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 bought SPNG today $.0218 , IMO "The Group" is going to make a run to 52 week high , then DUMP it hard > Dont be last one left holding ..... this stock is toast long term , but it has action for those willing to risk it all .. IMO
WITH THE COST OF AIR TIME FALLING, MORE SMALL COMPANIES ARE DISCOVERING THE BENEFITS OF INFOMERCIALS. Here’s something you may not know about infomercials: They work, and a growing number of small businesses are using them. In fact, amid widespread weakness in the retail sector, companies behind the Shamwow, PedEgg, and other products are thriving, thanks to infomercials, also known as direct-response television, or DRTV. TeleBrands Corp., creator of the PedEgg foot-care product, says profits are up 30% from the same period last year. Square One Entertainment, the seller of the Shamwow absorbent towels, says it has sold 48 million Shamwow products since launching in November 2007. Sam Catanese, president and CEO of Infomercial Monitoring Service Inc., estimates the number of businesses using infomercials has risen 10% in the past year. The recession, he says, “means more sales as businesses are getting better air time at lesser prices and more people are watching in places they weren’t watching before.” Indeed, some of the companies using direct-response television ads say they’re reaching consumers at a time when many people are jobless or spending more time at home, watching more TV. Typically, DRTV comes in two forms: Two- to three-minute spots and 20- to 30-minute infomercials that explain how a product is used, and why the customer needs it, through demonstrations and testimonials.
wow..this sure does sound like the typical penny stock scam... "uplisting PR" , share strucure changes daily, gagged unagged TA , disclosure questions, Massive PR machine touting "purchase orders"... MASSIVE Paid for PR campaign to sell STOCK, this company may be legit , I see the adds all the time, but until it STOPS acting like a scammy penny stock it will flounder in the pennies.. a shame IMO - Doug Furth , uplisting, PR touting purchase order sales, wow... the list of penny stock red flags is long IMO
Blue Chip alleges Furth to violate security laws
Here is another lawsuit against Furth alledging securities law violations . Douglas Furth is a large investor in Spongetech , if you go to some of the other message boards you will find his name posted in the "ibox" as large shareholder .
Blue Chip alleges Furth to violate security laws
The Plaintiff, Blue Chip IR Group, LTD (“Blue Chip”) is a Nevada limited liabilitycompany doing business in Utah. Blue Chip is a shareholder in Ever-Glory International Group,Inc. (“EGLY”), a publicly traded company with securities registered with the SEC. DefendantFurth, a “financial public relations specialist,” entered into an agreement with Blue Chip inwhich Furth was to purchase EGLY shares as well as use his expertise to open new markets forEGLY shares, increasing share value. Blue Chip would compensate Furth by transferring175,000 EGLY shares to Furth in an account at Wilson-Davis & Co., located in Salt Lake City,Utah. Blue Chip alleges that Furth has or intends to violate applicable security laws byartificially manipulating the volume and price for EGLY shares.
Case 2:06-cv-00185-DS Document 27 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 8
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Page 2
2Upon learning of Furth’s alleged illegal activities, Blue Chip demanded that heimmediately cease any activities regarding Blue Chip and return all EGLY shares. Wilson-Davisfroze Furth’s account, which resulted in Furth filing suit in the Northern District of Ohio onFebruary 22, 2006. On February 23, 2006, Blue Chip filed suit in the Utah State District Court,alleging common law fraud, breach of contract, securities fraud, and requesting declaratory reliefand injunctive relief. On March 1, 2006 Furth amended his complaint in Ohio and included BlueChip as a defendant. On March 1, 2006 Furth removed the plaintiff’s claims to this court. InApril 2006 Furth filed this Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to theNorthern District of Ohio. Blue Chip has moved to strike the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, onthe grounds that these pleadings were drafted and filed with the Court not by Mr. Furth appearingpro se as represented thereon, but rather by the firm of Levin & Associates, Co., L.P.A
Blue Chip Group v. Furth
Case Number: 2:2006cv00185
Filed: March 2, 2006
Court: Utah District Court
Office: Central Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Judge David Sam
Nature of Suit: Torts - Property - Other Fraud
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Blue Chip IR Group, Ltd. v. Furth et al
Keyword tags: None
Case Number: 1:2006cv01939
Filed: August 14, 2006
Court: Ohio Northern District Court
Office: Cleveland Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Hon. Patricia A. Gaughan
Nature of Suit: Torts - Property - Other Fraud
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
First Responder Products Inc v. Douglas G Furth et al
SPNG financeer / insiders have history of Stock Manipulation allegations.... IMO Watch out for Doug Furth "The Group" USING ILLEGAL "short swing" trades" > IMO
Plaintiff: First Responder Products Inc
Defendant: Douglas G Furth, Mark Fixler, Jag Enterprises LLC, Michel Attias, Brendon Attias, Timothy Garlin and Does
Case Number: 8:2008cv00586
Filed: May 27, 2008
Court: California Central District Court
Office: Southern Division - Santa Ana Office [ Court Info ]
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Carney
Referring Judge: Abrams
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-8:2008cv00586/case_id-416779/
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On May 27, 2008, as previously reported, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV08-00586 CJC (PLAx) alleging securities law violations and fraud against Douglas G. Furth individually and allegedly dba Millennium Consulting Group, Inc., a defunct Ohio corporation; Mark Fixler; JAG Enterprises, LLC; Michel Attias; Brendon Attias; Timothy Garlin; and various DOE defendants for disgorgement of short-swing profits in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 16(b) and for recovery of damages for fraud and deceit. These defendants, collectively, refer to themselves as “the Group”. The amount of defendants’ short-swing profit liability is unknown at this time but the Company intends to engage in expedited discovery to determine defendants’ trading profits which, by statute, must be returned to the Company. The lawsuit also sought the return of one million shares of stock given to the Group Defendants as consideration for alleged consulting services which were never performed, and which allowed the Group Defendants to engage in, as the Company alleges, illegal manipulation of the Company's stock
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6166680-71351-76415&type=sect&dcn=0001116502-08-001559
SPNG executives > $5.5million Judgment against Lazauskas, Metter, Moscati, Pisani
HERE IS a lawsSuit filed July9, 2008 against the CEO and some top guys at SpongeTech. Funny , I do NOT Re-call seeing this in the SPNG filings? It sure does sound like SpongeTech related promotions, It appears SPNG CEO, and some top dogs are personally liable for $5.5 million in this case , thus far.... Very Interesting for SPNG investors.....
U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Contracts
Court Grants Summary Judgment Enforcing Personal Guarantees for $5.5 Million Loan
BC Media Funding Company II v. Lazauskas
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/PLL/2008_11_3
BC Media Funding Company II et al v. Lazauskas et al
Plaintiffs: BC Media Funding Company II and Media Funding Company
Defendants: Frank Lazauskas, Michael L. Metter, Leonard Moscati and E. Michael Pisani
Case Number: 1:2008cv06228
Filed: July 9, 2008
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Contract: Other Office [ Court Info ]
County: NewYork
Presiding Judge: Judge Robert P. Patterson
Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract
Cause: Diversity
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1441 Notice of Removal
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2008cv06228/case_id-329108/
WHO IS BC Media Funding Company II:
Investment Management and Merchant Banking Services
The Investment Management and Merchant Banking Services business was launched in 2003 as an outgrowth of the firm's advisory activities and initially oriented toward acquiring seller notes. Barker Capital began its lending activities after identifying the underserved niche of lower middle market media companies and media entrepreneurs. In Barker Capital’s experience, such companies and individuals often are overlooked by money center banks, which are focused primarily on larger media transactions, and other banks, which often do not have the necessary media expertise.
In 2004, Barker Capital closed BC Media Fund I to make senior secured loans to lower-middle market media companies and media entrepreneurs. Due to the success of Fund I and increasing deal flow, BC Media Fund II was launched in 2008.
