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.
entire lawsuits posted here
mbpt lawsuit: settled
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MBPT&read=936
npct lawsuit: ongoing
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=43842
See the names in there?
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
sara, that is insane
Everyone realized it was a joke. Of course ashton isn't selling biyatches on the internet as prostitutes. If they did, I'd be calling the authorities, not just posting it online. I posted the link to the actual dog ad where they want to sell their young female dog for breeding purposes. They used the b word in there.
Look at the jokes about the president, political cartoons, SNL parodies, entire sitcom about the president being a buffoon. I hear Bush actually thinks it's funny. He has a better sense of humor than you do. That is scary, as scary as your voice.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
jmhollen post removed: personal attack
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
As these are ihub images
can we embed them?
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
jokes are allowable
Remember all the jokes they post about me, or you even? You are grabbing at straws. Someone from ashton was selling female dogs for mating purposes on the internet. I even posted a link to the actual ad.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
If a company hires people
and they do things that are not legal, they are both guilty in my opinion. They either weren't doing their job or they knew what was happening and allowed it to continue. You cannot state that the company was completely innocent, especially if they are in the securities industry and ceo was a registered broker. They should know the laws.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Global treaty--threat to the Net?
By Lisa M. Bowman, ZDNet News
A treaty to govern the Internet is being written but critics contend that the proposed rules will endanger free speech and turn ISPs into cyber cops.
International policy-makers this week ended a round of talks aimed at setting common rules affecting online trade and commerce, but they made little progress in bridging divisions that threaten to delay the pact.
In the works for nearly a decade, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments is still almost unknown outside international policy circles. Nevertheless, it could have broad implications for consumers and businesses by setting new rules for online copyrights, free speech and e-commerce--if it is approved.
Opposition to the treaty heated up Wednesday, when a two-week drafting session wrapped up with few concessions to critics, primarily from the United States, who say the pact threatens free speech and could force Internet service providers to become global content police.
"In a nutshell, it will strangle the Internet with a suffocating blanket of overlapping jurisdictional claims, expose every Web page publisher to liabilities for libel, defamation and other speech offenses from virtually any country, (and) effectively strip Internet service providers of protections from litigation over the content they carry," Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader (news - web sites)'s Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), wrote in a report after the meeting.
The treaty is one of several efforts by the global community to grapple with a complicated legal issues on a borderless Web.
Four years ago, nations including the United States signed onto a World Intellectual Property Organization pact to protect copyright in the digital age. And several countries, including the United States, are hammering out the world's first cybercrime treaty, which would provide a standard for fighting online crime.
The Hague (news - web sites) treaty differs from those efforts because it would not outline specific laws participants must follow. It's much broader, requiring participants to agree to enforce each others' laws on a variety of topics. As it stands, the treaty would require courts to enforce the commercial laws of the convention's 52 member nations, even if they prohibit actions that are legal under local laws.
Until now, many countries and companies have wrangled with jurisdictional disputes on a case-by-case basis. In the brick-and-mortar world, companies doing business in a foreign country must abide by the laws of that land. However, because the Web allows companies to sell items and services to people in foreign countries without requiring them to leave home, it promises to spawn a legal tangle some think can be solved only by a treaty outlining global rules for cross-border litigation.
No legal borders
A glimpse of the cross-border problem was already seen in the Yahoo Nazi-paraphernalia case. Last year, a French court ruled that Yahoo must block French citizens' access to online auctions of Nazi memorabilia on its U.S.-based site or face fines of $14,000 per day because the items violated France's hate-speech laws. In response to the ruling, Yahoo pulled the Nazi paraphernalia, even though it's protected under U.S. laws.
A U.S. court is considering whether to declare French laws unenforceable in this country, but the treaty, if enacted, could make that difficult.
Diverse opponents have criticized the treaty, among them librarians, online stores and global ISPs. However, few of those groups managed to insert major changes in a new draft of the treaty hammered out over the past two weeks.
Delegates did not soften speech laws to provide for countries that value the exchange of information. In addition, they strengthened some intellectual property provisions--over the objections of consumer groups.
"The bottom line is that it didn't go well," said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which sent representatives to the convention. He said that although American delegates listened to free-speech worries, most others did not.
