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.
earnie, The truth is, then...
that the real source of contention is whether or not SS possesses the business acumen to take advantage of the empty shell he owns?
I believe his obvious success with ITT LLC answers that question nicely...and provides suitable validity for the RM hypothesis.
It is a Plausibe scenario of past events.
Far more plausible that some of the reverse merger news that some subscribe to that is coming out of Elmira.
jmo
earnie, re; proxy...
SLJB Ontario ownership isn't the issue...SLJB Nevada is owned by SS. Therefore, until he chooses to utilize the shell to take ITT LLC public, shareholder control of the shell is a useless exercise.
Maybe one should define active operations.
SLJB Nevada never owned SLJB Ontario I hear and was always just an empty shell. And if PV owned Sulja Building Supplies Ontario ...just more of all that nothing for SLJB Nevada.
Empty shells don't have active operations.
And one can't force Steve to be active in SLJB.
Shareholders should do a proxy and gain control of the revoked shell, appoint a willing board and officers and then do what you suggest.
jmo
earnie, In other words...
It seems to fit the available facts as we know them?
It is A STORY that one poster who seemed to know a lot of inside information from being close to PV.
It made some sense as to why the little lumberyard was in such dire straits before lending its name to the Public shell.
Take it for what it is worth.
jmo
earnie...
Do you believe that story? If so, please clarify why.
Thank you.
The story is that Steve (the minister) and his family got scammed by PV for some time before he convinced them (as their friend) to do the pubco deal. Sales to Loftwerks that were never paid for apparently put Sulja's and their business in Harrow in a precarious position financially prior to the scam.
Nope ... the minister is going to walk ... having been scammed too.
He does not want to perpetuate the scam by doing any business with an Entity he does not want and does not understand public markets.
Count, Not really. LOL!em
Yes, they are...
But, if you read the link, actually making it stick is quite difficult.
C'mon, earnie...
you surely can do better than a list of possible allegations being looked into by the OSC...a famously much-maligned organization in the Canadian press.
Let's see some FACTS.
Facts ... you want facts?
Lets see....
- OSC Hearing with Seven Securities Violations including Fraud.
- Ex-CEO charged with two counts of criminal Fraud
- Operations all closed
- No big deals ever completed
- CEO interviewed, confirms no big deals ever completed.
- Company status Revoked by Nevada SOS
- RCMP and IMET investigations
- SEC inquiry announced
- Company itself releases a PR not to believe the prior PR's
- Cease Trade Order in two Canadian provinces
etc. etc.
Good luck to you and your investment in this Scam.
jmo
p.s. don't be holding your breath waiting for an apology from me or anyone else for calling this a scam.
JMO
What is it called when one party makes unfounded detrimental statements against another party?
That's OBVIOUS, earnie...
but the simple truth is, you've never posted one iota of FACT in your copious accusations of 'scam' against SLJB. Is it not true that all you actually have is a list of possible allegations being looked into by the OSC?
AGAIN...Where are your FACTS?
Slojon ... you DO understand that this is JUST a stock message board and not a court of law.
Good luck to you with your investment in this scam.
jmo
earnie, I take it then...
that your position that SLJB is a scam is totally the product of facts derived thru studious due diligence?
earnie, Please post...
the OSC ruling stating these allegations to be true findings.
Lets see....
- OSC Hearing with Seven Securities Violations including Fraud.
- Ex-CEO charged with two counts of criminal Fraud
- Operations all closed
- No big deals ever completed
- CEO interviewed, confirms no big deals ever completed.
- Company status Revoked by Nevada SOS
- RCMP and IMET investigations
- SEC inquiry announced
- Company itself releases a PR not to believe the prior PR's
- Cease Trade Order in two Canadian provinces
etc. etc.
Libelous??
I don't think so.
Good luck to you and your investment in this Scam.
jmo
Any characterization of SLJB as a 'scam'...based as it is upon totally unfounded rumor...is clearly libelous.
earnie, Such an assumption...
especially after 2 1/2 years of absolutely no evidence of SEC interest is obviously grossly premature. Any characterization of SLJB as a 'scam'...based as it is upon totally unfounded rumor...is clearly libelous.
Believe what you will.
I am sure that when the SEC files its charges after the OSC Hearing that this interview will come up.
Good luck with your investment in this Scam.
jmo
*************************************************
Maybe this will help you.