Barker Capital does not have preset minimum or maximum loan sizes or terms, but most funded loans have been in amounts between $5.0 and $15.0 million for between one and three years. Most of the loans have been derived from proprietary deal flow that is reflective of Barker Capital’s extensive relationships in the media business.
http://www.barkercap.com/about.htm
WHO IS > Media Funding Company
MEDIA FUNDING CORPORATION is a funding source for successfully tested direct response campaigns in TV, radio, print, voice broadcast, mail and email.
Media Funding DOES NOT require clients to give up equity in their shows or pay up-front fees or deposits. In addition, because of its experience and position in the industry, it can assist its clients in attaining the best in support services such as fulfillment and merchant banking services at excellent rates.
The principal of MFC has over thirteen years of DRTV experience, which include some of the industry's most stunning success stories. So along with the crucial capital you need, MFC also provides a wealth of experience to assist you in achieving the most cost effective and reliable combination of vendors and procedures to establish your foundation for ongoing profitability.
MFC works with most media agencies buying direct response media, so your choice of media agency can be one of the industry leaders, or a smaller boutique. The choice is yours.
MFC's Preferred Vendor list also includes the three leading credit card processors in DRTV, many fulfillment houses across the country, and the industry's leading telemarketers.
http://www.mediafunding.com/aboutus/thecompany.htm
Lots of ERHE news as of late, The ROO is a reality , sounds like multiple ROOs' are in the works, talks of buyouts and mergers with some large players, The news has been good for ERHE , but still can not hit that 52week high, It sure seems ERHE future looks brighter then when it traded at higher levels... When will the stock price reflect the news? What is the disconnect, the stock has done well as of late, but dont you think it should be doing much better? Well it does currently have a $325 million market cap and zero revenues , the market does not seem to be sold just yet on ERHE , IMO the stock price does not reflect the true value , or , something is going on in background we dont know... interesting company for sure... IMO
As a result, it is anticipated that no assets will be available for distribution to stockholders.
I got some at $1.46 , sold some NXG at loss , going to hope for good filing here, increased production is waht I want to see from CDE...
I am going to be selling heavy this week , my portfolio is really green , but no cash :( , I want to buy some UNG calls , I like the JAN2010 CALL 30 , Hoping it will come back some , /.50 or less.... would be nice... Might just buy at the .80 ask... Oil has done well, NatGas is really trailing...but for how long? Want to hold some UNG when that spike comes.... it did pop up nicely last week,,, may have already begun to turn up...
lol, with what volume? I dont see any even remotely real money crossing the WEGI tape.... lol....
Jim Dial is next , very soon IMO.eom
lolgoodluckwiththatthisyear.eom
ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION INTO GRIFCO:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-05-01/webextra33-2.php
Risky Business:
Risky BusinessHow did state representative Allen Fletcher—the chairman of a House subcommittee on white-collar crime—find his very own company tangled up in, well, a white-collar crime investigation? Web preview: A version of this story will be published in the June 2009 issue of TEXAS MONTHLY.
A federal civil complaint filed last fall by the U.S. attorney’s office alleges that a company affiliated with Tomball state representative Allen Fletcher, the chairman of a House subcommittee on white-collar crime, was involved in securities fraud. No criminal case has been filed in the alleged fraud, and an attempt to confiscate more than $3 million in assets seized from the company and related parties stalled in November 2008, at which time the money was returned. Federal authorities left themselves the option of trying again, however, and spokespersons for both the U.S. attorney’s office and the FBI have declined to describe the investigation as closed. The complaint, obtained recently by TEXAS MONTHLY, together with other documents reviewed for this story, raises a question about the freshman legislator’s business dealings: How does a man like Allen Fletcher, a retired police sergeant who spent years heading a white-collar-crimes unit at the Houston Police Department, find himself in business with a group of alleged con artists?
Fletcher, who was elected to the House in 2008 representing District 130, in northwestern Harris County, owns a company called Resource Protection Management, or RPM, which provides security guards and other security services, and, until recently, sold burglar- and fire-alarm systems. In May 2007, Fletcher took on a business partner named Lois Newman, who, through her company, NuTech, purchased half of RPM. Acting on a tip received that same spring, the Harris County district attorney’s office began investigating NuTech along with another company that Newman once helped direct, Grifco International, and began building a case that both companies were being used for a stock manipulation scheme known as “scalping.” Investigators concluded that Newman and her son-in-law, a stock promoter named Evan “Nick” Jarvis, and others were artificially inflating the prices of NuTech and Grifco stock and benefiting from sales of those stocks that they did not disclose to shareholders. (This type of scam is also known as a “pump and dump.”) Both companies are penny stocks that trade through brokerage vehicles commonly known as “pink sheets,” which operate largely below the radar of federal regulators.
In the case of Grifco, which purported to be an oil field equipment firm, the stock was allegedly inflated in part through a series of bogus press releases about Coil Tubing Technology, a company Grifco had recently acquired. According to the federal complaint, Grifco stock promoters falsely claimed that the company had developed and shipped an improved type of jet motor, when in fact work on the motor was still two years from completion. The complaint also identifies a series of press releases that Nick Jarvis, the stock promoter, prepared for NuTech. Although Fletcher and RPM are not mentioned by name in the complaint, TEXAS MONTHLY has reviewed the NuTech press releases cited by the complaint, and virtually all of them tout Fletcher’s alleged accomplishments and promising developments at RPM. In particular, NuTech flogged a new type of burglar alarm system known as “dual notification,” which was said to use proprietary technology developed by RPM to drastically reduce police response time. Fletcher’s entry into politics was also used as a selling point; in one press release, NuTech informed potential stock buyers that Fletcher had decided to run for state office, noting that he had the support of Dan Patrick, the Republican state senator and popular radio host from Houston.
According to the federal complaint, the press releases, in conjunction with a spam campaign, helped boost NuTech’s stock to $3.50 by August 2007, by which time Newman had issued millions of shares to herself and to her son-in-law Jarvis. Though he was urging investors to buy NuTech stock at the time, the complaint alleges that Jarvis quickly sold his own stock for about $950,000. According to the complaint, Jarvis then kicked some of the proceeds back to Newman. Jarvis also made about $2 million on sales of Grifco stock. According to the complaint, investors should have been informed that Jarvis was selling large volumes of the same stocks he was promoting, and that insiders in the two companies were being issued millions of shares of stock.
Things began to unravel when Coil Tubing’s chief financial officer, Edwin Leonard, became suspicious about his new business associates. According to a search warrant affidavit filed by the Harris County district attorney’s office, Nick Jarvis allegedly hired an acquaintance to stage a robbery of Leonard at his home, apparently in the hope of recovering a laptop containing the company’s accounting files. Leonard went to the police. On December 18, 2007, investigators raided the homes of Jarvis and Newman, and seized property and bank accounts controlled by the two. Officers also arrested Jarvis on a robbery charge. When Harris County authorities decided to turn the case over to federal investigators, the robbery charge against Jarvis was dropped. To date no federal criminal charges have been filed against anyone involved in the investigation.
Asked last week about his involvement in the alleged scam, Fletcher said that he had no knowledge of any illegal activities involving his company. “I’m the victim here,” he said. Fletcher said that he knew press releases were being issued about his activities, but he denied actively participating in their drafting, despite the fact that most of them contain quotes from Fletcher himself. One of the releases refers investors to an audio interview that Fletcher recorded on a Web site that promotes penny stocks. Fletcher acknowledged doing the interview, which was posted on November 1, 2007, six weeks before the raid on Jarvis and Newman, but he said that everything in the press releases and the interview was accurate and factual.
“I thought Nick could take my company and take my story and raise money legitimately and help us turn our company around,” Fletcher explained. Fletcher said RPM had never recovered from losing its biggest contract, providing security at the Enron complex in Houston, and that the company was in serious financial trouble when Jarvis approached him. Fletcher said he knew that Jarvis was building an enormous new house in an exclusive Montgomery County subdivision, and that when Jarvis pulled up to RPM’s offices in Tomball to pitch him on the NuTech deal, he was driving a $100,000 Mercedes-Benz. “I’m telling’ you I didn’t have a clue he wasn’t legitimate,” Fletcher said. “He had all the legitimate trappings; why would I think that Nick wasn’t?”