CPT's Love agreed. "We got our ass kicked," he said. "It was a bad two weeks for us."
Free-speech advocates fear U.S. citizens could lose many of their rights if all Web sites have to ensure they are following the narrowest laws, such as those of, say, China or Morocco.
They point to worst-case scenarios. For example, a site criticizing government wrongdoing--which is legal by U.S. standards--might have to shut down because it runs afoul of laws in some other countries.
In a letter to Hague convention delegates sent last week, the American Library Association wrote: "We are concerned that the draft convention...could subject Internet users in the United States to intellectual property infringement in other countries for activities that are lawful in the U.S."
But delegates point to an exemption that allows judges to refuse to enforce judgments in countries where they would violate that region's public policies. "We're not using this treaty as a vehicle to change laws," said one convention delegate who asked not to be named.
However, critics say those exemptions don't go far enough and don't prevent litigants from shopping around for a forum most favorable to their cause. What's more, U.S. judges may be reluctant to overturn a ruling under the treaty because they would not want a judge in another country to refuse to enforce a U.S. law.
Network watchdogs
But it's not just the consumer groups against big business. The corporate world is equally divided.
ISPs that do business globally worry that they may have to act as Net policemen, scouring the Web to make sure sites they host don't break the laws of any convention member country.
Under U.S. laws, service providers are not required to monitor their networks for copyright violations. They're obligated to take down infringing sites only after a copyright owner notifies them. But under the treaty, countries with more strict requirements may crack down on ISPs that don't snoop on their customers' behavior.
Sarah Deutsch, associate general counsel for Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ - news), said the treaty, as it stands, could disrupt e-commerce because Web infrastructure companies would have to worry about every transmission that moves over their network. Despite complaints from her company, AT&T and Yahoo, the delegates did not insert protections for ISPs and portals into the treaty.
"On the whole we were very disappointed that many of our key concerns were not addressed," Deutsch said.
There's also speculation that the treaty could endanger other Web transactions that are legal in some countries but not in others, such as Internet gambling. For example, if a site in the United Kingdom, where gambling is legal, took a bet from a U.S. citizen, could the site be shut down for violating U.S. laws?
In the patent arena, issues are equally as muddy. U.S. companies have been on an aggressive, and successful, crusade to patent all things software-related. Not so in Europe. Theoretically, the treaty could require foreign countries to enforce strict U.S. patents in their homeland. Plus, it could make those who post or link to technology that's controversial in the United States, including the DeCSS (news - web sites) DVD-cracking code or certain types of encrypted communication, illegal worldwide.
"People don't realize what a disaster this could be," said Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, who added that his worries apply to all software, not just the free kind.
Cheers for copyrights
The only groups that seem to have positive comments about the treaty are copyright holders, who hope the pact will let them crack down on infringement in new and more stringent ways.
"The draft convention may advance, in some respects, the effective protection of copyright--particularly as the convention relates to enforcement of judgments," a group including the Association of American Publishers, the Business Software Alliance, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) and the Motion Picture Association of America wrote during a comment period on the convention.
In other words, those groups hope to apply the laws of countries with the strictest copyright restrictions to gain control of their products.
For example, some countries don't have the same balance that the United States does between the rights of consumers and copyright holders--such as fair use (which includes the ability to make copies for personal use) or sampling (which includes the ability to take a brief snippet of a book, song or other work for the purposes of review). Therefore, a copyright holder who wanted to maintain control over his or her work could shop for a court in a country that would crack down on any use of that work.
Because so many groups with so many competing interests are wrangling over the treaty, it's unlikely it will be ratified anytime soon. Negotiations have been going on since 1992.
The Internet added a new twist to the debate over jurisdiction, dragging out the process for years. A final version of the treaty is not expected until 2002, at the earliest. And the United States could always refuse to sign it, a move that could take the teeth out of the Web portions of the treaty because it is home to so many Internet companies.
Still, Stallman and others hope that more people will rally to fight the treaty as they learn of its potential impact, by contacting delegates and lawmakers. "We can't assume it will die of its own accord," he said. "We have to stop it."
Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc., and ZD Inc. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNet and ZDNet logo are registered trademarks of ZD Inc. Content originally published in Ziff Davis Media publications is the copyrighted property of Ziff Davis Media.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010622/tc/global_treaty--t...
