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 see the stock price recovered later in the afternoon. Nice !
If next quarter financials have yet again declining revenue, does anyone think Rory will explain that with truthful facts?
Correct me if I'm wrong too, as far as the declining revenue in the past.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of story time we will get if revenue does decrease again. I hope it doesn't. It should be coming out soon too.
$VERB
I see what you mean, but $VERB does have revenue. Do you expect it to dissipate or something?
Going out of business? Why would you say that though?
$VERB
You may have a point. I believe warrants were possibly exercised around the $1.80 mark too. Can anyone confirm this?
$verb
The stock market is on fire today. I'm not sure why $VERB isn't in sync with it. It seems to be doing the opposite.
Thoughts?
Question: Why is it that us investors/potential investors always have to find out all the dark negative stuff that Verb hides from us the hard way? They can never just tell us and be truthful about it in the beginning. Once we do find out and confront them, Rory will say something like "I didn't think it was that big of a deal".
Example: (And there are multiple examples, but here is one).
Anyone remember that lawsuit that was filed against Verb last year? Rory never made an appropriate filed document on it (Or at-least those things to my knowledge need to show up in SEC edgar /10k filing or the current exchange platform site). Correct me if I'm wrong Tenkay.
So instead of him just being truthful about it in the beginning, he hid it from us and one day, someone happened to stumble across the filed lawsuit on that pace monitor website. Then when we finally called Rory out on it, he acted like he didn't need to tell us. . Actually, that's what he basically said in one of those shac videos. He felt that it wasn't anything we needed to know as investors. Really?
Fast forward, I see a lot of commentary about it or atleast used to being "meaningless", even Rory used that word in a video.
Now, from what I am hearing and seeing, Verb, or nFusz at the time actually attempted to settle with the court system recently on that lawsuit.
$VERB
Is anyone concerned about any future/present employees being hired at Verb after we found out about the SEC charging this individual for fraud like activities?
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20683.htm
Thoughts anyone?
$VERB
Wow, thanks for sharing these. It can still be argued that the videos were deleted on verbs platforms during certain occasions. But obviously they are still out there. A lot of the links are broken, and when you confront them about it, they always ignore you.
Thanks again.
Does anyone have thoughts on this fraudulent activity?
I'm hoping the public eye gets to observe all her actions while serving under Verb Technologies.
SEC statement below:
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONLitigation Release No. 20683 / August 14, 2008Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nancy R. Heinen, Case No. C-07-2214 (JF) (N.D. Cal.)SEC Settles Options Backdating Charges With Former Apple General Counsel For $2.2 Million
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has settled options backdating charges against Nancy R. Heinen, the former General Counsel of Apple, Inc. As part of the settlement Heinen, of Portola Valley, California, agreed (without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations) to pay $2.2 million in disgorgement, interest and penalties, be barred from serving as an officer or director of any public company for five years, and be suspended from appearing or practicing as an attorney before the Commission for three years.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed by the Commission in April 2007 in federal court in the Northern District of California. According to the complaint, Heinen caused Apple to fraudulently backdate two large options grants to senior executives of Apple — a February 2001 grant of 4.8 million options to Apple's Executive Team and a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million options to Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs — and altered company records to conceal the fraud. The complaint alleges that as a result of the backdating Apple underreported its expenses by nearly $40 million.
In the first instance, Apple granted 4.8 million options to six members of its Executive Team (including Heinen) in February 2001. Because the options were in-the-money when granted (i.e. could be exercised to purchase Apple shares at a below market price), Apple was required to report a compensation charge in its publicly-filed financial statements. The Commission alleges that, in order to avoid reporting this expense, Heinen caused Apple to backdate options to January 17, 2001, when Apple's share price was substantially lower. Heinen is also alleged to have directed her staff to prepare documents falsely indicating that Apple's Board had approved the Executive Team grant on January 17. As a result, Apple failed to record approximately $18.9 million in compensation expenses associated with the option grant.