In fact, there were, or should have been, warning signs about the NuTech deal from the start. Jarvis is a felon who served time in the penitentiary for burglary and drug convictions in 1995. Fletcher, whose company performs background checks on prospective employees for clients, told TEXAS MONTHLY he had had no idea that Jarvis had served time in prison. He conceded that he or a business partner had found a criminal history for Jarvis when they checked him out, but that Jarvis had explained away the charge, and that he never really followed up on the issue.
But Fletcher had crossed paths with the Jarvis family before, and, by his own account, had doubts about their business endeavors. Fletcher said he first met Nick Jarvis at a Tomball bowling alley owned by Nick’s brother John. Nick managed the bowling alley, and Lois Newman ran the counter. John Jarvis had incorporated a series of penny stock companies in Montgomery County over the years, hawking a variety of ventures: independent films, casinos, online gambling—even a data center to be built in a renovated underground nuclear fallout shelter. Fletcher told me that in 2004, John Jarvis brought him a business proposition, offering to help him raise money from investors by merging RPM into a publicly traded shell company known as LitFiber. It was essentially the same type of deal that Nick Jarvis would bring Fletcher two and a half years later. Fletcher said that he got out of the deal with John Jarvis because he didn’t like the way he was promoting the new enterprise—issuing press releases in support of the stock that Fletcher considered false, or at least greatly exaggerated. In other words, Fletcher now says he felt he was being drawn into a scam very similar to the one described in the federal complaint against Grifco and NuTech. In fact, according to the Harris County search warrant affidavit, the same shell company John Jarvis offered to Fletcher was eventually used to acquire Coil Tubing. (John Jarvis, who could not be reached for this story, has also had trouble with the law, having been convicted of felony check forgery in the late eighties. Fletcher told TEXAS MONTHLY he was unaware of this fact.)
Why would Fletcher agree to do business with Nick Jarvis if he felt he had just been burned in an almost identical deal by his brother John Jarvis? At the time Fletcher said yes to Nick’s deal, he was also being sued by a businessman named James Buchanan in Massachusetts, who claimed that Fletcher and a Miami investment broker named Mychal Jefferson had tried to defraud him in yet another effort to raise capital for RPM. Fletcher said that Nick told him he was no longer doing business with his brother John, because the two had had a falling out. “He says, ‘Look, I know you’ve been burned. You walked away from John’s deal. And I know that you got burned on the Buchanan deal. The reason both of those deals [came up] is because your company is prime for this, and because of your technology for the patent-pending methodology for the dual notification. I’m telling you that if you get with somebody that’s legitimate, like me, we can make this happen.” Fletcher said that he and his business partner had the deal vetted by an attorney and decided to go ahead with it. The contract Fletcher signed was countersigned by Lois Newman, who was handing out shoes at the bowling alley when Fletcher first met her. Her title now was “NuTech president.”
Fletcher, who recently settled the Buchanan suit, said he was a victim of deception in that case as well and denied any wrongdoing. In a relatively short period of time, in other words, Fletcher claims he was talked into participating in three different efforts to raise capital for his company, each of which ended in legal trouble and allegations of wrongdoing. “Have I said to myself more than once, ‘What a dumbass. In a two-year period, you got drove off into this stuff’?” Fletcher said. “Little ol’ me, our company, all we were doing was trying to make payroll every two weeks, trying to stay open. That’s all I was doing.” Fletcher continued, “And you know what, you really don’t know sometimes, when you have people that show up saying they’re going to put money into your company, you don’t know that their money might not be good. I’m not trying to be naïve here. I’m a cop.”
Mychal Jefferson, the broker who brought Fletcher the Buchanan deal, was also involved in the LitFiber deal in 2004. He said he warned Fletcher about the Jarvis brothers after the LitFiber deal didn’t pan out. “I have no idea why he would go into business with them again,” he said of the NuTech deal. “Unless it was desperation.” Fletcher acknowledged that RPM owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to creditors during this time, and that he was having trouble meeting payroll on a regular basis. He was borrowing money wherever he could to keep RPM afloat. According to court records, Fletcher was also being sued during that period by a Tomball man named Ronald Morgan, who had lent Fletcher $65,000 and hadn’t been repaid. In fact, TEXAS MONTHLY has determined that Fletcher owed several people in Montgomery County large sums of money at the time of the NuTech deal. Sometime in 2003, for example, Fletcher borrowed $50,000 from David Johnston, a retired police officer who was working part-time as a security guard for RPM. Johnston died before he could recover his money. “We’re talking about a very unsophisticated, seventy-year-old man,” said Johnston’s son Chris Johnston, who has been trying to recover the money from Fletcher for the past several years.
Asked about these debts, Fletcher acknowledged that he had borrowed money from a number of people and failed to repay it in full, but he said that he kept careful track of the debts, which he characterized variously as investments or loans to RPM. Fletcher said he had repaid a portion of the debt owed to Johnston’s family and that he had recently promised to repay the remainder. Fletcher settled Ronald Morgan’s suit in June 2007 by paying him the full amount owed. (Fletcher told TEXAS MONTHLY he was able to repay Morgan only by borrowing money from somebody else.) He attributed his inability to make good on most of his debts to the disastrous deals he’s been a victim of in recent years. “I’ve said more than once how blessed I am to have survived this. My in-laws, my brother-in-law, my best friend from college, people that are retired from HPD that work with me—these people all lost money on investing in RPM. I could have filed bankruptcy fifteen times. I could have walked away from all this. But I told them, “As God is my witness, the day will come when I pay you back,’” he said. “And you know what some of them have told me? ‘Well, if you can, fine. Don’t worry about it.’” He continued, “Because you know what, people make investments every day and they lose money, but I felt like because they stepped out and did this for me, and invested in me, that I owed them the money and I’m gonna pay them.”
Fletcher also owed approximately $600,000 to a wealthy investor in Magnolia named David Weber, whom Fletcher describes as his business partner. (Weber did not return phone calls for this story.) After the December 2007 raid on Jarvis and Newman, Weber demanded the most valuable part of RPM—all the company’s alarm-monitoring contracts—as compensation for the debt. Fletcher agreed, and Weber took the contracts and opened a new security company. Today Fletcher has just a handful of security guard contracts, including providing guards for the Montgomery County courthouse, as well as some businesses in the Tomball area. His wife runs the business out of the couple’s house, and Fletcher says they are barely breaking even. “The truth is that this has ruined me,” he said. “As God is my witness, I will never, as long as I live, ever let anybody talk to me about taking my company public again.”
The raid was not reported in the press, and Fletcher was not publicly linked to the investigation. By the time of the raid, he had already raised $35,000 dollars for his political campaign—the primary was less than three months away—and retained Senator Dan Patrick’s chief of staff, Court Koenning, as his campaign consultant. Fletcher, who said he has never been contacted by investigators about the case, said he heard about the raid from old friends in the district attorney’s office. “When I agreed to run for this office, I did not have a clue—not a clue—that Nick Jarvis was fixing to get arrested in a few days. And when I heard that, I thought, ‘Well, that’s some shit. I hope that doesn’t hit the front page.’” In the months leading up to the primary election, Patrick, who owns a Houston radio station, donated nearly $50,000 in free radio advertising to Fletcher’s campaign. Patrick, who was in a well-publicized feud with the Republican incumbent Fletcher was trying to unseat, also provided more than $18,000 in campaign mailings for Fletcher, making him Fletcher’s biggest single contributor by far.
Fletcher said he did not tell Patrick or Koenning about the raid or that he had been in business with Jarvis. “When that came up, it was my belief that it would have been unfair—with the commitment [Patrick] made to me—it would have been unfair to bring that up to him,” Fletcher said. “I will tell you right now that there’s no doubt in my mind that if Dan Patrick had talked to me about that, he would have known I had nothing to do with it, he would have backed me all the way.”
