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.
There were at least 3 notes payable to Gene Newton. These were in excess of $800k. That does not include the $650k that was due for "finders fees" that can be found on the 08 regdex, nor does it include $100k for lawyers and $100k for management fees.
Do you understand that shares of a public company must be registered if they are to be sold to the public? A company does not just issue and sell shares to the public. There are laws that deal with the registration of shares for sale to the public. RCCH shares were registered under Reg 504d. Under that law a filing is made (Regdex). According to the filing in 2007, shares were being sold ONLY TO ONE ACCREDITED INVESTOR IN TEXAS. Those shares are restricted and cannot be sold to the public for at least a 12 month period. Under 504d the company is PROHIBITED FROM SOLICITING THOSE SHARES TO THE PUBLIC. It is common public knowledge that the company solicited these shares to the public through e-mails, phone calls and press releases. RCC actively solicited the public during this period. This is a violation of the 504d exemption. I've pointed out that ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law. This is the first time RCC registered shares to be sold.
The second registration filing was in Sep 2008. And we know the story. It is my opinion that more than 2.1 billion have been issued and sold to the public during this period.
Does this show a pattern of intent on the part of the company?
Why is it that a public company engaged in business is impossible to contact?
Yes, I've been waiting for this. I expect justice to prevail.
Thank You
Thank you for contacting the Texas State Securities Board. Please enjoy the rest of your visit to our site.
http://www.ssb.state.tx.us/Enforcement/
Or some property in FLA. lol You watching LSCG. I'm getting rich.
Ignorance, in the eyes of the law, is not an acceptable defense. It is incumbent on a company to perform their Due Dilligence. Where is the RCC Research Division when you need them!?
What can I say? lol
Everyone fell in love with 504:
No limitation on number of purchasers.
General advertising and solicitation allowed.
Under certain circumstances, the stock can be free trading, unlike any other stock sold in any other kind of Private Placement.
Everyone conveniently forgot:
State “Blue Sky” laws limit the number of purchasers and prohibits general advertising and solicitation. What the feds giveth in 504, the states taketh away in Blue Sky laws.
Because of merit review, every state except Nevada is impossible to clear a registration statement filed in the state, making free trading stock impossible to obtain.
Every state that has an accredited only investor offering exemption has changed their law to make stock sold under the state exemption restricted, making free trading stock impossible to obtain. This last point has been routinely ignored by numerous 504 scam artists.
People continue to talk about using a “Texas 504,” “Minnesota 504,” or “[Insert name of any other state] 504” still being available to create alleged free trading stock. Avoid these people. They are wrong. For example, Texas, the 504 most often cited by these people, has the following statement in their all Accredited Investor exemption:
Investment intent; resales. The issuer reasonably believes that all purchasers are purchasing for investment and not with the view to or for sale in connection with a distribution of the security. Any resale of a security sold in reliance on this [all Accredited Investor] exemption within 12 months of sale shall be presumed to be with a view to distribution and not for investment, except a resale pursuant to a registration statement effective under the Texas Securities Act, §7, or to an accredited investor pursuant to an exemption available under the Texas Securities Act or Board rules. This means the stock sold under this exemption may not be resold for 12 months. Thus, although the stock is free trading under Rule 504, it is not free trading under Texas law and thus may not be deemed free trading for a FINRA 211 filing or any other purpose.
http://www.goingpublicinformation.com/reg_d_placement_roadmap.htm
Also, the exemption generally does not allow companies to solicit or advertise their securities to the public, and purchasers receive "restricted" securities, meaning that they may not sell the securities without registration or an applicable exemption.
The company sells exclusively according to state law exemptions that permit general solicitation and advertising, so long as the company sells only to "accredited investors."
http://www.sec.gov/answers/rule504.htm
Here's the REGDEX filed 12/10/07. It clearly states one accredited investor in Texas. Who was that? Who wrote the opinion letter?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/07/9999999997-07-051304
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1421060/999999999707051304/9999999997-07-051304-index.htm
Here are my trades in early 2008. -$15k Still holding strong. lol
Symbol Description Quantity Closing Mkt Value Total Cost Basis Unrealized
Gain/Loss Unrealized
Gain/Loss % Type
RCCH RCC HLDGS CORP COLO COM 622,222.0000 $0.00 $15,210.13 -$15,210.13 -100.00% Cash Trade
News
Research
Open Lots Avg cost per share: $0.03
The information below is a summary of your open tax lots as of the prior business day's close.
