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.
Mikey, think you are right. Can't see another scenerio. Unfortunate. :(
By the way; Market I hope you are right. Just for the record.
Now that makes sense. Something very wrong with this one and I was a believer.
Yep, numbers don't lie. 270 Million shares bought and no price movement, major dump by insiders.
Sad to say but I agree Mikey.
Agree wtih everything you said.
Agree! THAT IS AWESOME!
AGREE, can't wait!
Hope you're right but Share Structure needs reform before any big movement. IMO.
That was an excellent post, THANK YOU.
I wholeheartedly agree about the share retirement. Hopefully AVOP wakes up and sees it the same way.
Certainly looks like they are getting their ducks in a row. Fingers crossed.
Good Post, this problem was highlited by Mrchipper a couple of months ago and until it gets fixed(shares are reduced) this one will not move significantly. IMO.
Yes, well said.
True enough. Don't sell out yet though, IMHO. This is still a story unfolding.
Don't believe this is a pump and dump. Never had the big run for one thing. No it was like Mr. Chipper predicted 2 months ago; due to the share structure this one has had trouble lifting off. He also predicted it would hit .ooo4. Hopefully the next set of announcements will rectify the chill and the share structure. If they also come up with more acqisitions and financing this will take off.
JMHO
Bruce, you are a voice of reason in a sea of lunacy. Every new moon someone comes along with the idea they can resurrect stocks like this one. I owned some years ago after I bought into the plausible story but after the first or second failure to consummate I bailed losing a few hundred. You are right on when you say Yeung came up with a plausible story that could not be verified and it suckered a lot of people including long timers in the Pinkies. Anyhow this is my one post but just had to say thanks for the reality.
I agree! A non fluff PR needed here.
Need a non fluff PR to get this going. IMO.
I agree whole heartedly with that!
Thanks
When do you think the 8K filling will happen?
The stars mean two of Ihubs most followed users have posted here in the last 24 hours.
Think the share structure here is preventing a run. Company needs to retire shares. IMHO.
True enough there are differences. The other thing that had happened is the wind had been taken out of the company by the cancelling of the Tango deal. Like I say I hope it gets some fire soon. Go ICOA
There was a lot of talk and lots of buying at .ooo1. People kept saying the bids were building but they never left 1. We got many new people on the board making announcements that ICOA was on the launch pad ready for takeoff. In the end it all just stopped and she went to no bid for a long time (until 3 weeks ago). Maybe James Terry or No Brag can give more info about their memory of what happened. That's what I remember, hopefully this is different.
I hate to say it but it's looking a lot like what happened two years ago. I guess the next couple of weeks will tell. I hope this thing doesn't go back to sleep for another couple of years. JMO
Somebody just dumped 60 Million at 1. I hate to say it but this may turn out like it did two years ago. Hope they announce something soon.
I believe it is vantillian with 1307 followers.
Well said!
SEC seeking $11.1-million (U.S.) from Boock
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a motion seeking $8.2-million in disgorgement and $2.9-million in civil penalties for Irwin Boock, 55, the Toronto area man charged in a corporate hijacking case. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.) The SEC claims that he was the architect and ringleader of a multimillion-dollar scheme to take control of inactive pink sheets listings between 2003 and 2007, which he then sold as shells.
The $8.2-million disgorgement order, should the judge grant it, would be jointly payable by Mr. Boock and others charged for the hijackings. These include Jason Wong, an Ontario man who helped run a transfer agency that supported the scheme, and Stanton DeFreitas, an Ontario resident who helped sell shares. In addition to the disgorgement, the SEC is seeking civil penalties of $1.56-million for Mr. Wong and $130,000 for Mr. DeFreitas. The SEC is also asking that the judge permanently ban them and Mr. Boock from penny stocks and enter an injunction barring future violations.
The penalty request comes 2-1/2 years after the SEC initially charged the men. It claimed that they improperly took control of 43 inactive public companies using false paperwork and bogus corporate resolutions. They then sold the companies as shells, profiting from both the sale of control and from subsequent share sales, the regulator said. One of the companies went on to become Toronto Stock Exchange listing Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. and another became Surrey-based World Hockey Association Corp. The SEC listed one of the scheme's substantial customers as Quebec resident Jean-Francois Amyot, who paid $1-million for 10 or 12 shells. (The SEC did not accuse Mr. Amyot, Paramount Gold or World Hockey of any wrongdoing.)
While Mr. Boock faces substantial penalties in the U.S. for the scheme, he has already received a ban and a much smaller fine in Canada. On Feb. 10, 2012, the Ontario Securities Commission permanently banned him from trading and from acting as an officer, director or promoter of a public company. It also ordered him to pay $270,000 in fines and disgorgement. The penalties were arrived at through a negotiated settlement.