Contacted earlier this week, Senator Patrick said he was unaware of the investigation into NuTech or the arrest of Jarvis but that he did not regret his decision to endorse Fletcher. “Unless I find out other information, I stand by Allen. He’s done a great job,” Patrick said.
Fletcher said he never made any money off the NuTech deal, nor did he profit from the LitFiber deal or the James Buchanan deal. Fletcher acknowledged that he bought a $409,000 house in Tomball in December 2007, just before the NuTech deal fell apart. (His previous home was assessed at $115,000.) But Fletcher said that no proceeds from the NuTech deal were used to buy the house. After the raid on Jarvis and Newman, Fletcher said that attorneys for RPM formally ended the company’s association with NuTech and that he also at that time returned NuTech stock that had been issued to him. (The value of NuTech shares had plummeted by the end of 2007.) As a company insider, Fletcher’s shares were restricted, and he was never able to sell them, he said.
Fletcher did receive tangible benefits from the NuTech deal, however. He acknowledged, for example, that NuTech provided money to RPM as part of their business agreement, though he said he had no way of knowing if the money came from illicit activities. He also acknowledged that NuTech wrote checks to David Weber, in essence helping to pay down the debt that Fletcher owed Weber and forestalling Weber’s eventual takeover of RPM’s most valuable assets.
Fletcher also acknowledged that he received $50,000 from Mychal Jefferson as an up-front payment prior to the failed Buchanan deal, though the details of that transaction are in dispute. According to Jefferson, Fletcher called him shortly after the LitFiber deal fell through, asking for money to pay down a line of credit at his bank, which was threatening to shut down RPM if he didn’t make an immediate payment. Fletcher acknowledged that the $50,000 went to the bank, but he said that it was Jefferson that contacted him, not vice versa, and that his situation was not as dire as Jefferson described.
In the months following the raid on Jarvis and Newman, the stock fraud investigation seemed to bog down. Federal authorities dragged their feet after taking the case over from Harris County prosecutors. Meanwhile, Newman and Jarvis hired top Houston trial lawyer Dick DeGuerin, who began pressuring the government to either file an official forfeiture action in court or return the seized money and assets—which included cars, jet skis, office equipment, and other items—to his clients. A state judge set a deadline, and assistant U.S. attorneys filed their complaint on the last possible day. As an associate at DeGuerin’s firm argued convincingly in his motion to dismiss the case, the complaint seemed rushed and incomplete, containing a great deal less detail, for example, than the search warrant affidavit prepared by the Harris County district attorney’s office at the time of the raid. Rather than risk an unfavorable ruling from the judge, the government voluntarily withdrew the complaint and returned the money. But the U.S. Attorney’s office withdrew “without prejudice to bring action in future,” which means prosecutors are free to refile the case with a revised complaint at any time. Attorneys for Newman and Jarvis told TEXAS MONTHLY that their clients have done nothing wrong.
One of the first bills Fletcher filed as a new state legislator was a measure making the organizing of a Ponzi scheme a first-degree felony, a move he now says was a response to the fraud he says he has been a victim of in recent years. Fletcher likes to tell people that RPM really stands for “Retired Police Men,” and the walls of his Capitol office are covered with mementos from his many years at the Houston Police Department. Last week, Fletcher was asked what he would say if someone asked how it was that Edwin Leonard, the Coil Tubing employee who blew the whistle on Jarvis and Newman, caught on to the alleged scam before Fletcher, with his years of experience investigating white-collar crime. “I’d say that I was a victim, just like all the rich people that gave money to Madoff and Stanford. And that’s why I’m up here trying to pass a bill so the rest of us don’t get taken advantage of,” he replied. “And I’m gonna be real hard—real hard—to burn again.”
If u match up the dates in this last post with PR , I bet you will find some interesting coincedences...
American Finance Corp. Announces Agreement With Grifco International
June 2005
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200506/ai_n14714419/
Grifco Reps Traveling to China and Venezuela in July
June 2005
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200506/ai_n14714478/
The Lyamec Corporation and Grifco International Make Amends on Global Oil Tools Acquisition
JUNE 2005
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-06-0609-008.shtml
Grifco International Extends to World's Largest Coil Tubing Market
JUNE 2005
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Grifco-International-Inc-662134.html
THEN TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATES THEY WERE SELLING SHARES - I ONLY LOOKED INTO JUNE 2005 AND POSTED ONLY A FEW OF THE OUTRIGHT PR LIES , IT IS CLEAR IN MY EYES - IMO - AMERICAN , LYAMEC , RG RAYMOND ARE/WERE INVOLVED IN THE GAME....
SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21019.pdf
On June 13, 2005, GGI employees participated in a conference call with a Grifco officer (“Officer”), in which the Officer told GGI that Grifco needed funds to purchase equipment and inventory immediately. On June 14, 2005, the parties executed a stock sale agreement pursuant to which Grifco issued GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted, nonexempt Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds. The agreement called for GGI to fund a portion of Grifco’s stock sales up front and then split the remaining stock proceeds with Grifco after GGI had sold the stock into the marketplace.
10.
On June 14, 2005, Grifco issued 1.5 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI, which GGI promptly transferred into one of its brokerage accounts. Two days later, on June 16, 2005, GGI received a two-sentence opinion letter from Grifco’s
3
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 4 of 8
attorney, which indicated, in its entirety:
11.
On June 17, 2005, GGI wired $146,250 to Grifco. By close of business the following Tuesday, June 21, 2005, GGI sold over 140,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. By the end of the first week, GGI sold nearly 300,000 Grifco shares (20% of the purportedly unrestricted offering), generating gross proceeds of over $222,000. By August 18, 2005, GGI had sold all 1,500,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace.
12.
Soon after, on June 21, 2005 and June 29, 2005, GGI and Grifco entered into two additional stock sale agreements, which were virtually identical to the June 14, 2005 agreement. Each agreement called for Grifco to issue GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco shares and, in return, GGI provided Grifco with an upfront money advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds after GGI sold the stock. In each instance, GGI initiated trading within days of receiving the newly issued, unlegended Grifco certificates. By August 31, 2005, GGI had sold an additional 3,000,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. GGI received another two-sentence opinion letter in connection with the June 21, 2005 transaction and no legal opinion in connection with the June 29, 2005 transaction.
13.
In total, 4.5 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI between June 14, 2005 and August 31, 2005, with gross proceeds of approximately $2,017,338. GGI gave Grifco nearly $1.1 million from the sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2005 stock sales was approximately $840,487 after expenses.
4
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 5 of 8
14.
GGI failed to perform the necessary due diligence to determine whether the stock sale agreements with Grifco were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act. GGI relied entirely upon opinion letters and emails Grifco supplied to GGI, which represented, without explanation or justification, that the shares were “properly and legally issued” and could be sold “without limitation.” However, the offers and sales of stock were not registered with the Commission and there were no applicable exemptions from registration.
15.
In January 2006, GGI and Grifco entered into another stock sale agreement that covered multiple unregistered stock transactions. As with the 2005 agreements, the Grifco Officer represented to GGI that all of the funds sent to Grifco by GGI would be used to purchase equipment and inventory for Grifco. At the same time, the Grifco Officer also sought a personal loan from GGI of $400,000 in order to purchase a gentleman’s club. GGI agreed to enter into the stock sale agreement and also agreed to make the personal loan to the Grifco Officer.
16.
On Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco and GGI executed a stock sale agreement for 3.75 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance to Grifco, with Grifco receiving a majority percentage of the net sales proceeds. That same day, the Grifco Officer obtained the personal loan. The 2006 stock sale agreement provided that GGI had the option to enter into additional transactions on the same terms and conditions by giving written notice. That day, the Grifco Officer provided a signed written statement that “the Stock being issued to Golden Gate Investors under the January 20, 2006 Stock Sale Agreement (including additional transactions) has been and will be properly and legally issued by Grifco, may be
5
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 6 of 8
transferred to Golden Gate Investors and sold by Golden Gate Investors without limitation.”
17.