Date Acquired Quantity Cost per Share Closing Mkt Value Cost Net Change Net Change %
02/08/2008 7,500.0000 $0.04 $0.00 $262.50 -$262.50 -100.00%
02/08/2008 47,500.0000 $0.03 $0.00 $1,462.13 -$1,462.13 -100.00%
02/08/2008 300,000.0000 $0.03 $0.00 $8,820.00 -$8,820.00 -100.00%
02/13/2008 22,222.0000 $0.02 $0.00 $350.00 -$350.00 -100.00%
02/13/2008 100,000.0000 $0.02 $0.00 $1,890.00 -$1,890.00 -100.00%
02/13/2008 45,000.0000 $0.02 $0.00 $850.50 -$850.50 -100.00%
02/19/2008 100,000.0000 $0.02 $0.00 $1,575.00 -$1,575.00 -100.00%
As far as those 2.1 billion are concerned...the suit has been brought against Gendarme and NOT the company's that sold to them. The SEC states that the company's were told this was for investment purposes and as such the stock would be restricted for 1 year.
That being said...How were shares sold prior to this "deal"?...and did other shares hit the market?...and how did they hit the market?
Why was the A/S raised to 10 billion?
If Gendarme hadn't illegally dumped the shares in late 2008, early 2009...they could have legally sold them on the market in late 2009, early 2010.
Any idea how the shares you and I bought in early 2008 were legally sold to us? The only accredited investor on the 2007 REGDEX is in Texas.
He did state the shares were "restricted".
Good time to buy. I think we bottomed out here.
What's annoying? Facts?
The accusations are untrue, says Sam Israel, a New York attorney representing Gendarme, Lamphere, Rahimi and Armento.
“They met the requirement of being accredited investors, meaning they purchased the shares for the sake of investment, not to re-sell them,” Israel said.
He also says they satisfied the requirements of Regulation D, which says shares purchased for the purpose of distributing within one year aren’t exempt from registration. Thus, they did not violate Section 5 of the Securities Act, he said, the regulation requiring registering the sale of securities.
“Of greater concern to Rahimi and Lamphere is the fact that the (Securities and Exchange Commision) put in its complaint a number of scurrilous remarks having nothing to do with whether or not the registration requirements of the Securities Act were met,” Israel said. “They are gratuitous comments aimed at deriding the character of these individuals without any legitimate basis to do so.”
Israel pointed to an SEC statement that “Gendarme claimed on its website to be an accredited investor that bought stock available for sale offerings. ... In truth, Gendarme’s primary business has been buying stock in unregistered transactions from small publicly quoted companies who could not directly issue the stock to the public without registration (and the required disclosure that goes with registration) then quickly dumping most of the shares on the public market.’
“The suggestion that they were dumping shares is blatantly false and suggests some level of fraudulent intent not even part of the claim,” Israel said. “It was merely thrown in to malign my clients’ character.”
The SEC asks the court to order Lamphere and the other defendants to “provide an accounting and to disgorge their ill-gotten gains,” and to pay civil penalties. It also asks the court to ban Gendarme, Lamphere and Rahimi from ever offering penny stocks again.
Lamphere says he’s considering a countersuit against the SEC. Despite the inflammatory language in its complaint, the SEC did not file criminal charges, Lamphere said. “Rightfully so, for there has been no wrongdoing! We simply invested in small companies, raising capital in complete accordance with state and federal laws.”
He says the two-year investigation “only wasted the time of a multitude of salaried SEC attorneys and doubtlessly more taxpayer dollars than we ever made (which we in part paid for, being as we paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital gains and income taxes over the past three years).”
Lamphere also accused the SEC of employing a double standard.
“Facebook and Goldman Sachs are being permitted to devise a new ‘special purpose vehicle’ exemption to sell $500 million in ‘unregistered’ securities specifically to avoid the registration (and therefore filing and transparency) requirements of the SEC,” he said.
“Investments we made in securities that we bought and sold were in reliance on existing exemptions in federal and state laws that provide for the offer of unregistered securities specifically so that small, growing companies can avoid the lofty cost of registering and being a reporting company.
“So it seems the big dogs will be allowed to do as they please while small business and private investors like us take the heat in the name of ‘investor protection.’”
http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_reporter/news/local_news/article_6984f596-1f2a-11e0-ae6a-001cc4c03286.html
About 2.3 billion shares traded b/w Feb 09 and June 09. volume then drops off.
