting our money back. We've been had. End of story.
I think if that's probable, or even likely, there would be a line of people trying to buy ZRFY stock and the price would move up considerably. It's not like any of this is a secret.
Why hasn't Kay hired numerous writers to pen articles for various publications, print and online, describing the process and how much trouble and unfair it is and how it's negatively impacted his company and hurt shareholders?
I guess his time is better spent presenting at CofC conventions.
Another one man operation customer for ZRFY! From NJ, probably as a result of the CofC event. From his website:
"Accessibility – My phone (Bob Newman) is always open to calls from customers, no matter what time of day or night."
The courts seem to be corrupt only in cases one loses, eh?
But as I've pointed out endlessly, they didn't run out of money. They had received a $1M patent litigation loan and the amount they spent on this was way way below that.
They were represented in court by the lawyer who argued and won the Obergefell case in front of the Supreme Court, legalizing gay marriage.
I agree he did a terrible job, here, but it was not due to lack of funding.
So says you. And again, they had the option of going before the entire Appeals Court and declined to do so. Disparage the process all you like but SFOR dropping the case is the elephant in the room
That should not have kept SFOR from going before the larger appeals court though
That's silly. If they created it they can patent it. If their patent was refused, as it was, it's because they didn't make a convincing case that they created it. Otherwise, they had the option of going before the entire Appeals Court, instead of just the 3 who heard it, yet they declined. So, why didn't they pursue it further?
Hint: because it was a garbage case and everyone knew it.
Before this case was heard, SFOR took out a $1M patent litigation loan. They used a fraction of it for legal fees and, instead of using it for more legal fees, I assume the rest went into their pockets.
that seems to be a distinction without a difference. if the patents weren't enforced what value are they?
Cant tell if your apparent condescending attitude is joking or what.
First, Appeals Court denied SFOR the patent for OOB, so the claim that SFOR invented it is specious.
Second. It. doesnt seem that you bothered to look at that company's website. You just dove right in with the illuminating lesson about placeholders.
Third. I know well the various distances between towns in that part of NJ. Plainsboro to E Rutherford is about 50 miles. People commute further than that on a daily basis, so Im sure going there 1 time to be exposed to numerous possible customers is within the realm of the possible. If someone lived a little NE of that office, the distance would obviously be less.
Mark can't sell anything, period, haven't you noticed?
If this software was anywhere near the quality that this management team claims, there would be a bidding war to buy the company out.
It's the same old same old. SFOR / VRFY has the best in whatever class product but apparently not so good that anyone wants to buy it.
Anyone with a firm grip on reality should be able to look at what's going on here and realize that there's something wrong with the picture.
Not only that, but have a look at their website. What's written is largely incoherent, literally, and there are headers for sections for which there is no content.
Also, they repeatedly mention that the company is right outside Princeton, which adds zero value to anything.
This is probably the level of deals that came out of the C of C presentation.
Let's put this another way: they don't give a shit about retail investors.
Exactly. He must be coordinating with the groups that buy during a dilution.
We know that in the past he treated large-ish shareholders differently than us regular retail guys, gave them info we didn't get.
Sorry, it's not a difficult concept. Investors aren't going to buy shares in a company whose management is paid more than the company earns.
They did a reverse split in 2014, 2 in 2015, and again in 2020.
Just looking at the above, would you buy shares, now? You're attempting to revive hope in the stock, which is fine, if not pumping, but there's no underlying context for it.
It's as likely the Tooth Fairy will put money under your pillow tonight as it is that the Three Stooges will turn a profit and share the wealth.
Of course you never say never, but this management team isn't incentivized in the slightest to care about share holders. I mean, at this price, why won't they buy a few million shares on the open market to signify insider confidence in the company?
Regardless, not sure I'm understanding your point. That if was once higher and now isn't so therefore might be higher again? Its chart indicates bankruptcy is the more likely outcome.
Let me ask you this. Who is buying shares of a stock of a company in which the CEO earns more than the company's gross revenues? How will demand for shares outstrip supply (raising share price) in this scenario?
If investors thought highly of this company they would buy shares at the market price, like company insiders do. Ok, wait.
"A collateralized debt obligation (CDO) is a complex structured finance product that is backed by a pool of loans and other assets and sold to institutional investors. A CDO is a particular type of derivative because, as its name implies, its value is derived from another underlying asset."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032315/were-collateralized-debt-obligations-cdo-responsible-2008-financial-crisis.asp
The high in 4/20 was .60, it was nowhere near a dollar. Then, in June the glorious 1:500 reverse split.
"performance quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results"
A standard disclaimer, of course, but tailor made to this situation. A bout of irrational exuberance in the past does not make for a credible argument about realistic potential, going forward.
I refer you to the dot com bubble and the era of CDOs.
Hey, they only have to dilute to the tune of about 125K shares to pay their dues. No problemo!