GGI did not request a legal opinion, and none was received. By close of business Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco issued 3.75 million shares to GGI. On the next trading day, January 23, 2006, GGI sold 142,000 shares of Grifco into the marketplace. GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the marketplace by April 10, 2006.
18.
On April 11, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On July 11, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between July 12 and August 1, 2006, GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the market.
19.
On August 2, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On September 27, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between October 4 and December 13, 2006, GGI sold all
3.75 million shares into the market.
20.
GGI neither received nor sought a legal opinion during 2006, and none was provided until October 3, 2006. The two-paragraph October 3, 2006 opinion, which purported to cover only the very last distribution of 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares of Grifco stock issued to GGI on September 27, 2006, indicated, in relevant part, that Grifco had “properly and legally issued . . . 3,750,000 free trading shares” of Grifco to GGI and that the shares may be “transferred to further purchasers and sold by those purchasers without limitation.”
6
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 7 of 8
21.
As with the 2005 unregistered transactions, GGI failed to perform the due diligence necessary to determine whether the 2006 agreement and the underlying transactions were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act and, instead, relied entirely upon Grifco’s representations that the stock was free trading without restriction.
22.
In total, 11.25 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI during 2006, with gross proceeds of approximately $1,773,431. GGI paid Grifco nearly $1.25 million from the stock sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2006 sales was approximately $429,420 after expenses. None of the securities transactions were registered with the Commission and the transactions did not satisfy any exemption from registration.
good reading : OTHER RELEVANT INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY
8. Grifco International, Inc. (“Grifco”), based in Conroe, Texas, is a publicly-traded corporation that claims to be an international provider of oil and gas services equipment. Grifco has never registered an offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Its shares are quoted by Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets Inc. (“Pink Sheets”) under the symbol GFCI.
FACTS
9.
On June 13, 2005, GGI employees participated in a conference call with a Grifco officer (“Officer”), in which the Officer told GGI that Grifco needed funds to purchase equipment and inventory immediately. On June 14, 2005, the parties executed a stock sale agreement pursuant to which Grifco issued GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted, nonexempt Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds. The agreement called for GGI to fund a portion of Grifco’s stock sales up front and then split the remaining stock proceeds with Grifco after GGI had sold the stock into the marketplace.
10.
On June 14, 2005, Grifco issued 1.5 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI, which GGI promptly transferred into one of its brokerage accounts. Two days later, on June 16, 2005, GGI received a two-sentence opinion letter from Grifco’s
3
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 4 of 8
attorney, which indicated, in its entirety:
11.
On June 17, 2005, GGI wired $146,250 to Grifco. By close of business the following Tuesday, June 21, 2005, GGI sold over 140,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. By the end of the first week, GGI sold nearly 300,000 Grifco shares (20% of the purportedly unrestricted offering), generating gross proceeds of over $222,000. By August 18, 2005, GGI had sold all 1,500,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace.
12.
Soon after, on June 21, 2005 and June 29, 2005, GGI and Grifco entered into two additional stock sale agreements, which were virtually identical to the June 14, 2005 agreement. Each agreement called for Grifco to issue GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco shares and, in return, GGI provided Grifco with an upfront money advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds after GGI sold the stock. In each instance, GGI initiated trading within days of receiving the newly issued, unlegended Grifco certificates. By August 31, 2005, GGI had sold an additional 3,000,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. GGI received another two-sentence opinion letter in connection with the June 21, 2005 transaction and no legal opinion in connection with the June 29, 2005 transaction.
13.
In total, 4.5 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI between June 14, 2005 and August 31, 2005, with gross proceeds of approximately $2,017,338. GGI gave Grifco nearly $1.1 million from the sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2005 stock sales was approximately $840,487 after expenses.
4
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 5 of 8
14.
GGI failed to perform the necessary due diligence to determine whether the stock sale agreements with Grifco were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act. GGI relied entirely upon opinion letters and emails Grifco supplied to GGI, which represented, without explanation or justification, that the shares were “properly and legally issued” and could be sold “without limitation.” However, the offers and sales of stock were not registered with the Commission and there were no applicable exemptions from registration.
15.
In January 2006, GGI and Grifco entered into another stock sale agreement that covered multiple unregistered stock transactions. As with the 2005 agreements, the Grifco Officer represented to GGI that all of the funds sent to Grifco by GGI would be used to purchase equipment and inventory for Grifco. At the same time, the Grifco Officer also sought a personal loan from GGI of $400,000 in order to purchase a gentleman’s club. GGI agreed to enter into the stock sale agreement and also agreed to make the personal loan to the Grifco Officer.
16.
On Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco and GGI executed a stock sale agreement for 3.75 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance to Grifco, with Grifco receiving a majority percentage of the net sales proceeds. That same day, the Grifco Officer obtained the personal loan. The 2006 stock sale agreement provided that GGI had the option to enter into additional transactions on the same terms and conditions by giving written notice. That day, the Grifco Officer provided a signed written statement that “the Stock being issued to Golden Gate Investors under the January 20, 2006 Stock Sale Agreement (including additional transactions) has been and will be properly and legally issued by Grifco, may be
5
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 6 of 8
transferred to Golden Gate Investors and sold by Golden Gate Investors without limitation.”
17.
GGI did not request a legal opinion, and none was received. By close of business Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco issued 3.75 million shares to GGI. On the next trading day, January 23, 2006, GGI sold 142,000 shares of Grifco into the marketplace. GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the marketplace by April 10, 2006.
18.
On April 11, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On July 11, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between July 12 and August 1, 2006, GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the market.
19.
On August 2, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On September 27, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between October 4 and December 13, 2006, GGI sold all
3.75 million shares into the market.
20.
GGI neither received nor sought a legal opinion during 2006, and none was provided until October 3, 2006. The two-paragraph October 3, 2006 opinion, which purported to cover only the very last distribution of 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares of Grifco stock issued to GGI on September 27, 2006, indicated, in relevant part, that Grifco had “properly and legally issued . . . 3,750,000 free trading shares” of Grifco to GGI and that the shares may be “transferred to further purchasers and sold by those purchasers without limitation.”
6
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 7 of 8
21.
As with the 2005 unregistered transactions, GGI failed to perform the due diligence necessary to determine whether the 2006 agreement and the underlying transactions were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act and, instead, relied entirely upon Grifco’s representations that the stock was free trading without restriction.
22.
In total, 11.25 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI during 2006, with gross proceeds of approximately $1,773,431. GGI paid Grifco nearly $1.25 million from the stock sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2006 sales was approximately $429,420 after expenses. None of the securities transactions were registered with the Commission and the transactions did not satisfy any exemption from registration.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21019 / April 30, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Golden State Equity Investors, Inc., Case No. 4:09-CV-01037 (S.D. Tex. filed April 30, 2009)
SEC Files Settled Action Against Golden State Equity Investors, Inc. for Securities Registration Violations
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") today filed a settled civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Golden State Equity Investors, Inc., formerly known as Golden Gate Investors, Inc. ("GGI"), for its alleged violations of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission's complaint alleges that, during the period from June 2005 through September 2006, Grifco International, Inc. ("Grifco"), a publicly-traded company that claims to be an international provider of oil and gas services equipment, issued 15,750,000 purportedly unrestricted, nonexempt securities to GGI. The agreements underlying the unregistered stock transactions provided that Grifco would issue GGI large blocks of Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds after the stock was sold. Shortly after receiving its shares, GGI sold its Grifco stock to the investing public and then returned a portion of the proceeds to Grifco. The complaint alleges that none of the securities transactions were registered with the Commission and the transactions did not satisfy any exemption from registration. The SEC alleges that, as a result of this conduct, GGI received nearly $3.8 million from the sale of newly-issued Grifco stock and remitted approximately $2.3 million of those proceeds to Grifco during 2005 and 2006. As a result, GGI's ill-gotten gains on these unregistered securities transactions were $1,269,907.
GGI, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining it from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. The final judgment also orders it to pay disgorgement of $1,269,907, plus $257,672 in prejudgment interest, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and The Harris County (Houston, Texas) District Attorney's Office.