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
There are no provable damages here either
astn share price did not drop when I started posting or before I was sued. It only dropped on the release of their own bad news later on. There is no damage.
This thread is getting very off topic.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Bird David
If everyone sued by a company did as you instructed, the companies would continue to sue everyone because they'd be getting what they want. Stock scams could run rampant. Investors would continue to get fleeced.
I was not instructed to be quiet by my attorneys. I was encouraged to keep on posting, just advised not to give away my legal strategy. My docket is public online so everyone knows what's up anyway.
If you saw something that looked suspect, would you say anything? or would you be too frightened of being sued? What if you saw someone about to be attacked, would you tell them to look behind them? or would you be worried that the attacker would sue you for interfering with his "business" and slander by yelling "look behind you?"
You only post here, the bar, parking lot and sheriff board. You only post about the act of posting basically. You are basically interested in the message boards and not what they're really about, i.e. sharing opinions about stocks. What is up with that?
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
David Weed
The case was filed in PA. It will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I'm in CA. They must legally sue me here, then anti-slapp kicks in.
If astn can sue me for slander, they'd better add the SEC, FBI, The Street, Philadelphia News, Sir Auric and other posters to that list including some upcoming publications which have said about the same thing I have posted. Sir Auric posted far worse around the ipo time before the SEC arrested the ipo guys.
The purpose of the lawsuit was to quiet me through harassment. I'm not going to shut up. That is what they want. I will continue to post my opinion and links to the various SEC docs and items which help support my opinion. Do you realize that the company had all news items about the SEC litigation release removed from SI, Yahoo and AOL? They also had the SEC litigation link removed to the press section.
Also, everything you have just said about me sara has posted about another company. Go check it out on RB. Should I go and beg that company to sue her? Should I beg "basher groups" to sue you for what you've posted about them? That is insane. Everyone in teh world would have to sue everyone else and no one would be able to post or utter another word.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
from the first amendment
This is the only restriction on the first amendment that deals with the subject at hand.
j. Untrue defamatory speech (slander) or other communication (libel) is not protected herein; but the baseless defamation of public officials respecting their official conduct and of public figures respecting matters related to the causes or circumstances of their fame or notoriety, or a public controversy in which they willingly participate, shall, in the absence of malice (requiring communication knowingly false or recklessly disregardful of its truth or falsity), be protected;
How can my opinion be untrue? It's my opinion. What lies have I posted about astn. I think they have some scammy elements. The SEC and FBI agree with me
SEC suing astn ipo company for astn stock fraud
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7963.htm
SEC suing astn stock promoter for astn promotion
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16842.htm
SEC suing the next stock promoter, Continental Capital, no disclaimer
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/3436886.txt
SEC sues them again for insider trading
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16125.txt
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16197.htm
more insider trading
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16194.htm
No disclaimer again
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/3-9765.txt
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr15820.txt
VWAP gets approval from Philly exchange. It later turns out chairman who approved it had ASTN shares. He then resigns.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketfeatures/961171.html
How can anyone look at all this and not think that there is something a little scammy here.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
David Weed, it protects us both
I'm currently being sued by astn. The Yahoo tos is part of my case. It states that all posts are the opinion of the posters. Anyone can state any opinion they like. My opinion of O.J. is that he probably did kill his ex-wife. Can he now sue me for slander? No. My opinion of astn is that it has scammy elements. Still just my opinion. You stated your opinion about bashers. Can "bashers" now sue you for slander? No.
"Reminder: This board is not connected with the company. These messages are only the opinion of the poster, are no substitute for your own research, and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose. Never assume that you are anonymous and cannot be identified by your posts. Please read our Terms of Service. For more information regarding investments and the Internet, please visit the SEC Web site." http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
sure matt has some verbiage here.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
anyone can sue anyone for anything
Doesn't mean they're gonna win, like with my lawsuit. That's why there is the anti-slapp statute here. That is why there are things like vexatious litigant laws. That is why lawsuits are dismissed. That is why defendants can win on counter claims, damages, costs and even punitive amounts in these frivolous cases. Defendants in cases such as mine are winning money from the companies that sued them. Do a little reading.