The Commission's complaint also alleges improprieties in connection with a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million options to CEO Steve Jobs. Although the options were in-the-money at that time, Heinen — as with the Executive Team grant — caused Apple to backdate the grant to October 19, 2001, when Apple's share price was lower. As a result, the Commission alleges that Heinen caused Apple to improperly fail to record $20.3 million in compensation expense associated with the in-the-money options grant. The Commission further alleges that Heinen then signed fictitious Board minutes stating that Apple's Board had approved the grant to Jobs on October 19 at a "Special Meeting of the Board of Directors" — a meeting that, in fact, never occurred.
As part of the settlement, Heinen consented (without admitting or denying the allegations) to a court order that:
enjoins her from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, and 16a-3 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 14a-9 thereunder;
orders her to pay disgorgement of $1,575,000 (representing the in-the-money portion of the proceeds she received from exercising backdated options) plus $400,219.78 in interest;
imposes a civil penalty of $200,000; and
bars her from serving as an officer or director of any public company for five years.
In addition, Heinen agreed to resolve a separate administrative proceeding against her by consenting to a Commission order that suspends her from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney for three years.
For further information please see:
Litigation Release No. 20086
www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20683.htm
Home | Previous PageModified: 08/14/2008
Hi tenkay, do you think its possible she will commit fraud acts again when employed at $verb ? If so, I'm wondering if we will be able to catch it as a public eye viewer.
I hate saying this, but its just reality .. I don't trust the other Verb staff to correct her or anything of that nature, as the CEO has committed enough SEC violations himself. I feel like a investor or someone knowledgable needs to observe everything she does.
$VERB
The small parts I have highlighted in red are probably the most disturbing to read:
The settlement stems from a complaint filed by the Commission in April 2007 in federal court in the Northern District of California. According to the complaint, Heinen caused Apple to fraudulently backdate two large options grants to senior executives of Apple — a February 2001 grant of 4.8 million options to Apple's Executive Team and a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million options to Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs — and altered company records to conceal the fraud. The complaint alleges that as a result of the backdating Apple underreported its expenses by nearly $40 million.
In the first instance, Apple granted 4.8 million options to six members of its Executive Team (including Heinen) in February 2001. Because the options were in-the-money when granted (i.e. could be exercised to purchase Apple shares at a below market price), Apple was required to report a compensation charge in its publicly-filed financial statements. The Commission alleges that, in order to avoid reporting this expense, Heinen caused Apple to backdate options to January 17, 2001, when Apple's share price was substantially lower.Heinen is also alleged to have directed her staff to prepare documents falsely indicating that Apple's Board had approved the Executive Team grant on January 17. As a result, Apple failed to record approximately $18.9 million in compensation expenses associated with the option grant.
Wait, is there really a video out there in regards to this?
I don't think there is, but if there was, its probably deleted. Most of those videos violated SEC rules. Atleast the videos I saw from Rory.
$VERB
positives are it happened 12+ years ago and appears to be her only offense. I get where you prefer everyone to be squeaky clean but this one doesn’t bother me too much. Might be isolated lapse of judgement. I’ve been critical of verb in past but willing to give pass on this one.
I get where you are coming from, but that's a very generous comment. This can be debated in many ways, and not in a positive way for her and Verb.
Partaking in fraudulent activities is not something to look at within 24 hours and say "Hmm, I'll give this a pass".
$VERB
This is who Verb Technologies just hired:
(This makes me wonder about everyone employed at Verb Technologies now.)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20683 / August 14, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nancy R. Heinen, Case No. C-07-2214 (JF) (N.D. Cal.)
SEC Settles Options Backdating Charges With Former Apple General Counsel For $2.2 Million
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has settled options backdating charges against Nancy R. Heinen, the former General Counsel of Apple, Inc. As part of the settlement Heinen, of Portola Valley, California, agreed (without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations) to pay $2.2 million in disgorgement, interest and penalties, be barred from serving as an officer or director of any public company for five years, and be suspended from appearing or practicing as an attorney before the Commission for three years.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed by the Commission in April 2007 in federal court in the Northern District of California. According to the complaint, Heinen caused Apple to fraudulently backdate two large options grants to senior executives of Apple — a February 2001 grant of 4.8 million options to Apple's Executive Team and a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million options to Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs — and altered company records to conceal the fraud. The complaint alleges that as a result of the backdating Apple underreported its expenses by nearly $40 million.