GGI is not affiliated with Golden Gate Capital, a private equity firm based in San Francisco, California.
The investigation is ongoing.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21019.htm
SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21019.pdf
I just had to repost this , this IS exactly what a lot of us said was going on in 2005-2006 > DILLUTING , SELLING UNREGISTERED SHARES > Sure the OS at transfer agent was 41 million , and then ooops forgot to register was another 40 million woops , IMO insiders, on both sides GFCI/GGI, Others on fringe of both companies , SOLD GFCI unregistered shares into EVERY PR AND IMO they had BBB et al touting on the boards , touting to anyone that would listen, looking to deceive and trick investors into buying GFCI stock AND OR HOLDING GFCI stock , full knowing GFCI stock was a worthless shell, IMO the SEC is going to formally charge GFCI CEO JIM DIAL with securities violations very soon. it is only a matter of time.....IMPO of the FACTS....
IMO
This IS Good news , Useltons now GGI pump dumping GFCI stock , kicking back cash to insiders... SEC is going to lay the wood to Jim Dial very very soon, I wouldnt doubt if things are going n we dont yet know about... Keep eyes ears and google searches alert... Also notice how the crockett shallow gas wells have come crashing down on a few stinky pinkies lately... IMO
I agree! CDE acting very well , lets hope they dont sell it down to hard on upcoming earnings, NXG I am under water , I should have averaged down , I have been thinking about it for few months, I like NXG a lot , the only drag on NXG is the copper , Copper is not acting well and looks like will have continued industrial decline...easing demand... production (revenues/profits) has already been slowed to meet lower demand, but I do like NXG...
IMO Strong Buy CDE this week , has some momo building , silver has been strong , and earnings upcoming , should make for interesting week,... And check those CDE CALL OPTIONS , WOW - Still way undervalued , look at the DEC09 and JAN2010 expirations , CALL $2.50 still selling for $.25 per contract! wow.... selling cheap , has a lot of open interst , it is a very liquid option w/active bid/ask... Yes I hold some CDE options , JAN2010, CALL$2.50 , Bought at $.15 & some at .20..... It is time for these to explode.... watch for $.50++ this week.
this company was OOB a long time ago , lol....eom
Talbot could not even make a go of a good idea , he scammed it all up...
Medical Tourism
http://www.worldmedassist.com/
A Medical Tourism Company that Cares Not only do we at WorldMedAssist strive for your complete satisfaction with the quality of your medical treatment abroad; we also do our best to ensure that your treatment and our services are pleasant and provide you a sense of comfort and well-being. Affordable surgery alone is not enough. From your initial planning phase including financing and travel arrangements to coordination between your local physicians and specialists abroad, we will be with you every step of the way. You are our #1 priority.
We have an innovative approach to health travel:
High quality doctors and hospitals. We offer internationally renowned institutions that are affiliated with the top US hospitals. We qualify the hospitals and medical professionals first hand by conducting a rigorous assessment. All of our partner hospitals have been visited to assure you of the highest quality in medical travel.
Tailored to your needs. Before you decide to pursue medical treatment abroad, you will discuss the best way to resolve your medical issues with the doctor that will treat you based on detailed medical information. We provide health travel that works for you.
Quality end to end services. We are a member of the Better Business Bureau and the Medical Tourism Assocation. Our total commitment to client satisfaction influences all aspects of our medical tourism services.
Low Risk. Our belief in the quality of our medical tourism services is so strong that we offer fees that are mostly refundable. We are confident in offering this because we believe you will be very satisfied with our services.
For more information about WorldMed Assist, Medical Tourism, (also known as Medical Travel, Health Travel, Global Healthcare, Medical Treatment Abroad) and to gain access to affordable surgery abroad at high quality, please visit the following:
Medical Tourism Procedures | Medical Tourism India | Medical Tourism Mexico | Medical Tourism Turkey | Medical Tourism Belgium | Medical Tourism Process | Medical Tourism Countries | Medical Tourism Hospitals & Doctors | Medical Tourism Questions | Medical Tourism Testimonials | Medical Tourism News | Weight Loss Surgery Mexico | Lap Band Mexico | Gastric Bypass (RNY) Abroad | Duodenal Switch Abroad | Orthopedic Surgery Abroad | Knee Surgery Abroad | Hip Replacement Abroad | Hip Resurfacing Abroad | Rotator Cuff Abroad | Heart Surgery Abroad | Heart Bypass Surgery Abroad | Heart Valve Replacement Abroad | Angioplasty Abroad | RF Ablation Abroad | Spine Surgery Abroad | Disk Fusion Abroad | Disk Replacement Abroad
Those low volume nat gas wells are literally worthless now that nat-gas is well under $4, the value of some of these small time properties goes negative , here is an 8K filed by Vortex , they leased wells from UERI , same place , same deal VYEY is working , here is what they say about the crockett gas wells at these levels:
Due to current issues in the development of the oil and gas project in Crockett County, Texas, the board obtained a current reserve report for the Company’s interest in Davy Crockett Gas Company, LLC (“DCG”) and Vortex Ocean One, LLC ("Vortex One"), which report indicated that the DCG properties as being negative in value.
http://idea.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/905428/000114420409014348/v143012_8k.htm
LOL WEGI is Out Of Business!.eom
Email from ABTG In my inbox today:
----- Original Message -----
From: Anna E Croop
To: xxxxxxx@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:06 AM
Subject: News from Ambient Corporation
Dear XXXXX,
Fostering a long relationship with Duke Energy, Ambient Corporation is continuing the support of deployments and pending programs for Duke Energy's smart grid projects. Ambient's X2000 communications node, the first to offer cellular connectivity to Duke, is already successfully deployed in Cincinnati, Ohio to cover approximately 50,000 electrical customers and 42,000 gas customers. The Company's newest communications node, the X-3000, certified for use on Verizon Wireless' network through their open development program, is deployed in Charlotte, N.C. to initially cover approximately 6,000 electrical customers.
The Ambient X-3000 node provides reliable and secure data communications for any IP-based smart grid application such as:
- Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
- Energy management
- Real-time pricing
- Demand side management (DSM)
- Direct load control
- System monitoring
A robust communications network is the keystone to a modernized electricity distribution grid, which allows for efficient collection, analysis and management of energy data to promote more reliable, affordable and environmentally friendly operations.
Ambient's X-3000 Communications Node
Quick Links
Our Website
Products
Services
:: 617-614-6739
Email from ABTG In my inbox today:
----- Original Message -----
From: Anna E Croop
To: xxxxxxx@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:06 AM
Subject: News from Ambient Corporation
Dear XXXXX,
Fostering a long relationship with Duke Energy, Ambient Corporation is continuing the support of deployments and pending programs for Duke Energy's smart grid projects. Ambient's X2000 communications node, the first to offer cellular connectivity to Duke, is already successfully deployed in Cincinnati, Ohio to cover approximately 50,000 electrical customers and 42,000 gas customers. The Company's newest communications node, the X-3000, certified for use on Verizon Wireless' network through their open development program, is deployed in Charlotte, N.C. to initially cover approximately 6,000 electrical customers.
The Ambient X-3000 node provides reliable and secure data communications for any IP-based smart grid application such as:
- Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
- Energy management
- Real-time pricing
- Demand side management (DSM)
- Direct load control
- System monitoring
A robust communications network is the keystone to a modernized electricity distribution grid, which allows for efficient collection, analysis and management of energy data to promote more reliable, affordable and environmentally friendly operations.