The A/S was raised to 1 billion on 10/06/08. The A/S was raised to 10 billion on 12/08/08. The A/S was lowered to 5 billion on 12/09/08. The A/S was ammended to 10 billion on 2/17/09.
Just added them up. B/W 09/01/2008 and 1/30/2009 10.5 billion shares were traded with no appreciable gain in price. Price on 9/1/08 was .0008 price on 1/30/09 was .0001
I would agree. They are part of the Other Industry.
Just look at the trades b/w Sep 2008 and June 2009. There were 793 million traded on 1/7/09 alone.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/historical_quotes.aspx?symbol=RCCH&selected=RCCH
RCC Holdings, Inc. (“RCCH”): From September 2008 through January 2009,
Gendarme acquired RCCH shares from the issuer. From September 2008 to June
2009, Gendarme sold more than 2.1 billion of these RCCH shares for more than
$210,000.
RCC Holdings Corp Announces New International Environmental Partner
Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:25 Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:24
RCC/IWS is also planning to introduce a new environmental partner in February in New York City. Contractual work has begun, and it is expected that final agreements will be completed in January. For that announcement, the offices located at NYU will be used. Marketing information is being prepared, including live site videos from existing installations. These new products are environmentally based and will allow buildings of all types to reduce power consumption and save energy, usually with less than one-year payouts on the investment required. As RCC/IWS expands its base to other countries, it looks for other products and services that can be imported to the U.S. With business expanding to multiple states, RCC/IWS is being viewed as a good marketing and sales partner for new and innovative environmental solutions. In February, early results of one of those efforts are planned for demonstration.
RCC Holdings' new board is moving very quickly through the transition to the International Exchange.
http://rccholdings.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=42
RCC Holdings Corp. Signs an Agreement with an International Company to Integrate RCC/IWS Wastewater Treatment Technology into Their Affordable Housing Design
10/22/2008
RCC Holdings Corp. announced that RCC/IWS has completed an agreement, with an international company operating on several continents, to integrate the RCC/IWS wastewater treatment technology into their affordable housing design. The new design will feature self-sustaining lifestyle features as well as special attention to 'green' implementation that make the housing not only affordable, but an environmentally superior choice. Testing and integration will continue through first quarter next year, with first sales expected in calendar year, 2009. Additionally, IWS has a new addition to its product line. The new product is the IWS Wastewater Re-Use product, which allows wastewater treatment to be re-used for irrigation and other water re-use purposes. The product has been implemented in several operating RCC/IWS locations, and now will be featured as a stand-alone product, ready for sales and installation immediately.
What ride? Loving every minute of it! Waiting years for it! lol
OK. I'll accept that. I disagree. I'm looking forward to what I see as the future of the company.
You gotta link for that!? LMFAO
MONEY JUDGMENT AFTER 585 DECLARATION FILED.
05/19/2008 - 10:38 AM
585 DECLARATION: MONEY JUDGMENT ON UD COMPLAINT >$25,000 FILED 07/12/2007 OF RAR2-INLAND EMPIREOFFICES-CA,INC GRANTED BY COURT.
JUDGMENT FOR: RAR2-INLAND EMPIREOFFICES-CA,INC
JUDGMENT AGAINST: RCC HOLDINGS CORP
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF: PRINCIPAL $6,345.60 INTEREST $0.00 ATTORNEY FEES $2,290.93 COSTS $553.55 AND DAMAGES $30,018.65.
JUDGMENT TOTAL IS: $39,208.73
ACTION DISPO: JUDGMENT
STAGE AT DISPOSITION: ALL OTHER JUDGMENTS BEFORE TRIAL.
JUDGMENT MINUTES CONCLUDED
JUDGMENT FOR: MICHAEL G. RADEMAKER
JUDGMENT AGAINST: RCC HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION ON PARTY: RCC HOLDINGS CORPORATION,. COURT ORDERS RESTITUTION OF PREMISES.
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF: PRINCIPAL $10,186.86 INTEREST $0.00 ATTORNEY FEES $750.00 COSTS $430.00 AND DAMAGES $7,633.44.
JUDGMENT TOTAL IS: $19,000.30
STAGE AT DISPOSITION: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - COURT FINDING AFTER COURT TRIAL (CIV)
DISPOSITION: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - COURT FINDING AFTER COURT TRIAL (CIV)
ORDER SIGNED THIS DATE.