In the first instance, Apple granted 4.8 million options to six members of its Executive Team (including Heinen) in February 2001. Because the options were in-the-money when granted (i.e. could be exercised to purchase Apple shares at a below market price), Apple was required to report a compensation charge in its publicly-filed financial statements. The Commission alleges that, in order to avoid reporting this expense, Heinen caused Apple to backdate options to January 17, 2001, when Apple's share price was substantially lower. Heinen is also alleged to have directed her staff to prepare documents falsely indicating that Apple's Board had approved the Executive Team grant on January 17. As a result, Apple failed to record approximately $18.9 million in compensation expenses associated with the option grant.
The Commission's complaint also alleges improprieties in connection with a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million options to CEO Steve Jobs. Although the options were in-the-money at that time, Heinen — as with the Executive Team grant — caused Apple to backdate the grant to October 19, 2001, when Apple's share price was lower. As a result, the Commission alleges that Heinen caused Apple to improperly fail to record $20.3 million in compensation expense associated with the in-the-money options grant. The Commission further alleges that Heinen then signed fictitious Board minutes stating that Apple's Board had approved the grant to Jobs on October 19 at a "Special Meeting of the Board of Directors" — a meeting that, in fact, never occurred.
As part of the settlement, Heinen consented (without admitting or denying the allegations) to a court order that:
enjoins her from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, and 16a-3 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 14a-9 thereunder;
orders her to pay disgorgement of $1,575,000 (representing the in-the-money portion of the proceeds she received from exercising backdated options) plus $400,219.78 in interest;
imposes a civil penalty of $200,000; and
bars her from serving as an officer or director of any public company for five years.
In addition, Heinen agreed to resolve a separate administrative proceeding against her by consenting to a Commission order that suspends her from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney for three years.
For further information please see:
Litigation Release No. 20086
"I agree..we have excellent people working at VERB"
Excellent people ? You consider people that partake in "fraudulent" activities to be excellent people?
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20683.htm
$VERB
I'm just now seeing who Verb Technologies hired. Why would they bring someone on board with a history of fraud, or acts of it? It looks like her name is Nancy.
This needs to be explained by Rory, other than the sophisticated "ice cream" one liners and hiding from challenging questions. Which seem to never get answered, or at-least truthfully.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20683.htm
The above link shows her dark minded background.
Is this why the stock price went down today?
$VERB
Anyone remember this from CEO Rory Cutaia:
Here is the link to the 8k transcript of where I obtained it.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1566610/000149315219008409/ex99-1.htm
Ray Irvine:
Great. Last two questions, and these ones are from me. I think these are pretty hot questions on the minds of a lot of our shareholders. The first one: Do you have any plans to do another reverse stock split?
Rory Cutaia:
No, I don’t see why we would do that. I have seen people posting that kind of nonsense on chat boards, and, look, they have no idea what they’re talking about. We’d have to fall below a dollar and stay there for approximately a year before that even became an issue. That’s just ridiculous. You’ve got to be careful with what you read on some of these chat boards. There’s people out there that are trying to scare you out of shares so they could buy them, or they work it for somebody else trying to do that, or they have a short position. Do your own due diligence, is really the bottom line. But, that’s preposterous. No, I don’t see any reason why we would do that.
This brings back memories to when Jeff Bezos talked about website blog people?
$VERB
Question, have any CEO's or any publicly traded company employees ever been arrested before for fraud or anything like that, or do they just remain as civil cases?
I will always wonder what large investor(s), generally speaking of $VERB got all those profits when it was nFusz and ran from 9 cents all the way to $3.04. Someone had to flood the market with shares at the time. Makes me wonder if it was planned.
$VERB
Spot on and fbi should start to investigate Rory soon enough #fbi
I'd rather not say how I feel about your comment. I don't understand why Rory can't confront his critics in a professional way, so everything can be squashed once and for all. Why hide certain things. Or is he simply hoping all of the violations Verb committed in the past just go away un-noticed ?
My opinion, is almost non-arguable as the facts are out there, or at-least they were before things always seem to get deleted or avoided.