Ambient's X-3000 Communications Node
Quick Links
Our Website
Products
Services
:: 617-614-6739
I also hold calls , i hold the JAN2010 CALL $2.50 contracts I have been buying them for months now . hold more then I should , bought some at $.15 and some at $.20 , I plan to sell half for $.30-$.50 range , soon , and hold balance for $2+? , I also hold small amount of the common , I should have loaded up on common <$.70 when I had the chance , I bought the calls for $.15 instead , 600 contracts @ .15 per / $9000.00 invested , I am up about $3k on the $.15 options , BUT > if I would have bought the common @ $.70 I would be doing a LOT better , almost doubled up $8k+ using todays high... I want to see CDE common stock tracde $2.50 by end of May , JAN2010 CALL $2.50 OPTIONS should trade at $1++ IMO
Verizon Wireless and Ambient Corporation Join Forces to Offer Utilities Smart Grid Communications Solution
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2206601/
IB has 2,200,000 shares SPNG avail to short.
Symbol: SPNG
Availability: 2'200'000
Exchanges: PINK, ARCAEDGE, NITE, IBSX, OTCBB
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?key=spng&cntry=usa&tag=United+St&ib_entity=&ln=#
IB provides a stock inventory utility in Account Management, under the "Tools" icon. This utility provides indicative inventory information, estimates of the number of shares currently available for borrowing, estimated borrow rates, rate trends, and an indicator of how many different lenders are prepared to make their inventory available. By considering this pool of information, traders can manage their short selling strategies appropriately.
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=shortableStocks&p=s&ib_entity=llc
Spongetech Delivery SPNG
stock Exchange / Market : OTC BB
Buyins.net naked short list
OFF LIST - 163 consecutive market days: OFF LIST as of 09/02/2008 Through 04/27/2009
http://buyins.net/tools/symbol_stats.php?sym=spng
rcch = strong SELL.eom
IMO sounds very positive for ABTG.eom
Yes, I thought we would have larger pull back Monday thru early this week , holding nicely in the .18-.20 range. Lots of long term holders might be on fence , why sell now , have held so long , know this can be big news momentum type play , not ready to sell , I hold long for a long time , averaged down to .07 , but bought as high as .151 2 yrs+ ago , I might sell some at .25 , but again , it was bought as spec play , I am going to hang around for the short term for sure....
I dont know what approval they need, that is what I am asking. The 8K says ERHE/Addax need some form of "approval" from the JDA.....
On March 11, 2009, ERHC Energy Inc. (the “Company”) issued an announcement regarding plans for exploratory drilling in certain Joint Development Zone (JDZ) Blocks in which the Company has interests. Earlier, ERHC’s technical partner, Addax Petroleum, announced it expects to receive delivery of the Deepwater Pathfinder, a fifth generation dynamically positioned deepwater drilling rig, at the end of the third quarter 2009. Addax, the operator of JDZ Block 4, in which ERHC holds a 19.5 percent interest, announced that it intends, subject to Joint Development Authority approval, to commence the drilling of the Kina prospect in Block 4 shortly after taking possession of the Deepwater Pathfinder during the fourth quarter of 2009.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036109006755/form8k.htm
Good factual post.eom
What approval does ERHE need from the JDA to commence drilling?
The 8K mentions needing an approval from the JDA:
ITEM 8.01. OTHER EVENTS.
On March 11, 2009, ERHC Energy Inc. (the “Company”) issued an announcement regarding plans for exploratory drilling in certain Joint Development Zone (JDZ) Blocks in which the Company has interests. Earlier, ERHC’s technical partner, Addax Petroleum, announced it expects to receive delivery of the Deepwater Pathfinder, a fifth generation dynamically positioned deepwater drilling rig, at the end of the third quarter 2009. Addax, the operator of JDZ Block 4, in which ERHC holds a 19.5 percent interest, announced that it intends, subject to Joint Development Authority approval, to commence the drilling of the Kina prospect in Block 4 shortly after taking possession of the Deepwater Pathfinder during the fourth quarter of 2009.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036109006755/form8k.htm
Interesting Jim Dial related Post from the VYEY board:
"Victory Energy had well output terminated June of 2008, (or months prior?) on Victory Energy wells. The turn off of production lasted for many months. The wells were purchased (or leased) from Jim Dial (1st Texas Natural Gas, Inc, Universal Energy Resources, Inc, Universal Energy Holdings, Inc, Precision Drilling & Exploration), with Jim Dial providing the drilling services also, for a fee. VYEY owed for the drilling services and had not paid Jim Dial (fees that the well investors believed were covered in their investment). Jim Dial placed a lien on the wells/contracts and well production halted for a long time. According to the SEC, this is a very serious activity which should have been reported to the shareholders since these wells are the only source of revenue for VYEY. Investors were unaware of this shut down of Victory processes"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37103429
ABTG is a trade , Strong Buy trade , nothing to do with share strucrue or market cap , everything to do with NEWS and Hot sector , but for sure dont be last one left holding , GLTA Longs!
Shippers face higher insurance as pirates run amok
Pirate threats force shippers to choose between pricier insurance and long trip around Africa
Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer
Sunday April 12, 2009, 2:28 pm EDT
LONDON (AP) -- Shipping your oil across the Gulf of Aden? Don't forget your piracy insurance.
As a ragtag group of gunmen faced off for days against the U.S. Navy near the coast of Somalia before a cargo ship captain was freed Sunday, industry-watchers say shipping companies already smarting from the global downturn are forced to pony up extra cash for steeper premiums to cover multimillion dollar ransoms or take the long way around African continent in the hope of dodging hijackers.
"The pirates were the only people who had a good year in 2008," said Crispian Cuss, a security consultant with the Dubai-based Olive Group.
The Gulf of Aden, which connects the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, is one of the busiest and most dangerous waterways in the world. As pirates have become more aggressive, the cost of insuring ships has gone up. Some companies are spending more time training their crews, others are avoiding the area altogether -- taking long trips around the Africa's southern tip that can potentially add millions to the cost of each journey.
While the coast of Somalia has been a problem for years, it was flagged in May as an area of particular concern by Lloyd's Market Association, and premiums have been rising -- at least tenfold, according to some media reports. Neil Smith, the senior manager for underwriting for Lloyd's Market Association, has said the exact figures are commercially sensitive in a highly competitive industry.
Large ships generally carry three separate types of insurance. Marine -- or hull -- insurance covers physical risks, such as grounding or damage from heavy seas. A second type of policy, protection and indemnity, covers crew issues, while war risk insurance covers acts of war, insurgency, and terrorism.
Although war risk policies typically cover hijackings and piracy, insurers often charge extra for ships that venture into high risk areas such as the Gulf of Aden. Others, including Chicago-based Aon Corp. and London's International Security Solutions Ltd., have recently launched new plans specifically tailored to cover losses incurred by piracy -- for example by including ransoms and cargo delays under the same policy.
The other option available to ship operators, taking the long way around Africa's Cape of Good Hope instead of the short cut through the Suez Canal, is also expensive.
Routing a tanker from Saudi Arabia to the United States through the Cape of Good Hope, for example, would add 2,700 miles to the voyage and boost annual fuel costs by about $3.5 million, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. In addition, it said using that route would mean the ship could make only five round trips a year instead of six, cutting delivery capacity by 26 percent.
European economies stand to absorb most of any extra expense. The Maritime Administration says more than 80 percent of trade moving through the gulf is with Europe.
While some shipping companies, such as the world's largest, Maersk, have decided to take their oil tankers around the Cape of Good Hope, others have been reluctant to shoulder the extra expense, according to Graeme-Gibbon Brooks, the managing director of Dryad Maritime Intelligence Service, based in the English port city of Southampton.
"We have had a couple of phone calls from people saying: 'It might well be safer to go around the Cape of Good Hope, but our competitors are not doing it,'" Brooks said. "The problem with any diversion, be it through the south of the cape or elsewhere, is that it's going to have a commercial impact which will ultimately be borne by the consumer."
But one analyst said the global downturn may be making the southern route more attractive.
"Because there are so many vessels plying the seas right now, it makes sense to take the leisurely way around Africa. ... You're removing capacity from the industry and helping to put upward pressure on freight rates," said Jim Wilson, the Middle East correspondent for Fairplay International Shipping Weekly magazine.
As a result, demand for fuel on the West coast of Africa has surged as more ships coming from the east need to refuel after circling the cape, he said. At the same time, Egypt's revenues from Suez traffic are down sharply from last year.