Steve Sulja did NOT pay the annual information filing fee with the Nevada Sec. of State for SLJB Nevada.
So SLJB was Revoked
Prior to Revocation the filing fees were only $900.
Conversely, Mr. Sulja has paid the annual filing fees for his private company, International Trading CCT LLC.
Does that tell you Mr. Sulja intentions?
To me it speaks VOLUMES.
Good luck with your investment in this Scam.
jmo
ps. I have already reported Mr. Sulja and his business to the appropriate goverment authorities maintaining the EPLS.
jmo
****************************************
Mr. Sulja's quoted comments are just that ... Mr. Sulja's quoted comments.
Mr. Sulja has elected to remain silent since the Windsor Star interview.
Now with the Revocation of SLJB Nevada by the Nevada SOS, Mr. Sulja is NO longer the CEO of SLJB.
Good luck with your investment in this Scam.
jmo
mm, A question...
Don't you owe the forum an apology for positing an allegation against the CEO of SLJB now shown thru proper...and elementary...DD to be totally unfounded?
TIA
John, My response...
Slojon, thanks for the imformation.
You're most welcome sir.
Once again, I think one can argue that the interview was Steve's last "public" statement. It may have given him the opportunity to elaborate on past happenings more clearly than through a press release. The interview was given by Steve and not off the cuff. It is clearly written as such. Steve was quoted, and if incorrectly, there would certainly have been repercussions. Common sense leads me to believe this was Steve's exit interview.
And I agree with Earnest, if we were to follow your logic, then the SEC should add another charge against Steve.
The posted quotes from http://www.sec.gov/news/extra/seldsfct.htm clearly belie the relevance of that position/allegation.
Steve has a current business, that he has seemingly separated from SLJB, intentionally or not. He has done so. I don't believe there is some grand scheme to reward "long" shareholders. I think he has cut his losses and started over.
Whether or not that's true will become known five months from now.
I do believe he owes shareholders quite a bit more than what he has given them in the form of a public statement, as well as, a public apology and a clear indication of his current business enedavors, and any intent to consolidate the two.
Agreed.
Why, with all of the non-action taken by SLJB, do you still think that there is any motivation on the part of Steve to do this? He even let his legal status run out?!?
Regrettably, 'Doing Nothing' is the only viable course available until SLJB is cleared of all wrongdoing.
Otherwise, arguing the nuances of proper disclosure, or executive obligations and whether or not he has met any of these obligations, will lead to nothing more than "all that nothing".There has been quite a bit of talk about notifying the GSA. Really, this is a government contracting agency, nothing will happen. Call them, most aren't even familiar with their own Federal Acquisition Regulations. Shareholders need to make a strong legal argument to persuade Mr. Sulja into "doing the right thing".
Mr. Sulja is fully aware of possible repercussions.
Otherwise, arguing the nuances of proper disclosure, or executive obligations and whether or not he has met any of these obligations, will lead to nothing more than "all that nothing".
Absolutely correct.
Wrong again...
* The regulation will apply only to an issuer's communications with market professionals, and holders of the issuer's securities under circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the security holders will trade on the basis of the information. The regulation will not apply to issuer communications with the press, rating agencies, and ordinary-course business communications with customers and suppliers.
* The regulation will apply only to communications by the issuer's senior management, its investor relations professionals, and others who regularly communicate with market professionals and security holders.
http://www.sec.gov/news/extra/seldsfct.htm
RE;
Let the SEC add Improper FD Disclosure to their SLJB investigation then.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________
i.e;....The allegation is bogus
John, re; Reg FD...
...Regulation FD would require that when an issuer intentionally discloses material information, it do so publicly and not selectively. The company may make the required disclosure by filing the information with the Commission, or by another method intended to reach the public on a broad, nonexclusionary basis, such as a press release. When selective disclosure of material information is made unintentionally, the company must publicly disclose the information promptly thereafter.
Fact Sheet: http://www.sec.gov/news/extra/seldsfct.htm
The question is...Can Mr. Sulja's informal responses to a local reporter...given the impromptu circumstances of the interview and the reporter's prior reportage re; SLJB...be regarded as an 'intentional disclosure of material information to shareholders'?
In a word...NO. The claim is bogus.
The first time?...
I'm just a dumb ol' hick...not a player like you.
even after nothing from management for so long already?
as a shareholder, why did you buy in the first time?
