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.
That Director did not make an open market purchase, she financed a loan in exchange for shares of the company. Posting an opinion is much different than posting something which is factually inaccurate.
Fact: The SEC has made an initial order to have the stock revoked
Fact: IMDS has acknowledged the main reasons the SEC wants the stock revoked in their own pleadings.
Fact: This transaction resulted in a massive dilution to investors that have already lost virtually 100%. An additional 36 billion shares which IMDS does not have available to offer without a huge increase in the shares authorized or an additional reverse split.
Do some research. It is contained in the SEC Filings. She provided IMDS with financing in exchange for shares. That is how she was "elected" to the BOD. I believe it was about $40,000 that bought the seat. No insider buys this POS.
No matter as her shares like everyone else's are wiped out, thanks to Linda.
Again, as a word of caution to everyone, the SEC does prosecute people who intentionally post false and misleading statements on message boards to promote the stock.
That is entirely FALSE. The SEC has ordered the stock revoked pending a final decision. That insiser LOANED IMDS the money in exchange for those shares.
Beware paid promoters spreading lies.
It means once again, investors are screwed so the Grables can make money and stay out of prison.
Still no word on the final decision to revoke the stock.
36 BILLION shares. MIND BOGGLING isn't it. Haven't seen any news of the final decision for revocation?
Isn't this guy and this hospital one of the locations where IMDS had a tester machine years back?
. Qun Wang is an acupuncture physician in Orlando, Florida, practicing in Florida since 1994. Dr. Wang was a general surgeon from 1981 to 1987 at First Teaching Hospital (Beijing Medical University), Beijing, China
Long, I think we are dealing with
TO THE MOON
That's the only answer I can think of.
You obviously do not know how to read an order. The revocation order was entered, however pursuant to SEC laws and guidelines, they afford companies the right to file a motion for review of MATERIAL FACTS or a manifest error. IMDS in it's reply acknowldge the facts presented by the SEC.
NO WHERE does the order say the Order is Revoked if certain criteria isn't met. The SEC already made a decision. IMDS needs to show cause why the SEC Order is not based on facts or there was an error in the manifest.
The SEC effectively shut down the stock when they delisted it months ago and then further with the revocation order. No one is buying or promoting this scam except you.
I GRANT the Division of Enforcement’s Motion for Summary Disposition and,pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, REVOKE the registration of each class
of registered securities of Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc.
This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360. Pursuant to that
Rule, I FURTHER ORDER that a party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within twelve days after service of the Initial Decision.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360(b). A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the Initial Decision, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then that party shall have twenty- one days to file a petition for review from the date of the order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error
of fact. The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become final as to that party. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(b)(1)
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-15864-event-16.pdf
Brenda P. Murray
Chief Administrative Law Judge
THE STOCK WAS ORDERED REVOKED BY THE SEC AUGUST 1, 2014
You have to question the motives of anyone promoting such a stock.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt apparently.
Looking up for WHO Bill?
Best case investors who already lost all their money get diluted another 90%
Worst case- which the SEC already decided. The stock is revoked.
I think it may drag out for a while longer. Read the ruling again. IMDS will file something- simply to give them time to delay the inevitable.
This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360. Pursuant to that
Rule, I FURTHER ORDER that a party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within twelve days after service of the Initial Decision.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360(b). A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the Initial Decision, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then that party shall have twenty- one days to file a petition for review from the date of the order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error of fact. The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become final as to that party. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(b)(1)
What are your thoughts on the stock being revoked?
I think IMDS is a little riskier than AAA bonds, given IMDS stock was ordered revoked last week.
Yet another undisclosed paid awareness promoter who has left the building.
Shorting the stock? Investors lost their shirts on that one. Besides, isn't their product seven years old now?
You were 100% correct on this. BIG NEWS did come.
The stock is being revoked and investors lose all their money.
I suggest you read Linda Grable's SEC deposition. It is rather damning. IMO anyone with a high school education can determine multiple times where she was not forthcoming, or provided false testimony.
It appears to be a matter of record, as the SEC subesequently filed charges against both her and the CFO for fraud and misrepresentation of facts, which led to a settlement resulting in both forced to resign from IMDS and a lifetime ban from holding an officer position.
Wouldn't you agree?
Replace the words IMGG with IMDS. See any possible similarities?
SEC Charges Medical Imaging Device Company and Its CEO with Fraud
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2013-117
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed fraud charges on Tuesday against Burbank, Calif.-based Imaging3, Inc., and its founder and chief executive Dean Janes for misleading shareholders about the Federal and Drug Administration (FDA)’s view of the company’s medical device.