The pirate attacks have begun to spook some mariners. Noel Choong, head of the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Malaysia, noted that the crew of one ship recently refused to travel from Mombasa, Kenya, to South Africa for fear of being attacked.
Still, as security consultant David Johnson noted, taking the long way around to avoid the Somali coast doesn't guarantee safety from pirates. The Saudi supertanker Sirius Star was captured by pirates six months ago while deep in the Indian Ocean, far from the pirates' traditional hunting ground.
"Whichever way you go you're going to run into pirate hotspots somewhere down the line," said Johnson, the director of U.K.-based EOS Risk Management.
Insurance companies have also taken note of the pirates' increased range:
"Until recently, insurers regarded vessels as being relatively safe if they kept a reasonable distance from the Somali coast," said Smith, the manager at Lloyd's Market Association. Writing in the February-March issue of Cargo Security International, he said the situation had now changed.
The latest pirate attacks come at a particularly challenging time for the shipping industry.
Dubai-based DP World, one of the world's biggest port operators, warned last month that a falloff in global trade that began late last year "shows little sign of easing" because of the global recession.
Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd. recently predicted cargo container shipments globally will drop 4.5 percent this year following decades of constant growth.
Associated Press Writers Adam Schreck in Manama, Bahrain, and Sean Yoong in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, contributed to this report.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shippers-face-higher-apf-14906061.html
Shippers face higher insurance as pirates run amok
Pirate threats force shippers to choose between pricier insurance and long trip around Africa
Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer
Sunday April 12, 2009, 2:28 pm EDT
LONDON (AP) -- Shipping your oil across the Gulf of Aden? Don't forget your piracy insurance.
As a ragtag group of gunmen faced off for days against the U.S. Navy near the coast of Somalia before a cargo ship captain was freed Sunday, industry-watchers say shipping companies already smarting from the global downturn are forced to pony up extra cash for steeper premiums to cover multimillion dollar ransoms or take the long way around African continent in the hope of dodging hijackers.
"The pirates were the only people who had a good year in 2008," said Crispian Cuss, a security consultant with the Dubai-based Olive Group.
The Gulf of Aden, which connects the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, is one of the busiest and most dangerous waterways in the world. As pirates have become more aggressive, the cost of insuring ships has gone up. Some companies are spending more time training their crews, others are avoiding the area altogether -- taking long trips around the Africa's southern tip that can potentially add millions to the cost of each journey.
While the coast of Somalia has been a problem for years, it was flagged in May as an area of particular concern by Lloyd's Market Association, and premiums have been rising -- at least tenfold, according to some media reports. Neil Smith, the senior manager for underwriting for Lloyd's Market Association, has said the exact figures are commercially sensitive in a highly competitive industry.
Large ships generally carry three separate types of insurance. Marine -- or hull -- insurance covers physical risks, such as grounding or damage from heavy seas. A second type of policy, protection and indemnity, covers crew issues, while war risk insurance covers acts of war, insurgency, and terrorism.
Although war risk policies typically cover hijackings and piracy, insurers often charge extra for ships that venture into high risk areas such as the Gulf of Aden. Others, including Chicago-based Aon Corp. and London's International Security Solutions Ltd., have recently launched new plans specifically tailored to cover losses incurred by piracy -- for example by including ransoms and cargo delays under the same policy.
The other option available to ship operators, taking the long way around Africa's Cape of Good Hope instead of the short cut through the Suez Canal, is also expensive.
Routing a tanker from Saudi Arabia to the United States through the Cape of Good Hope, for example, would add 2,700 miles to the voyage and boost annual fuel costs by about $3.5 million, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. In addition, it said using that route would mean the ship could make only five round trips a year instead of six, cutting delivery capacity by 26 percent.
European economies stand to absorb most of any extra expense. The Maritime Administration says more than 80 percent of trade moving through the gulf is with Europe.
While some shipping companies, such as the world's largest, Maersk, have decided to take their oil tankers around the Cape of Good Hope, others have been reluctant to shoulder the extra expense, according to Graeme-Gibbon Brooks, the managing director of Dryad Maritime Intelligence Service, based in the English port city of Southampton.
"We have had a couple of phone calls from people saying: 'It might well be safer to go around the Cape of Good Hope, but our competitors are not doing it,'" Brooks said. "The problem with any diversion, be it through the south of the cape or elsewhere, is that it's going to have a commercial impact which will ultimately be borne by the consumer."
But one analyst said the global downturn may be making the southern route more attractive.
"Because there are so many vessels plying the seas right now, it makes sense to take the leisurely way around Africa. ... You're removing capacity from the industry and helping to put upward pressure on freight rates," said Jim Wilson, the Middle East correspondent for Fairplay International Shipping Weekly magazine.
As a result, demand for fuel on the West coast of Africa has surged as more ships coming from the east need to refuel after circling the cape, he said. At the same time, Egypt's revenues from Suez traffic are down sharply from last year.
The pirate attacks have begun to spook some mariners. Noel Choong, head of the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Malaysia, noted that the crew of one ship recently refused to travel from Mombasa, Kenya, to South Africa for fear of being attacked.
Still, as security consultant David Johnson noted, taking the long way around to avoid the Somali coast doesn't guarantee safety from pirates. The Saudi supertanker Sirius Star was captured by pirates six months ago while deep in the Indian Ocean, far from the pirates' traditional hunting ground.
"Whichever way you go you're going to run into pirate hotspots somewhere down the line," said Johnson, the director of U.K.-based EOS Risk Management.
Insurance companies have also taken note of the pirates' increased range:
"Until recently, insurers regarded vessels as being relatively safe if they kept a reasonable distance from the Somali coast," said Smith, the manager at Lloyd's Market Association. Writing in the February-March issue of Cargo Security International, he said the situation had now changed.
The latest pirate attacks come at a particularly challenging time for the shipping industry.
Dubai-based DP World, one of the world's biggest port operators, warned last month that a falloff in global trade that began late last year "shows little sign of easing" because of the global recession.
Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd. recently predicted cargo container shipments globally will drop 4.5 percent this year following decades of constant growth.
Associated Press Writers Adam Schreck in Manama, Bahrain, and Sean Yoong in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, contributed to this report.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shippers-face-higher-apf-14906061.html
FCC LAUNCHES DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN
Seeks Public Input on Plan to Ensure Every American has Access to Broadband Capability
Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today begins the process of developing a national broadband plan that will seek to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability.
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – known as the stimulus package – Congress charged the Commission with creating a national broadband plan. In a Notice of Inquiry adopted today, the Commission begins a proceeding to create that national broadband plan, seeking input from all stakeholders: consumers, industry, large and small businesses, non-profits, the disabilities community, governments at the federal, state, local and tribal levels, and all other interested parties.
The Commission must deliver the plan to Congress by Feb. 17, 2010. It will provide a roadmap toward achieving the goal of ensuring that all Americans reap the benefits of broadband. The Recovery Act requires the plan to explore several key elements of broadband deployment and use, and the Commission now seeks comment on these elements, including:
• The most effective and efficient ways to ensure broadband access for all Americans
• Strategies for achieving affordability and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and services
• Evaluation of the status of broadband deployment, including the progress of related grant programs
• How to use broadband to advance consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation, and economic growth, and other national purposes.
Action by the Commission, April 8, 2009, by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 09-31). Acting Chairman Copps, Commissioners Adelstein, and McDowell. Separate statements issued by Acting Chairman Copps, Commissioners Adelstein, and McDowell.
Docket No. GN 09-51
-FCC-
News about the Federal Communications Commission can also be found
on the Commission’s web site www.fcc.gov.
I agree GNTA share structure and financings are a serious problem , However GOOD volume of retail buyers , greed, MMs greed, etc... will create a lot of opps for profitable trades , I have one profitable trade complete in GNTA and a 2nd one working , might convert tomomorrow .015ish , I will NOT be holding if it breaks below .007 , sure dont want to get holding this one too long... All of those unregistered shares are not good for anyone.... IMO