As a shareholder,...
Yes, I'm waiting to see what Management's response will be to the conclusion of the OSC hearing.
John, Yes ~ Reg FD. em
John, Hock likely won't...
be available to respond until tonite, if then. You might consider reading Reg FD in its entirety for the answer to your question. To my knowledge, nspx interviews aren't usually considered legal communications with shareholders due to their naturally limited readership.
Have a good day.
ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS...
MURF has been on SLJB L2 bid all day @ .0009...
with no buys. Where'd all the shares go...hmmm?
*R*O*F*L*M*A*O*!!!
One question, crowin...
Why did you block the gas line right-of-way?
Thank you.
whistles, you've waited 2 years...
only six months left.
risicare, Isn't that...
called "needless and unfounded speculation" when applied to a particular stock?
You, ESPECIALLY, should know better.
RE;
The SEC seems to have really stepped it up in the last bit they have been suspending like there is no tomorrow recently. I would not be suprised one bit to see this one suspended and revoked in the coming months.
Pure apples/oranges...
Your pretense that penny shorters always follow a bunch of BS 'rules' is belied by the costs implied so well by you. The fact is that pennys ARE "shorted" for serious profits every day. The easy way is thru perfectly legal swap contracts...the harder way is thru certain EU B/Ds who gladly waive the "required" fees for a 50% vig on the take plus a healthy % interest on the borrow if it goes sour.
The question is whether or not SLJB is shorted...
YES.
The REAL question is whether or not the short has any bearing on the future of SLJB...
NO, it does NOT. As to WHY...think about it, it'll hit you...eventually.
Let's get real...
The simple truth is that the "# of shares avail 4 shorting" actually represents shares held in idiot's accts that brokers feel sure they can 'borrow' for awhile & earn a little vig on w/o the shareholder's knowledge.
The FACT that that # is still being posted, but is decreasing, indicates 2 things...
A; For some reason, there's still a demand for shortable shares.
B; The amount is minuscule because most shares that were 'available' for shorting are gone.
AGAIN...I *KNOW* they're not NITE's shares, so please quit alleging I said they are.
RE;
First off what are 100 000 shares of SLJB worth? Little more than nothing..... 30 000 , 100 000 who cares it is utterly meaningless.
Secondly that is just the availability at IB WTF does it have to do with anything?
Thirdly those are not NITES shares, that little box that says NITE is who you can route through as IB uses NITE for pinks. This is what you get for SLAB
Symbol: SLAB
Availability: 6'300'000
Exchanges: BEX, IDEAL, ATD, CSFBALGO, CSFBCROSS, DARK1, JEFFALGO, NITEECN, TMBR, NSX, LAVA, TRACKECN, CHX, DRCTEDGE, BATS, DRCTIOI, ISE, CBSX, EDGEA, ISLAND, BTRADE, ARCA, DBALGO, NASDAQQ, LEVELATS, IBSX, MIBSX, NASDAQ
yup. spelled differently tho.
Check it for yourself...
Only 30k are currently available...down from 100k+ recently.
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?key=SLJB&cntry=usa&tag=United+States&ib_entity=llc&ln
I did NOT say NITE is the shorter when I posted...
If they're SO "worthless and illiquid"...Why are NITE's shares available for shorting totals changing so drastically month to month?
AND...Please explain the after hours trading on ARCA.
I mentioned NITE *ONLY* because MURF...the B/T who handles NITE's hedgie traffic on the ECNs...is the one currently handling SLJB trades after hours.
RE;
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you think the IB shares available have something to do with NITE other than that is who they route their pink order flow through? If so perhaps you need get an understanding of what you are actually looking at because you obviously do not know.
ARCAEDGE is an ECN so what? Sorry Slojon nobody wants your shares that is why the price is .000x with little to no volume.
Something's plugged all right...
but it isn't Eberle!
LOL!
If they're SO "worthless and illiquid"...
Why are NITE's shares available for shorting totals changing so drastically month to month?
AND...Please explain the after hours trading on ARCA.
Sulja isn't HARDLY 'up the creek' as you claim!
RE;
Sulja is already up the creek do you think he would do something so stupid such as contravene the CTO just to make literally a couple bucks? The shares are also pretty much worthless and illiquid. That is of course if he even has any shares which is quite unlikely.
risicare, Do you REALLY believe...
the Suljas are SO simple they are unaware they can trade SLJB in the other eleven areas of Canada as well as in the US and the EU?