Assuming the SEC also secures a fine against Mr. Boock, it will not be his first in the U.S. In November, 2002, he agreed to pay $429,619 to settle an SEC case stemming from reporting violations at Leah Industries Inc., an OTC Bulletin Board listing. The SEC said he had the company report earnings that were purportedly audited by Deloitte & Touche when there had been no such audit. He then sold 537,500 shares, for proceeds of $319,050. He settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing, but never paid the fine.
Mr. Boock also settled an OSC case in January, 1991, in which the regulator said he filed forged documents with the commission and a transfer agent. He paid $15,000 and was banned from trading and from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years. Just two years later, in May, 1993, he was convicted on fraud and forgery charges in Ontario, and received three years in jail. He was charged with fraud in Ontario yet again in September, 1998, and received two years of probation.
Some time after the Ontario charges he changed his name to Irwin Boock from Irwin Krakowsky.
SEC's complaint
The present case began on Sept. 29, 2009, when the SEC filed a civil fraud complaint against Mr. Boock and others in the Southern District of New York. It said they ran a four-year scheme in which they hijacked the identifies of 43 inactive pink sheets companies. The purpose of the scheme was to gain control of the companies using fake names or addresses, and then sell them for a profit.
The stocks the men typically targeted were those that still traded, but lacked a current transfer agent or contact person. Once they located a suitable target, they reactivated the company through the appropriate secretary of state, providing false names and addresses for contact information, the SEC said. In some instances, they discovered that the secretary of state had declared a company void. When this happened, they simply incorporated a new entity with the same name and used it to assume the identity of the old company. They would then roll back the stock, change the company's name, and obtain a new Cusip number and trading symbol, the complaint stated.
In addition to the three Ontario men, the defendants in the case included a pair of Houston lawyers, Roger Shoss and Nicolette Loisel. The SEC claimed that the lawyers drafted bogus opinion letters that authorized the issuance of 223 million free-trading shares for 19 of the companies. Ms. Loisel also prepared fraudulent transfer agent verification forms, and received $455,000 for her services, according to the SEC.
(The SEC's case against the two Houston lawyers is on hold while they answer criminal charges for a separate hijacking scheme. According to Florida prosecutors, they were part of a group that hijacked 54 companies and sold shares in those companies to residents in the United Kingdom, taking over $100-million from investors. Mr. Shoss and Ms. Loisel have pleaded not guilty. Jury selection in their trial is set to begin May 14, 2012.)
Although the complaint did not specify how much money Mr. Boock and the other Ontario defendants made from the scheme, the motion for penalties includes an estimate of their gains. The SEC says that the men received about $2.3-million selling the shells directly and made another $3.8-million selling shares of the shells on the market. Combined with interest, the regulator is seeking $8.2-million in disgorgement.
The penalty, should the judge grant it, would essentially be a decision by default against Mr. Boock. He admitted to his role in the scheme during a videotaped deposition, and the SEC secured a default order against him on March 26, 2010, after he failed to file an answer on time. He later said he confessed under duress, as his wife had been in the hospital and he had not been sleeping properly. He also asked the judge to give him a chance to contest the case, but she refused.
Neither Mr. Wong or Mr. DeFreitas has had a trial either, as the SEC previously won a summary judgment against Mr. Wong and a default order against Mr. DeFreitas. Mr. Wong had argued that he knew nothing about the hijackings, and said somebody else must have used his name. The judge, however, said it was obvious he participated in every step of the scheme. She found the evidence was so overwhelming that there was no need for a trial against him.
Mr. Boock, Mr. Wong and Mr. DeFreitas have not yet responded to the SEC's motion for penalties
Boock isn't giving up without a fight, see half way down
SEC wins decision against hijacking target Wong
2011-08-31 14:03 ET - Street Wire
Also Street Wire (U-*SEC) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Also Street Wire (C-PZG) Paramount Gold and Silver Corp
by Mike Caswell
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has won an order finding Ontario resident Jason Wong liable for a scheme to hijack defunct public companies. In a summary judgment released on Aug. 25, 2011, New York Judge Denise Cote has ruled that Mr. Wong "engaged in deliberate fraudulent behavior" when he filed false documents with Cusip Global Services and government agencies.
The SEC claimed that Mr. Wong and others improperly took control of 43 inactive public companies between 2003 and 2007. Using false paperwork and bogus corporate resolutions, they obtained new Cusip numbers and trading symbols for the companies. They then sold them as shells, profiting from both the sale of control and from subsequent share sales, the regulator said. One of the companies went on to become Toronto Stock Exchange listing Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. and another became Surrey-based World Hockey Association Corp. (The SEC did not accuse either company of any wrongdoing.)
The regulator sought a summary judgment against Mr. Wong on Feb. 25, 2011, arguing that the case against him was so overwhelming that there was no need for a trial. The SEC's evidence included several e-mails in which he and his co-defendants discussed the day-to-day issues they faced in taking over and selling the shells. Moreover, two of his co-defendants had admitted to allegations in the complaint, and both implicated Mr. Wong.