Also, how can my opinion be slander? It's MY opinion. This is America, freedom of speech.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Read the TOS statements
They state that posts are only opinions of the posters and should be taken as such. Why do you think these companies lose these suits? Why do you think we have anti-slapp statutes here in CA? Because they are frivolous lawsits mean to harass negative posters into being quiet.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
that's my point
none of our posts can be taken as factual statements due to the tos agreements. They are only opinions.
I just looked at your posts. I guess it's your imposter posting strong buy. In your clearstation portfolio you gave astn a long recommendation. You also bought mroe shares last week and posted the same. Sounds like a buy sentiment to me.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
I said I personally believed that
I'm not telling you to believe it. You believe astn is a great buy. Fine. I don't believe that.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
I should have added
Westergaard was investigated by the SEC before and lost his license in l998 even. He was told never to violate 17b again. Then two days later he again ripped his disclaimer off and did it again. Yes, during the astn time, both the past investigation and slap on the wrist and the current lawsuit.
ASTN is in the securities business. The ceo fred has been in the securities business for years. He was an MM. He ran First Jersey with Brennan. He was with Sherwood. He worked with nasd on some committees. He had a little problem with nasd even. He knew all about the laws. He saw the coverage and probably saw the lack of disclaimer and did nothing.
>That paid basher thing is a myth.
Here we part company completely. To ignore the problem is ludicrous. Just because one is not allowed to short "penny" stocks in the US does not mean they can't be shorted.
I realize everyone is shorting them out of canada. I know everyone is shorting stocks. I just don't think that they are committing a crime by posting honest negative news on the boards. If someone posts a fake press release or SEC doc then shorts it, that is wrong. If someone posts a negative concern, item, news item, SEC doc, that is not wrong. It is not a lie. Shorting is not wrong or illegal in canada and other countries. Posting honest negative news is not wrong.
>Care to vist a website that explains how you get to qualify to get in on this "action"?
I would love to see such a website.
>there are also an equal number willing to do the deed via a Short and Distort. It is much easier to take a stock down than it is to lift it up, you need only to appeal to the most powerful of the emotions...fear.
That sounds like it's straight from the "bashers handbook." You do realize that thing is fake? If someone posts an intentional lie like a fake press release to get the price down, that is stock fraud. Same things with a fake positive. The thing is people get sued for the negative lies and not the positive lies. They also get sued for honest negatives posts just to shut them up.
>As for not getting in trouble for hyping "this stock is great" I'm sure the kind folks down at the SEC would be glad to show the their case files where they've slapped folks down for doing just that.
Compare that number to the "bashers" lawsuits. See the HUGE difference? Maybe one person posting negative fake news to every 10,000 that post positive fake news. Hypesters just label all negative posters bashers and try to make it seem like it's bashers taking the price down when it's just the bad company.
>What gets people sued by companies are things like "this stock is a scam" "the CEO is a crook" and so forth. These statement can be made but it requires a mountain of a paper trail to back them up. No paper trail...you find yourself downwind of the rotating oscillator when the feces makes contact.
Look at the caveats on these boards. These are all just our opinions. I can say that astn seems scammy to me. Freedom of speech, it's my opinion. I also can post information which lends credence to my opinion, such as his past lawsuits which I posted, company performance as per SEC docs nowhere close to press release promises and projections, news items, SEC litigation releases, FBI litigation releases...
I would really love to see these professional short and distort operations. I've read about it but have never seen one first hand. The short jobs I've witnessed all just posted honest negative news. The main vtwn short which took it from 8 to 4$ had no posting at all. Posting on message boards isn't necessary to short stocks. I still think the number of short and distorters is significantly smaller than pump and dumpers, probably 1 to 10,000. If a pumper or shorter wants to short a stock, just wait til the selloff starts during the dump phase. No need to "bash" or even post a word.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Companies responsible for whom they hire
I personally believe that fred knew darn well who/what FUE was and what they could do for him and astn. He wanted a company that could get the price up and keep it up long enough for them to sell some shares/warrants for a profit. When did mob remove their support? A year after the ipo. Kept it up just long enough to sell some shares for a profit. Then Fred hired CCE to get the price back up and he sells more shares for a profit, right before "THE launch" of vwap.
