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.
Nobody lied.
The claimant is well known for taking a half set of facts and spinning a wild *and colorful* tale of a nefarious alternative universe.
Have you read FINRA Information Notice 5/10/19? Turns out that information you're posting doesn't tell the whole story. Don't sweat it, it's a short read.
Ha, see what I did there?
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019
The share price trajectory is what it is because Leo chose to finance the company with public shares available to retailers like you and me on a pseudo market with barely any if at all regulation.
Very good explanation of the facts as to why the share price is where it is.
... the shares are the target of a criminal conspiracy.
Not sure where you are coming from with this statement, Leo using convertible financing is not criminal.
Holy Cow, look at those *Hidden Trade %* numbers! No wonder this stock is #2 on the Breakout Board!!
Buying? I dunno, I heard it was *wash trading*. Volume maintenance days by NR?
Aren't those Nulixo's words, not Utah?
So the State of Utah expects any winner of the award to be operating approximately 3 years after the contract signed.
Based on your math, you are implying that the DTC only has 334,000 shares?
Maybe do a little research before bringing that stink to this stock.
Chapter 18: CMKM and the UnShareholders
You are right, I stand corrected.
I think the right number for comparison purposes at 12/31/18 is 176M, not 163M.
An increase of 49 million shares, or 30% from 1/1/19 to 11/08/19. Some might consider that increase to be significant. The share price only went from .10 to .09 during that exact same time period. So if the insignificant 30% increase in shares didn't account for the 10% pps decrease, I would love to hear the other factors you think are causing it.
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/innovation-pharmaceuticals-inc-IPIX/stock-news/80831043/annual-report-10-k
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates on December 31, 2018 was $16,326,577 (163,265,767 shares), based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock of $0.10.
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/innovation-pharmaceuticals-inc-IPIX/stock-news/81135230/quarterly-report-10-q
The number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common equity, as of November 8, 2019 is as follows:
Class of Securities
Shares Outstanding
Common Stock Class A, $0.0001 par value
212,369,124
As I said, the statement is false.
But I am curious, which part of the statement do you claim to be false, the amount of shares stated, or the omission of all of the steps involved to get the newly minted common shares into the market? (It could be both.)
Does it matter? To me, no. If to the amount, I accept it as being in the ballpark. If it's to the procedural steps of selling convertible preferreds to the MFO, the MFO converting the preferreds to common, and selling the common ASAP? Well, after doing all the T-accounts, I'm a "bottom line" kind of guy.
"Yes we currently sell approx 250,000 shares a day on average to fund operations."
If the "we" is IPIX, and it's presented without any other context, then I agree, it is false.
But as a thought to be conveyed, with brevity of presentation of all steps involved, it seems to be a perfect explanation of what is going on here.
Pete, you're getting bad information. Every trade you see on the tape is either the market maker buying shares or the market maker selling shares. What I would like to know is why do you jump to the conclusion that the .098 transaction was a market maker sell, bypassing higher offers?
The market makers want to "pretty much balance out", it's not a coincidence. They do play games, especially when they have a client with a lot of shares to sell (MFO).
How does your source explain all of the new shares that are hitting the market in her daily documentation?
Warning signs in English, street sign in English and Spanish. Car tags definitely not USA. Where is this place?
Wow! NR = Just A Few Probs
Nailed it!
Was it dismissed, or was there a jury trial?
From the VNS -
On August 9, 2019, a jury returned a not guilty verdict involving defendant Brian Dvorak. The burden of proving a criminal case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a difficult one. We vigorously prosecuted this case to the best of our ability within the framework of our criminal justice system.
From Pacer -
08/09/2019 696 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Dvorak Only re 63 Superseding Indictment (Sealed),, by USA as to Brian Dvorak. Responses due by 8/23/2019. (Lopez, Richard (Tony)) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
08/09/2019 697 ORDER granting 696 Motion to Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment as to Brian Dvorak (The status conference scheduled for August 12, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/9/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
I must have missed the notices that Dvorak was going to trial by jury. All I saw were motions and scheduled hearings.
Sorry, you'll have to show me where the words "no further" show up in Bertolino's statement last Monday.
Bertolino continued: “The Alfasigma licensing agreement, importantly, enables us to access non-dilutive capital immediately and potentially into the future..."
That may have been what you took from it, but here is what was actually quoted -
Bertolino continued: “The Alfasigma licensing agreement, importantly, enables us to access non-dilutive capital immediately and potentially into the future..."
Yep that makes two whole countries where they can't sell a machine.
Hmmm, in my opinion, the MFO drove the share price down on Friday (deal was done Thursday, right?). This made the conversion rate just slightly over 11 cents for this week and next week. Cozy relationships indeed.
Isn't that curious? Who knew short sales led to share price increases? What the hell are they complaining about?
(PS, don't go nuts, those were all rhetorical.)
Can you say MFO selling 11 cent shares?
Can you say manipulation?
NR bought shares? I wonder if their share count is net of all their naked shares?
it's the fact that P2O was noted .. PTOI shares were bought .. and a 13F was filed yet again
Anybody know a site that tracks daily VWAP? Might help explain what's going on.
People selling shares 40 50 thousand for 17 18 cents what the hell is going on
Wink or no wink, that is a ridiculous statement.
What bid was "jumped", and who "jumped" it? Is there a reference for this statement, or is it wild speculation?
Has a stock price ever risen due to incessant bid sitting?
The market maker is on one side of every transaction. The infamous jumped bid = market maker buying on the bid vs market maker selling at the bid. Nothing nefarious whatsoever.