Judge Cote, in Friday's decision, agreed with the SEC. In doing so she rejected Mr. Wong's argument that he did not know anything about the hijackings and that somebody had used his name. She said it was clear that he knew the corporations had been misappropriated as he participated in nearly every step of the scheme. Among other things, he issued shares for the hijacked companies and worked to find shell buyers. He also sold millions of shares, the judge found.
With the issue of Mr. Wong's liability decided, the SEC may now apply for an appropriate penalty against him. That process could take some time, if the case against Mr. Wong's co-defendant, Ontario resident Irwin Boock, is any indication. The SEC won a default against Mr. Boock on March 26, 2010, and has been attempting to obtain his banking records in Canada for several months to help determine his penalty. The regulator has complained several times about little co-operation from Mr. Boock in obtaining the records, and recently sought the assistance of the Ontario courts.
SEC's complaint
The case began on Sept. 29, 2009, when the SEC filed a civil complaint against Mr. Wong, Mr. Boock and others in the Southern District of New York. The suit claimed that the men participated in a four-year scheme, starting in November, 2003, that targeted inactive public companies trading on the pink sheets. They ran the scheme through Select American Transfer, a transfer agency that they operated, and for which Mr. Wong served as president.
The hijacking targets, as described by the SEC, were typically inactive companies that still traded, but lacked a current transfer agent or contact person. The men scanned the pink sheets website to locate such companies. Once they identified a target, they reactivated the company through the appropriate secretary of state using false names and addresses, the SEC said.
In some instances, they discovered that the secretary of state had declared a company void. When this happened, they simply incorporated a new entity with the same name and used it to assume the identity of the old company, the SEC claimed. They would then roll back the stock, change the company's name, and obtain a new Cusip number and trading symbol.
Aiding with the scheme were two Houston lawyers, Roger Shoss and Nicolette Loisel, who helped Mr. Boock and Mr. Wong obtain free-trading shares in the companies, the complaint stated. The lawyers, who are also defendants, drafted bogus opinion letters that authorized the issuance of 223 million free-trading shares for 19 of the companies. Ms. Loisel also prepared fraudulent transfer agent verification forms, and received $455,000 for her services, according to the SEC. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.)
The complaint did not clearly state how much money the men made from the scheme. The SEC said that Mr. Boock received $267,625 in 2007 by selling shares of five of the hijacked companies through a Florida brokerage account. It also said that another of the defendants, Toronto resident Stanton DeFreitas, sold shares of 30 hijacked stocks through offshore companies and had his brokerage transfer $2.2-million in proceeds to a Toronto bank account.
The SEC sought appropriate civil penalties and penny stock bans against each defendant.
With the decision against Mr. Wong, the SEC has won the liability part of the case against each Canadian defendant. A judge found that Mr. DeFreitas had defaulted in the case on March 26, 2010. The only issue to determine is the penalties.
The case against the remaining two defendants, Mr. Shoss and Ms. Loisel, is on hold while they answer criminal charges for a separate hijacking scheme. According to Florida prosecutors, they were part of a group that hijacked 54 companies and sold shares in those companies to residents in the United Kingdom, taking over $100-million from investors. Mr. Shoss and Ms. Loisel have pleaded not guilty and await trial.
From my knowledge of the history of Mr. Shipley, let's just say he has issues. If he is still involved then there is a real possibility this was all a scam. I don't think he has been criminally indicted yet but there have been company collapses and trading bans. If he is involved then the argument about making hundreds of millions legally and a few million in a scam doesn't matter. His type doesn't know how to play it straight nor would they want to, so let's hope he isn't involved.
I have to agree. I think Karen is being used to deflect our complaints.
Are you replying to my post or did someone send a private message???? Your first reponse answered me, I thought.
Out of curiosity, why do you figure that? Anything to justify the hunch? What do you mean right next door, location? Thanks
I'm no expert but if the company bought us out we probably would get a share swap which would give us tradable shares at least. If anyone else has more knowledge please advise. I guess the worst scenerio is they wait for us to sink and pick up the pieces which gives the shareholders nothing.
Finally the right question!
She's just the messanger and I doubt has any info she hasn't given out. The problem is the owners who are playing a game we can't see and their motives are invisible. Like I said before this is going to be a while, it may take a new name shell, etc.
Karen's reply.
"I do not. Sorry.
The company will have to do all of their filings just to get back on the pink sheets - I do not know how long this can take as there are other issues that the company has to deal with in this whole situation."
So it may be a while.
Sent an email to Karen to see if she has any knowledge. I hope this is sorted out within the next few weeks.
It's been about six months since the DTC lock was put on the stock. Does anybody know how long it usually takes to get these things sorted out and the lock lifted. Just Curious.