Fred states he can smell hoodlums. He also states he doesn't trust people unless he's known them a long time. I think he knew what was up. Why else would so many of his hirees have such interesting pasts? I think that's why he's hiring them. A mob ipo company, the managing director of that same company as an astn director, two fraudulent stock promoters, a toxic financier with a bad history and a ton of lawsuits... Too coincidental. Maybe one bad apple but a barrel of bad apples?
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
The company is guilty!
They are the ones not delivering profits as promised. They have not met any of their financial projections. They are not a victim. They chose FUE to do their IPO. They chose the fraudulent stock promoters. They chose the toxic financing. They made the misleading projections and press releases. ASTN share price is below a buck because of astn.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Bird of prey, SEC lawsuits
CCE lost their SEC lawsuit for fraud. They were also involved in insider trading and lost that suit as well. Westergaard is still currently being sued for fraud during his astn coverage. He had no disclaimers on his material, astn material included. He was also posting that people should mortgage their homes to buy astn and to do it on margin. Posts are here, scroll down http://www.mary.cc/astn
>As for your postulated exit theory (unless you are posting inside information), more common these days is to allow a period of dormancy following the CDDS. Then RS the stock and start the whole thing over again or some similar variation. Cash cows get milked, not cut up for hamburger.
That is kind of what they are doing at FONX. CD takes it down, stock prmoters bid it back up, another CD takes it down... The thing is you can only promise to deliver your product for so long then people get sick of it. FONX been in business years, still not profitable, just like astn in that sense. Product is always almost finished. ASTN product was supposed to be profitable years ago.
>Also far more common (and more destructive) than "paid shills" are the "paid bashers" who's job it is to tear down a company that has been shorted. Sometimes it is done in conjunction with the CDDS. Other times it is done to drive the price down for someone to get control of a company. Other times it is just to collect on a short position. Look outside the US and you'll see vultures in every corner of the globe, waiting to pick at the bones of an American shareholder.
That paid basher thing is a myth. There are no paid bashers like there are paid stock promoters. I've seen shorters short stocks without making a post. Look at vtwn during first big short. Not a post on any message board anywhere. It just dumped. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it isn't that likely. People make negative posts about negative things in negative companies. I believe they are more honest because they risk being sued. If you go and post "this stock is great" they will NEVER sue you. If you post "this stock sucks" they will sue you. Bashers are mythical scape goats for hypesters. They are just blamed when the stock price dumps because of company actions.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
ASTN exit strategy?
I was talking to a guy who plays stock scams. He said they always have an "exit strategy." A common one nowadays is toxic convertible financing. Could that have been astn's exit strategy? Then they blame it on the external financing and that's it.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Exit strategies for scams
I was conversing with someone earlier who plays scams. FTR I don't play scams. Anyway he says with scams they generally have an "exit strategy" to end the scam. A common one is toxic convertible financing. The blame the demise on the external financing and that's it. Interesting. ASTN was getting set to do just that. I guess it's the end of the scam.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Good points, bird of prey
I think umcc was a bad investment that got involved with unethical and fraudulent activities to try and save itself. Their stock promoter was sued for fraud for their umcc campaign. There was no disclaimer on any of the information. Everyone thought he was a third party analyst. He threatened to sue me when I finally found his disclaimer and posted it. They also did some CD financing right before this. They also had two other promoters and were on cnbc promoting umcc. umcc shot to $15 during cnbc segment. That reporters was then fired. The press releases about costco and castrol were not true at all. The one about Easyriders deal was very misleading. I know Easyriders intimately and was a the EZR shareholder meeting when they talked about it. Basically umcc was indeed a bad investment wiht just some scammy elements.
ASTN on the other hand was basically started as a scam that hoped to become a real business. They were started with assistance from the mob. http://www.mary.cc/astn They had numerous fraudulent stock promoters when the mob pulled out their support. Both of these stock promoters were sued for fraud, one for fraud perpetrated during astn campaign. Same stock promoter as umcc. Now they're getting ready to do the scam exit and do some toxic convertible financing. I realize it is all perfectly legal even though the companies have sued the finance companies quite a few times. My problem is that the company has paid shills on teh message boards telling everyone the financing is good, astn share price will go to the moon, buy, buy, buy. The product is still not fully operational yet. I think that's why they want to do the scam exit financing now so they can blame the end on the financing and not lack of an economically feasible product. Time will tell.