I know this can be confusing, but a MM on the ask and not on the bid, means they already have shares to sell, they're not buying.
note ETRF & decoy OTCX remain signed off of PTOI's *bid* (compliance imo)
as in only sells allowed .. not buys
If you don't know how the OTC works, you shouldn't be investing on the OTC. You certainly shouldn't create an alternative universe based on shit you don't understand.
we know who sold .. curious to see if the 85000 buys .. get claimed ..
Wow!
Ya, it's either that, or the company is getting it's financing for June.
The most likely reason for that is they’ve naked shorted so many shares starting from about $4.50 they can’t allow the stock to move up without their being ruined.
Pete, the company is forced to sell shares (through the MFO) in order to keep the doors open. The PR's are used to generate buying interest so there is a market to sell their shares. It's really as simple as that.
Remember NR = MFO = company funding. The rest is convoluted, color coded bullshit.
Yep, and I can see how someone who doesn't understand the data they present would feel that way.
$2 million is a slap on the wrist, but a $91 share trade is worthy of a hmmm? Oh the angst!
They just registered 60 million shares to sell, and Hans Brost is the board moderator. That's 2 strikes in my book. Good luck and take profits.
Not sure what he will do, but we obviously need to work on our cover-up skills.
My guess is Ruyanstev and Santos...
NASD Charges NevWest Securities Corporation and Principals with Violating Anti-Money Laundering Rules
Washington, D.C. — NASD announced today that it has charged NevWest Securities Corporation of Las Vegas and two of its top officers - President Sergey Rumyantsev and Vice President Antony M. Santos - with violating NASD's Anti-Money Laundering Rule.
In its complaint, NASD charges that the firm failed to adequately implement and enforce procedures to detect and report suspicious transactions that the firm had reason to suspect involved possible securities fraud. Specifically, the complaint charges that the firm failed to conduct adequate due diligence and file appropriate Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in connection with highly suspicious transactions by a customer of the firm. NASD alleges that, during the relevant period, the customer opened 32 accounts at NevWest and sold more than 250 billion shares of a sub-penny stock, which generated total sales proceeds of over $53 million. NASD alleged that NevWest earned commission revenue on the sales totaling $2.5 million - 36 percent of the firm's total revenues during the relevant period.
"Suspicious Activity Reports provide law enforcement with information that's critical for investigating and prosecuting money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes," said James S. Shorris, NASD Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement. "Broker-dealers have an obligation to investigate 'red flags' indicating suspicious activity and, where appropriate, to file SARs. Despite a multitude of very obvious red flags, NevWest chose to look the other way, earning millions for itself in the process."
NASD's complaint charges that between January 2003 and May 2005, NevWest, through Rumyanstev and Santos, failed to adequately perform due diligence, file SARs or cease trading in multiple accounts controlled by one of NevWest's customers in connection with more than 500 sale transactions. The transactions involved a sub-penny stock issued by CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM) that traded in the Pink Sheets until the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked the stock's registration in 2005. The complaint further charges that the firm and its officers ignored numerous red flags which reasonably should have caused them to suspect that the customer was violating federal securities laws. The complaint charges that the firm should have filed suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
Those red flags included:
The massive volume of CMKM stock that was being sold through NevWest by this customer, which constituted as much as 36.7% of CMKM's total outstanding shares;
Publicly available information about CMKM's financials indicating that CMKM had almost no assets. CMKM's last quarterly report, filed with the SEC on Nov. 18, 2002, showed that for the quarter ending September 2002, it had total assets of only $344 cash and total liabilities of $1,672;
CMKM's failure to file annual reports with the SEC for the fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Information showing a relationship between the NevWest customer engaging in the suspicious transactions and a former officer of CMKM;
The SEC's temporary suspension of over-the-counter trading in CMKM securities from March 3, 2005 through March 16, 2005 and the SEC's action on May 10, 2005 to revoke the registration of each class of CMKM stock. From March 17, 2005 until May 11, 2005, NevWest continued to sell at least 22 billion shares for its customer's account.
NASD also alleges that NevWest, through Santos, failed to comply with escrow account requirements and contingency offering terms, in violation of the federal securities laws and NASD rules; failed to timely report customer complaints and disclosure events pursuant to NASD rules, and failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and procedures that were reasonably designed to detect and prevent these violations.
Under NASD rules, a firm or individual named in a complaint can file a response and request a hearing before an NASD disciplinary panel. Possible remedies include a fine, censure, suspension, or bar from the securities industry, disgorgement of gains associated with the violations, and payment of restitution. The issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents the initiation of a formal proceeding by NASD in which findings as to the allegations in the complaint have not been made and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Because this complaint is unadjudicated, interested persons may wish to contact the respondent before drawing any conclusions regarding the allegations in the complaint.
Investors can obtain more information about, and the disciplinary record of, any NASD-registered broker or brokerage firm by using NASD's BrokerCheck. NASD makes BrokerCheck available at no charge to the public. In 2005, members of the public used this service to conduct more than 4.3 million searches for existing brokers or firms and requested more than 194,000 reports in cases where disclosable information existed on a broker or firm. Investors can link directly to BrokerCheck at www.nasdbrokercheck.com. Investors can also access this service by calling (800) 289-9999.
NASD is the leading private-sector provider of financial regulatory services, dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services. NASD touches virtually every aspect of the securities business - from registering and educating all industry participants, to examining securities firms, enforcing both NASD rules and the federal securities laws, and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and registered firms. For more information, please visit our Web site at www.nasd.com.
The remaining 2% of IPIX short sales from yesterday's FINRA report were covered today.