Based off what hes putting out there for the public to see, it looks like Rory convinced himself that he's actually right, and almost never wrong (What does that tell you about one's character?) (but is that really how things are), which is very troubling for me to see. I want to believe Rory, but its no secret that his past comments almost always catch up to him, and then they try to hide it like it never happened.
Verb will always be an interesting company to me, but that's almost all it will ever be to me. Hope I'm wrong.
$VERB
You could be right. Verb's future looks pretty good. The video may jam packed full of facts. Here is a list I have come up with so far:
"Buckle up"
"200 MPH"
"Buckle up"
"You will be rewarded longs"
"Oracle PR is coming guys"
"Don't listen to anyone on message boards, they are saying the share price will go below $1.00, and people that are saying that just have no idea what they are talking about"
"Stay long"
"Ice cream guys, think ice cream"
"Skip rope"
"Don't sell, they are just trying to scare you out of your shares"
"Ice cream"
"I will never do a reverse split"
".....deleted video...."
I think my notes are pretty spot on, based off past history. Really excited for team Verbie. $VERB
Truly remarkable day at LDMicro investor conf. The market is beginning to understand how and why we assembled the chess pieces we did. And why the long-game produces the greatest value. I’m going to do a CEO update before year-end. You won’t want to miss this one. Stay tuned.
It looks like Rory tweeted this above. Nice! Does anyone know if he will be deleting this video (Assuming it's a video) once it get's put out for the public to see like he did with all of his other videos, or at-least most of them?
So proud of the things we have accomplished though, only to end up hiding (as far as published videos). $VERB
"Fight fire with fire and stand up for your business. Make mistakes and learn as you go. That's my answer. Unethical, no. As I said, it's sad, but I dont think the term ethical belongs with some and wall street. MOST CERTAINLY not here."
Alright, thanks for this. Now that I understand it fully lol. You don't think Rory of Verb Technologies should apologize to anyone he mislead ? All those statements I quoted Rory saying were pretty extreme, extreme to the point where its looked at, as more than just a "mistake" by some, it can be argued that it was just flat out wrong. As I know a general answer to my question may be "No one told you to buy or sell", it still doesn't justify Rory saying things that went against SEC policy.
Do you think he owes an apology to anyone, or do you think he's convinced himself mentally not to ever be wrong when it comes to this discussion?
"Make mistakes and learn as you go" ... Yeah I agree with this for sure. No one is perfect.
"It's sad" .... Do you mean it's sad that Rory did all of that ?
Not being smart, actually wondering if that's what you meant lol.
$VERB
"Why would ANY actual shareholder object to things that will make them rich?"
You have a point, but at the same time, this once again refers to my question "Was it ethically right of Rory to make such comments to the public about his share price / company?"
I see no one really wants to answer the question though with a explanation other than "money" being used as a easy way out.
$VERB
Okay, I can see what you mean by some of this. Technically though, the past videos / statements I have re-stated from Rory's published videos, can also be viewed as current sayings. What I mean by this is Rory recently made a comment on one of the conference phone calls, where he was asked :
"Will you guys need to ever do a reverse split" ? (Something along those lines)
And Rory answered :
"To have that done, the stock will have to go under a dollar, and these people on these message boards just truly have no idea what they are talking about, it's not going to happen" (Not those exact words from Rory, but pretty spot on, you can see the transcript from the 8-k)
Is this another mislead ? I'm not sure if anyone is aware, but the stock price went under a dollar, for quite some time. While many investors in general may think a CEO does not control the share price, this simply goes back to my question about the pumping Rory did with his share price.
My point, is this isn't exactly a "past" comment, it's actually pretty recent, or can be argued as a recent comment.
I did answer your question though, would you be willing to answer mine. Was it ethically right of Rory to make all those comments, only to delete most, if not all of them. But, I noticed you'd rather not discuss it.
I appreciate your input :)
$VERB
Hey :) I hope longs get their money back, and hope it does make people retired. Assuming your "yes" comment was made into my question earlier, so you're okay with a CEO publishing videos, only to delete (Why delete them?) them, where he gives out solid clear evidence of financial advice on telling public investors how to sell their shares / when to sell there shares ? ("Sell your shares at (roughly) $25.00" in a now deleted video by the company.