Additional Materials
SEC Complaint
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Janes held a conference call with investors in November 2010 after the FDA denied clearance for Imaging3, Inc. to market its proprietary scanner, which provides three-dimensional images for use in medical diagnosis. The denial was the product’s third, as the FDA denied clearance in 2008 and earlier in 2010. Even though the FDA cited concerns about the safety of the device and the quality of the images, Janes told investors that the FDA’s issues were “not substantive” and largely “administrative.”
“Shareholders have a right to trust corporate officers to tell them the truth about the business. When CEOs abuse that trust and make misstatements, innocent shareholders are victimized,” said Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. “The SEC will hold corporate officers accountable for misleading shareholders.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on the conference call, Janes did not discuss the issues raised by the FDA in an October 2010 letter, such as the device’s potential for over-heating, and the fact that some sample images the company submitted were “scientifically invalid and useless.”
Even when asked on the call whether any of the FDA’s concerns were “safety-related” or involved image quality, Janes said, “Nope,” and that there was “really and honestly not one question about the technology or its consistency. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
After an investor obtained the FDA’s denial letter and posted it on an Internet blog in early 2011, Janes used his personal Facebook page in another effort to mischaracterize the denial, the SEC alleged. Janes and his company didn’t officially issue the full text of the denial letter until earlier this year, more than two years after the call to discuss it.
The SEC's action charges Imaging3, Inc. and Janes with fraud and seeks a court order to bar them from future violations of federal securities laws, require them to pay civil monetary penalties, and bar Janes from serving as a public company officer or director.
Alka Patel and Katharine Zoladz of the Los Angeles Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation and David Van Havermaat will lead the litigation.
Confirmed- Your posts are pure idle speculation and opinion- nothing more, and should be treated as such.
Does this come in English?
My Statements are Based on the Current Expectations as to the Potential Future & ACTUAL FUTURE RESULTS AREN'T GUARANTEED OCCUR
Speaking of authorized signatures, you should read the SEC deposition of the now ousted CEO from IMDS, Linda Grable. IMDS submitted two SEC filings in September and October 2008 after the prior CEO- Tim Hansen- resigned in March 2008 and Grable came back as CEO, with the prior (Hansen's) name and signature as CEO.
But according to Linda Grable, the SEC is "full of crap" and she actually called the SEC and told them they were wrong on so many things.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-15864-event-11.pdf
WRONG- I would suggest you read the SPA until it sinks in. IF the deal goes through and IF the stock is not revoked- BOTH highly unlikely, then the new owners own 90% of the company, YOUR stock is diluted 90%, LINDA's preferred shares are CANCELLED.
There is no buyback
There is no happy ending
Stop spreading lies.
The SEC prosecutes people who intentionally try to mislead the public on message boards.
Only way I guess it makes sense was if this scam went through and the IRS lien was somehow satisfied.
It's a rather moot point as the SEC has ordered the stock revoked. 90% dilution of a revoked stock is worthless. This latest scam by IMDS doesn't change the reasons why the SEC order should not become final. IMO it provides further reason to protect the public.
Integral, here's the kicker. IMDS doesn't own the patent on the CTLM
Grable does.
And it expires next year.
But this four month old shell company decides out of 100,000 companies to buy this POS scam where the officers just resigned as a result of an SEC investigation?
That is pretty funny. Of course none of that appear to have transpired, and the SEC revoked the stock on August 1.
My questions are
How did the IRS not sieze the $100,000 as IMDS is in default
Why did the deal go through even after the SEC revoked the stock
How can the SEC allow this to happen when it is clearly a vehicle to get the Grables off the hook
What happens to the outstanding liens against IMDS and Grable
So in essence, $100,000 bought IMDS and all the Grables jumped ship.
Wondering where the money came from to satisfy the liens -36778 plus interest- on Grable's personal residence last month, when she claims to have not taken a salary and depleted her finances. Think the IRS may want to know?
Document Type: (RST) Release/Revoke/Satisfy or Terminate
Record Date : 7/28/2014 9:31:46 AM
From: OCEANAGE ASSN INC
To : GRABLE,LINDA B
GRABLE,RICHARD J
Book Type: O
Book / Page: 50965 / 392
# of Pages: 1
Previous Related Docs:
110467629 - 48413/797
Document Type: (RST) Release/Revoke/Satisfy or Terminate
Record Date : 7/16/2014 11:39:26 AM
From: OCEANAGE ASSN INC
To : GRABLE,LINDA B
GRABLE,RICHARD J
WACHOVIA BANK
WELLS FARGO BANK
Book Type: O
Book / Page: 50938 / 197
# of Pages: 2
Case Number: CACE-12-000517
Not anyone that has been in contact with her or read one of her depositions. She's a scammer no doubt, but Al was the brains of the outfit.