I do agree that these companies were/are not total scams. They just had some scammy parts to them.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
I'll set it up!
I will put on my bikini and make up some cards for the round numbers. A few rules though: No posting below the belt i.e. talking about lewd things. No bringing up each other's mommas. No reposting of each others posts or stock picks over two years old. There's gotta be a cutoff limit.
I'll have the cards printed up in a jiffy!
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
No duking it out?
Darn. Guess I'll have to watch reruns of the sopranos
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
ooh, ooh, cat fight
and for once I'm not in it! Hey, these dudes are guys. Would that make it a dog fight?
Just remember, boys. Don't sh** where you sleep. These boards are public and you're both well known posters. If you guys post anything really crazy, you know I'll be quoting you for years and years
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
What do they owe you, Bob?
Are they being fair? Keeping their word? How do you think the situation can be resolved?
p.s. I'd pay good money to watch you two duke it out in one of the chatrooms Of course then matt would have more than 200 posts a day with a good brawl on the boards. You'd have all of SI, ihub, yahoo and RB watching.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
NASD cracking down on analysts/tv stock shows
like jagfn which astn just invested in and perhaps even those video programs that astn did?
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/headlines/financial/20010702/334996.html
NASD Proposes More Disclosure by Analysts
Jul 2 7:57pm ET
By John Poirier
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street analysts who go on television to discuss stocks should disclose their financial holdings in companies they recommend and their investment banking firm's relationship to the company, the regulatory arm of the Nasdaq market proposed on Monday.
The proposal, issued by the National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation Inc., is aimed at disclosing potential conflicts of interest facing analysts who have come under increased scrutiny by U.S. lawmakers and federal regulators.
"Investors need to be able to determine if they think an analyst may have a conflict of interest influencing a recommendation," said Robert Glauber, president and chief executive of NASD, which partially owns Nasdaq, the No. 2 U.S. stock market.
The proposal, which would require approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission, would expand on existing rules and comes in the wake of the beating Wall Street analysts have taken in recent months in the wake of the technology boom and substantial fall.
Already a firm must disclose if they have acted as a market-maker or as an underwriter in the last three years and if the brokerage firm or its officers own options, rights or warrants in the company being analyzed.
The new proposal expands the current rules to include forcing firms to disclose any ownership of more than 5 percent of the company's stock; financial holdings, including a short position, held by an analyst; and any financial compensation made by a company to the firm in the past 12 months.
The proposal, which is subject to a public comment period until August 15, goes one step further to include those analysts who make recommendations during a speech at a conference or other public appearances such as on the growing number of financial television networks.
OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
"This is just a step in an ongoing review of research analysts disclosure issues and we will continue to monitor the manner in which recommendations are provided to the investing public," NASD Regulation President Mary Schapiro said.
Analysts are expected to make objective investment recommendations on companies that often also use their firms for investment banking work. Regulators worry that possible conflicts of interest have led to biased research, as the barrier between analysts and investment may have eroded.
The NASD proposal comes just days after the SEC issued an "investor alert," urging investors to explore the various relationships among the analyst, the company whose stock is being analyzed, and the analyst's investment banking and brokerage firm before deciding to buy a stock.
Earlier this month, the Securities Industry Association, a Wall Street trade group, announced 13 new, voluntary guidelines, approved by the chief executives of the 14 biggest U.S. investment banks. They also were compiled by the heads of equity research of the companies.
Federal regulators and lawmakers did not completely welcome them with open arms.
CONGRESS GETS INVOLVED
U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, chairman of the powerful U.S. House Financial Services subcommittee on securities markets, discussed with Acting SEC Chairman Laura Unger proposals by market self-regulatory entities and possible SEC rule-making.
"This process is to gauge the necessity of further regulation or legislation if it would seem logical for the SEC to at least consider if anything by way of new rules at the same time the congressional process is moving," Baker spokesman Michael DiResto said.
Last week Baker announced the creation of an outside panel of regulators and academics to examine recent industry proposals and his spokesman called Monday's proposal by NASD a "positive development."
DiResto added that Baker invited Unger to testify at a hearing tentatively scheduled for early August on how the financial media can help disclose potential conflicts and examine if the investment banking side puts pressure or places certain burdens on analysts.