Isn't that a SEC violation against the company, or at least marks a legitimate red flag ?
I want to re-invest again, but looking for insight.
$VERB
Yeah, if "some" come to fruition, there were many comments made by Rory that flat out violated SEC regulations, so "fruition" is nothing but a side step to avoid what he said. Such as telling a public investor how to sell their shares / when to sell their shares ("Set your sell orders at $XX.00", "I never plan on doing a reverse split" (Mislead?), etc, etc.). The video(s) have been removed from many, if not all of Verb Technologies internet platforms. It's hard to get a discussion about this going, because to me it may seem pretty obvious what was ethically right and what was ethically wrong.
While I may agree with how it may be "too soon to tell" with very, and I mean very few of those comments Rory made in those videos, the other multiple comments still ask the question "Was it ethically right?".
And to answer your question, no I don't think it is ethically right if or when people make comments like that. Generally speaking for anything in discussion.
Hey ! I'm not disagreeing with what you said here, as it's a whole different discussion.
I was simply asking about all of the things Rory of Verb has stated in the past (when it came to video publishing), and still continues to state (but in small increments, as he seemed to have picked up real quick SEC policy goes against what he had done in those deleted videos).
Like I said in my last post, does anyone think it was ethically right of Rory to publish videos in the past that had comments such as this:
"stay long"
"We are going to moon"
"If you don't sell you will be rewarded" (90% decline is considered rewarded?)
"millions in revenue back in 2017(?)(When it struggled to reach $10,000 in revenue)"
"Set your sell orders at roughly $25.00 (?)"
Does anyone remember these videos or do we forget about those ?
$VERB
I wouldn't know about all of that. I just made this account. I guess I was just trying to see if anyone thinks what Rory has done over the last couple of years is ethically right. Like I said in my last, post, ethically as in saying the things he said like "stay long" , "We are going to moon", "millions in revenue back in 2017(?)(When it struggled to reach $10,000 in revenue)", etc. I try to find the deleted videos Rory made til this day and can't find most of them. If you try reaching out to Rory and ask him or others employed under him, you tend to just get ignored or blocked.
$VERB
Does anyone think it was ethically right of Rory to publish videos from the past that had strong signs of pumping ("we are going to the moon" , "we're putting gasoline on this now !" , "200 mph", "stay long", etc) his stock price, only to see the stock fall almost 100% of its high ? Only to delete most of those videos to avoid SEC problems, more than likely.
Or are people okay with this type of behavior from a "NASDAQ" (OTC?) CEO ?
Looking for honest discussion.
$VERB
I got a question that is in relation to what happened when $VERB was once $FUSZ . As we all should remember the huge pump from roughly 9 cents to $3.04, someone had to make alot of money from that when it came crashing down. Who were the major sellers ? Were there deals in place with Oceanside and others that had large quantities of shares that ended up flooding the market with shares causing the price to drop ? And why would certain parties have large amounts of free (?) shares given to them in the first place? And did Rory see any of that money in any of those deals?
Nice, thanks! Not sure 90+% of your post answered my question. What's the latest on the one lawsuit where shareholders are trying to get their money back from misleads of the CEO from Verb Technologies?
It looks like there were court hearings over the last few weeks, but I can't open the files. Mind sharing the details from the last 2 court hearings?
As a future potential investor also, I was hoping to get insight on it recently, not old files. Hope that's okay with everyone.
I appreciate if you could man =)
Hey everyone. I'm assuming no one has access to the lawsuit files that were filed against Verb Technologies? They can be found on that Pacer Monitor website.
I'd really like to know how it's been coming along.
$VERB
Does anyone have access to these lawsuit links against Verb Technology by chance? I guess you have to pay to see actual details of the case. Anyone able to see these? Not sure if this is aloud to be posted or not.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28996310/Scott_C_Hartmann_v_Verb_Technology_Company,_Inc_et_al
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/30253673/Richard_Moore_v_Verb_Technology_Company,_Inc_et_al
Can anyone post an update on the lawsuit against Verb ?
I'm curious to see what paper work has been filed recently and what it exactly means. Thank you.
$VERB