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
Name Search Results
Party Name Type Case Name Category Case Number Filed
RCC HOLDINGS CORP DEFENDANT RAR2 VS RCC HOLDINGS Unlawful Detainer - Unlimited (Commercial) UDRS701031 07/12/2007
RCC HOLDINGS CORPORATION DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIN -V- STEPHEN AUST Breach of Contract CIVRS703175 07/31/2007
RCC HOLDINGS CORPORATION CROSS-DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIN -V- STEPHEN AUST Breach of Contract CIVRS703175 07/31/2007
RCC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT MICHAEL G. RADEMAKER -V- RCC HOLDINGS Unlawful Detainer >$10,000 <$25,000 (Commercial)Lt UDRS902827 08/18/2009
http://170.164.31.10/openaccess/CIVIL/civilnames.asp?deflastname=RCC+HOLDINGS&bus=Y&courtcode=X&filedatefrom=&filedateto=&limit=50&dsn=
Looking forward to the SEC uncovering opinion letters. LMFAO
Yes, you have to wonder how those lawyers got paid. Perhaps a deeper look will show how those lawyers got paid. The tip of the iceberg has been ripped off by the SEC. Hopefully, when they peer down that pink sheet cauldron of crap, they can handle the stench and deal with the scum.
A simple solution:
require all pink sheet company's to make public their tax returns.
Ignorance is bliss. eom
A fictitious Board Member? Excellent! A nice little cherry on top of my sh*t sundae! lol
Where's Archibald Thompson when you need him?
I wonder what Pierre Morin thinks about all this.
How can investors get money back in a fraud case involving a violation of the federal securities laws?
There are a number of ways that investors who have been defrauded may recover some of their financial losses caused by the fraud, depending on the circumstances.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is authorized by Congress to seek a number of remedies, including civil money penalties and disgorgement, from those who commit fraud. (While the Securities and Exchange Commission is a law enforcement agency, only the Department of Justice has authority to seek criminal sanctions, such as imprisonment.) The cases the Commission brings against individuals and companies are all civil or administrative matters – that is, the SEC sues alleged wrongdoers for violations of securities law in federal court or in front of a federal administrative law judge and seeks to obtain remedies, including civil money penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions prohibiting future violations of the law, and officer and director bars.
Below is a description of mechanisms injured investors may be able to use in recovering funds, including Receiverships, Fair Funds and Disgorgement Funds, Brokerage Account Customer Protections, Corporate Bankruptcy Proceedings, and Private Class Action Lawsuits. Please note that, in many cases, victims of fraud may recover only a fraction of what was stolen, or, in some cases, may recover nothing at all. Also, the mechanisms described below take some time to develop after the initial fraud is discovered. Make sure you check the SEC’s website for updates in the matter you are concerned about.
Receiverships
In matters where the Commission files a civil court action against an entity or individual, the Commission may ask the judge to appoint a receiver. The purpose of appointing a receiver is to recover and protect funds and other assets the defendants have obtained in connection with the fraud and distribute those assets to injured investors if a determination of liability is made. You can find a list of Commission actions with receivers, as well as disbursement agents and claims administrators (whose functions are, generally speaking, to facilitate the claims and distribution process), here.
Fair Funds and Disgorgement Funds
In civil court actions or in administrative hearings, the defendant (or respondent) can be ordered to pay disgorgement – a measure of the ill-gotten gains from the fraud. Where disgorgement is ordered, the judge or the Commission may also order that any money collected, including fines paid, be placed in a Fair Fund for distribution to investors who were the victims of the violation. Under this process, a plan for the administration and distribution of the funds will be developed. A claims administrator or disbursement agent often oversees the plan.
Commission rules on Fair Funds and Disgorgement Funds are available here. A list of administrative proceedings where the Commission has required a distribution is available here.
Brokerage Account Protection
Customers of U.S. registered broker-dealers benefit from the extensive protections provided by the Commission rules, including the Customer Protection Rule, as well as protection by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The Commission's Customer Protection Rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer cash and securities from a broker-dealer's own assets. More specifically, the rule requires that a broker-dealer keep customer cash and fully-paid securities free of liens and in a safe location. This protects customer assets from claims by a broker-dealer’s creditors. In addition to the Commission's rules that protect securities customers of U.S. broker-dealers, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation also has protections for securities customers. To determine if your broker-dealer is a member of SIPC, or to learn more about the SIPC protections, you can check the SIPC website at www.sipc.org.