Unger has not responded to the invitation, DiResto said
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
NASD cracking down on analysts
and those promoting TV programs, like cnbc and jagfn?
NASD Proposes More Disclosure by Analysts
Jul 2 7:57pm ET
By John Poirier
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street analysts who go on television to discuss stocks should disclose their financial holdings in companies they recommend and their investment banking firm's relationship to the company, the regulatory arm of the Nasdaq market proposed on Monday.
The proposal, issued by the National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation Inc., is aimed at disclosing potential conflicts of interest facing analysts who have come under increased scrutiny by U.S. lawmakers and federal regulators.
"Investors need to be able to determine if they think an analyst may have a conflict of interest influencing a recommendation," said Robert Glauber, president and chief executive of NASD, which partially owns Nasdaq, the No. 2 U.S. stock market.
The proposal, which would require approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission, would expand on existing rules and comes in the wake of the beating Wall Street analysts have taken in recent months in the wake of the technology boom and substantial fall.
Already a firm must disclose if they have acted as a market-maker or as an underwriter in the last three years and if the brokerage firm or its officers own options, rights or warrants in the company being analyzed.
The new proposal expands the current rules to include forcing firms to disclose any ownership of more than 5 percent of the company's stock; financial holdings, including a short position, held by an analyst; and any financial compensation made by a company to the firm in the past 12 months.
The proposal, which is subject to a public comment period until August 15, goes one step further to include those analysts who make recommendations during a speech at a conference or other public appearances such as on the growing number of financial television networks.
OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
"This is just a step in an ongoing review of research analysts disclosure issues and we will continue to monitor the manner in which recommendations are provided to the investing public," NASD Regulation President Mary Schapiro said.
Analysts are expected to make objective investment recommendations on companies that often also use their firms for investment banking work. Regulators worry that possible conflicts of interest have led to biased research, as the barrier between analysts and investment may have eroded.
The NASD proposal comes just days after the SEC issued an "investor alert," urging investors to explore the various relationships among the analyst, the company whose stock is being analyzed, and the analyst's investment banking and brokerage firm before deciding to buy a stock.
Earlier this month, the Securities Industry Association, a Wall Street trade group, announced 13 new, voluntary guidelines, approved by the chief executives of the 14 biggest U.S. investment banks. They also were compiled by the heads of equity research of the companies.
Federal regulators and lawmakers did not completely welcome them with open arms.
CONGRESS GETS INVOLVED
U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, chairman of the powerful U.S. House Financial Services subcommittee on securities markets, discussed with Acting SEC Chairman Laura Unger proposals by market self-regulatory entities and possible SEC rule-making.
"This process is to gauge the necessity of further regulation or legislation if it would seem logical for the SEC to at least consider if anything by way of new rules at the same time the congressional process is moving," Baker spokesman Michael DiResto said.
Last week Baker announced the creation of an outside panel of regulators and academics to examine recent industry proposals and his spokesman called Monday's proposal by NASD a "positive development."
DiResto added that Baker invited Unger to testify at a hearing tentatively scheduled for early August on how the financial media can help disclose potential conflicts and examine if the investment banking side puts pressure or places certain burdens on analysts.
Unger has not responded to the invitation, DiResto said.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
200 posts a day? is that correct?
that would mean than 5% of the posts were on my board? My board is slow, especially compared to sevu
Anyone want to talk about stock scams or scammers, come on over to http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=610
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Signs of a stock scam
This article is great. It shows you what red flags to look for. Book about spotting fraud
http://www.msnbc.com/p/cnbc/576957.asp?bt=cnbc
The short-seller's mindset
Even after the bursting of the technology bubble, stock promotions and scams are still all too common
By Whitney Tilson ANALYSIS
Motley Fool
May 22 — I just finished reading "Sold Short", a new book by famed short-seller Manuel Asensio. In it, he describes numerous long-running battles with companies that were, in almost all cases, engaged in nefarious, outrageous, fraudulent activities.
I'M NOT AT all surprised that many companies engage in such behavior. The stock market has long been fertile ground for promoters and scoundrels. Nor am I particularly surprised that so-called analysts, even those at major brokerages, unwittingly — and, in many cases, knowingly — aided and abetted stock promotions.