RE;
Slojon, there is no evidence that the Suljas own any SLJB shares.
and if they did, have you ever heard of something called a Cease Trade Order in the Province of Ontario issued by the OSC?
To all, re; the allegations extant...
Much has been made re;SS's character. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;PV's lack of same. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;OSC investigation. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;NV revocation of SLJB. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;Alleged SEC investigation of SLJB. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;Alleged FINRA investigation of SLJB. Not applicable.
Much has been made re;RCMP investigation of SLJB. Not applicable.
The only truly applicable fact is this: What course of action following closure of the OSC inquiry best guarantees the greatest financial return to the Suljas and Gurmani going forward?
Despite the obvious fact that the scenario I've proposed exactly fits all known (& not generally known) information re;SLJB and its players, do not simply regard it as a foregone conclusion and proceed accordingly. Although I've found hints that the OSC hearing date isn't as cast in stone as I first assumed, I feel it best to plan on at LEAST a seven month remaining hiatus before SLJB's probable resurgence. Even if the OSC hearing occurs earlier than previously announced, it obviously would not be in the Sulja's best interests to proceed with the RM until mid-January, 2010 at the earliest.
The real 'elephant in the room' question that's never been broached anywhere is this...
If SLJB is the scam company it's alleged to be, why haven't any of the Suljas capitalized on it by releasing for sale any of the remaining millions of shares either in the AS or their personal accounts over the last two+ years?
Good question.
Of course, but I'm also sure...
you're WELL aware of the realities of current cross-border relations between the two. Therefore, why should we persist with inapplicable straw-man arguments?
NOT while the OSC...
investigation is ongoing. Of course...you knew that, right?
LOL!
Actually, they can't. e/m
earnie, Given the leeway afforded...
by NV, why on earth would SS NEED to renew SLJB before the legal cloud is eradicated, rendering the shell fully viable again?
Agenda is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
In a nutshell, YES. e/m
marketmann, Like I said...
take a long look at the daily vol totals. Just from June '06 thru April '07 the aggregate is around 1.2 billion. If you go back to Feb '05 thru May '06 the LFWK totals are slightly over three billion. (LFWK was .40+ Aug '05)
Who actually started the short? I'm guessing Ammerman and De Vries...but I can't prove it. (doesn't matter anyway) Who lost the most? Again, just an educated guess, but I'm betting on SS's father...as he almost went BK in Feb '06 I hear.
RE;
so, you say it's been a plan to get shorty from the get go? and you honestly believe this "The true short is much larger than a lousy 60 mil, okay? you really believe that??
bearluver, The answer to that is simple...
The only reason for a class action is to recover loss. When the pps rises in response to the RM, that reason disappears. Those who mistakenly sold in the interim would have no claim.
marketmann, Since when...
is an empty shell described as a 'legit business'?
why do you think sljb is a 'legit' business?
I would hope that all agree that SLJB was initially created to soak the LFWK shorters...no more, no less. PV even admitted such with his 'Short Seller Captured Capital' BS...which actually happened in the three weeks leading to the Final Dive in late '06. If anyone doubts the short, just survey the daily vol totals starting in Mar '06 thru April '07...pretty hilarious.
If PV hadn't screwed up with the prospectus crappola, SS's LLC...which was already in the works...was scheduled to be introduced into the shell as an 'aquisition' in mid '07. The result would've been extraordinarily profitable for all concerned, to say the least.
As we all know, that didn't happen...simply because adding a new enterprise to a shell under 'investigation' would be financial suicide.
Fast forward to today...When the OSC finalizes their investigation six months hence, the original program will continue.
Hide'n Watch.
As for how I arrived at my conclusions...MYOB.
earnie, In other words...
We're all gonna hafta settle back and WAIT? Hmmm...
While all are waiting it might be a good idea to Google Mr. Gurmani for some interesting reading. Before you start, be aware the really good stuff isn't easy or cheap to find...and NO, I don't share. (Hint: Look for behavior patterns - the guy's a %@$# shark!)
Enjoy.
RE;
Well ... when the company actually restores its status and Gurmani actually puts his name down as CEO of SLJB ... then you can make that claim.
Until then ... NO ONE is IDIOTIC enough to become CEO of this securities challenged scam.
jmo