On another note, the State of Florida has also a lien against IMDS for unpaid taxes
Document Type: (LIE) Lien
Record Date : 5/30/2014 7:48:38 AM
Lienor: FLORIDA STATE DEPT OF REVENUE
Lienee: IMAGING DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC
Book Type: O
Book / Page: 50815 / 1479
# of Pages: 1
Do you believe IMDS will file an appeal? If nothing else, it buys them more time to pack! I wonder when the lawsuits from the toxic lenders and other debtors start?
IMDS STOCK REVOKED AUGUST 1, 2014
According to her mommy the CEO, she was in charge of the botched FDA submissions. IMO she has some 'splainin to do as a result of mommy's sworn deposition.
and where is Uncle Al running to? Grable testified he was the person responsible for drafting all the SEC filings.
I agree. Grable attempted to play the "sick old dottering CEO" who knew nothing about anything going on at IMDS, with the exception of raising money from toxic lenders. Newsflash Linda- you signed off on every one of those SEC filings. The SEC is not buying your feigned ignorance, and rightfully so.
I would like to see the CFO's sworn deposition. He appears to be in hot water as well.
What are the odds they track down all the offshore money?
I wonder if the SEC is going to prosecute Grable and all the paid promoters of IMDS.
I bet the SEC monitors all message boards and knows who was paid to promote the stock.
Sounds as if they violated additional laws? Think Grable gave the money back?
Arrogant and unrepentive until the end. Everyone else is wrong. The FDA, the SEC, her own radiologists. Let's hope the SEC doesn't end their investigation here.
Sworn SEC deposition Linda Grable 1/28/13
BY MS.TROTMAN:
Q. Ms. Grable,
I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 60. It's a six page letter from CarltonFields to the Securities and Exchange Commissions. Do you recognize this letter?
A.Yes.
Q. What was your reaction to this letter?
A. I hate to tell you what my reaction was. I won't tell you.
Q. Ms. Grable, you have to say¬
MR. MATHEWS: Is there a polite way for you to-¬
THE WITNESS: Very polite way, full of crap
MR. MATHEWS: I prefer you would have used different language but –
BY MS. TROTMAN:
Q. Ms. Grable, what steps did you take after receiving this letter
A. I called Marybeth and I told her she was wrong
Q. And by Mary beth are you referring to Marybeth Reslin at the Securities and Exchange Commission?
A. Yes
Q And what did you tell Ms. Reslin exactly?
A. I told her it was not true, that we were really not rejected, actually we were given a new technology that can now be done differently and that it’s a new technology. I told her the FDS was not rejecting it they just changed the way the technologist supposed to do it and now we have to do a PMA.
Q. Ms. Grable, isn’t it true that the 510k application that Imaging Diagnostic had pending with the FDA was denied?
A. It was denied but at the same time they gave us the new way of doing the technology now. We’re supposed to be diffused optimal technology.
Q. But isn’t it true that if the 510k application was denied Imaging Diagnostics did not have the permission to sell the CTLM system in the United States?
A. No, we can’t sell them until we get the PMA approval now,
Q. So why would you call and tell an attorney with the SEC that it wasn’t true that the application had been denied?
A. Because they were reading it wrong. And I actually- it was denied on one way but actually accepted on another way, okay. And changed- denied one way, accepted another way and changed into a new category, if I can just say that.
We know there are no assets and the patents are carried on the books for minimal value. Grable will be personally liable for the million plus IRS lien. I would expect to see a wave of lawsuits and liens filed before IMDS files BK?
What happens now with the IRS lien and the other pending lawsuits vs. Grable and IMDS?
IMDS STOCK REVOKED AUGUST 1 2014
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2014/id646bpm.pdf
AUGUST 1- SEC INITIAL DECISION
I GRANT the Division of Enforcement’s Motion for Summary Disposition and,pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, REVOKE the registration of each class of registered securities of Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc
This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360. Pursuant to that Rule, I FURTHER ORDER that a party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within twelve days after service of the Initial Decision.See 17 C.F.R. § 201. 360(b). A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the Initial Decision, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then that party shall have twenty- one days to file a petition for review from the date of the order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error
of fact. The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become final as to that party. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(b)(1)
Brenda P. Murray
Chief Administrative Law Judge