Corporate Bankruptcy
Federal bankruptcy laws govern how companies go out of business or recover from crippling debt. A bankrupt company, the "debtor," might use Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to "reorganize" its business and try to become profitable again. Management ordinarily continues to run the day-to-day business operations but all significant business decisions must be approved by a bankruptcy court.
Under Chapter 7, the company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to "liquidate" (sell) the company's assets and the money is used to pay debts owed to creditors. Shareholders rarely receive any distribution in a Chapter 7 liquidation case.
Bankruptcy laws determine the order of payment. Creditors who take the least risk are paid first. For example, secured creditors take less risk because the credit that they extend is usually backed by collateral, such as a mortgage or other assets of the company. They know they will get paid first if the company declares bankruptcy.
Bondholders have a greater potential for recovering their losses than stockholders, because bonds represent the debt of the company and the company has agreed to pay bondholders interest and to return their principal. Stockholders own the company, and take greater risk. They could make money if the company does well, but they could lose money if the company does poorly. Stockholders are last in line to be repaid if the company fails. Stockholders only recover funds if all creditors have been paid in full and there are assets remaining. In bankruptcy, stockholder fraud claims receive the same priority as ordinary stockholders.
During bankruptcy, bondholders will stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders will stop receiving dividends. Under Chapter 11 if you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds, or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the debtor may ask you to send back your old stock in exchange for new shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and may be worth less than your old shares. The reorganization plan will spell out your rights as an investor, and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.
The bankruptcy court may determine that stockholders don't get anything because the debtor is insolvent. Solvency is determined by the difference between the value of its assets and its liabilities. If the company's liabilities are greater than its assets, it is insolvent and your stock may be worthless. Contact your local Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office or call 1-800-829-1040 for information about how to report worthless securities as a loss on your income tax return. If you don't know whether your stock has value, and you can't find a stock or bond price in the newspaper, ask your broker or the company for information.
For additional information on bankruptcy issues, see here.
Private Class Actions
A private class action (that is, a legal action brought in court by private persons and not the Commission) may have been filed in a matter on behalf of other injured investors, and a defrauded investor may be eligible to participate in the suit. A partial list of private class actions is available here. More recent class action lawsuits may often be found online by searching the news for the company name involved.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/recoverfunds.htm
http://www.sec.gov/answers/recoverfunds.htm
Subtype: Fraud/Misrepresentation
Defendant Newton, Vernon G
Plaintiff First Security Bank Of Nevada
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6531117
07/06/2007
Judgment Plus Interest (Judicial Officer: Denton, Mark R.)
Converted Disposition:
Entry Date & Time: 07/09/2007 @ 12:12
Description: RENEWAL OF JMNT+18% INTEREST PER ANNUM
Debtor: Newton, Vernon G
Creditor: First Security Bank Of Nevada
Amount Awarded: $1074332.83
Attorney Fees: $0.00
Costs: $0.00
Interest Amount: $0.00
Total: $1074332.83
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6531117
Yes they are great. Here is the REGDEX filed in December of 07. This is the first registration of securities the company filed. It clearly states that the securities are being sold to accredited investors only, and as such are restricted for one year. The question is how were they sold to the public?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/07/9999999997-07-051304
Here's the boys. They look harmless enough. lol
http://chezbeaute.com/our-team/ezat-ian/
frog, the level of sophistication is laughable. I can't verify that post as I also can't access Gendarme's site as the poster stated. But if this is what was on the Gendarme site....
As a boutique investment firm of accredited investors, Gendarme Capital Corporation invests in private and public offerings of primarily publicly held companies.
If your company is currently offering for sale its securities, whether registered or exempt from registration (under SEC Regulation D, Regulation A, etc.), we will happily discuss any investment opportunity as well as the structure, generation, and fulfillment of your company's debt or equity offering.
Check out under Capital Solutions on this site:
http://www.manhattancapitalcorp.com/
I think the odds just went to 100% LMFAO You think these clowns are sleeping well tonight? LMFAO
I would expect the SEC to be thorough in that regard and that the 2.1 billion figure is the actual number that can be associated with "these" particular charges, levied on the two Gendarme directors, and the attorney who wrote the legal opinions. That's a mouthful.