What was surprising to me, however, was the extent of the denial on the part of investors. As Asensio describes in case after case, investors — ranging from individuals to money managers at the largest, most prestigious institutions — refused to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence that they had been victims of a scam and clung irrationally to their holdings.
It's hard to admit a mistake and even harder to sell at a loss (as I discussed in my columns,"To Sell or Not to Sell"and"Never Too Late To Sell"), but it would seem that these natural inclinations could be overcome with hard evidence. Maybe not.
Sunrise TechnologiesChromatics Color SciencesZonagenHemispherx Biopharma
• Message Board
• Company Profile
• Earnings Estimates
• Analyst Reports
How can you avoid getting into such a predicament? The easiest way, of course, is not to own the stock of a questionable company to begin with, so allow me to share some tips — drawn from Asensio's book as well as my own observations — on how to identity them.
None of these characteristics are, by themselves, conclusive, but when you see them — especially more than one of them — be careful!
• No profits or — worse yet — little or no revenues.
• "The underwriters of the initial public offering have a tainted reputation." (Asensio)
• Switching auditors.
• Delayed filing of financial reports.
• A product "in a sexy, hot field with hard-to-quantify, hard-to-understand performance specifications" (Asensio). In particular, be wary of companies promoting new medical breakthroughs. One such example is Sunrise Technologies International, which I panned in my January column,"Stocks to Avoid."(As I predicted, the stock is well on its way to zero.) Asensio cites other examples, including Chromatics Color Sciences, Zonagen, and Hemispherx Biopharma.
• A company claiming to have discovered new sources of (or methods of extracting) natural resources, such as oil or gold. Remember Solv-Ex, Bre-X, or Crystallex International? (As I look at this list, I'm coming up with a new warning flag: natural resource companies with names that end in "x.")
• Cute, dumb ticker symbols. Asensio cites the case of Systems of Excellence (Ticker: SEXI), which "went bankrupt in 1996, only after, according to the SEC, it had become the most important case of Internet stock-touting fraud ever."
• A blizzard of press releases. I find there tends to be an inverse correlation between the quality of a company (and its management) and the number of press releases it generates.
• A high short interest. (Anything above 5-10% of shares outstanding is cause for concern.) This is easy information to gather. I use Yahoo! Finance's "Profile" feature. (Data for Sunrise is available online as one example. In the bottom-right corner of Yahoo! profile page, under the heading Short Interest, you can see that 15.1% of Sunrise's shares are sold short.)
• A company suing — or even responding to — short sellers. Asensio says it best: "How many times have we seen officials of outright blatant scams blame their troubles on short sellers? No legitimate company with a real business would bother wasting valuable corporate resources, including valuable management time, suing a short seller.... When investors see public companies expend vast resources to silence their critics, they might want to tread carefully."
• • LISTEN TO SHORT SELLERS
I don't short stocks because — as I discussed in"Good Time to Short Stocks?"— it is an extremely difficult and dangerous activity. Unlike investing on the long side, where a lack of talent and a poor track record don't seem to be much of a barrier to managing large sums of money, incompetent short sellers quickly go out of business.
Those who remain and thrive really do their homework. So when you see a stock panned publicly by Asensio or David Tice or a credible investigative journalist with sources among short sellers like TheStreet.com's Herb Greenberg, don't go anywhere near it! Sure, the shorts could be wrong, but why take the chance? Of the thousands of stocks in the investment universe, surely there are better ones than those broadly targeted by short sellers.
Very rarely have I owned a stock targeted by shorts, but when it's happened, I'm grateful, not resentful. It doesn't advance my thinking very much to read an analyst's puff piece about a stock I already like and own. What I really benefit from is a smart person — be it a short seller, journalist, or fellow investor — making a bearish case for the stock. Listening to short sellers paid off for me last year when I dumped many of my technology holdings before they collapsed.
Unfortunately, however, embracing criticism is not the typical reaction by those who have been lured into a stock promotion. Instead, "shoot the messenger" is the order of the day. You would not believe the hateful emails I receive every time I criticize a stock. For daring to question the future viability of Sunrise, for example, one reader accused me of "cooperating with the short interest" and expressed hope that I suffer "total vision damage and have to always look at the world through blury [sic] vision. All in the name of profit for yourselves. I wish nothing but the worst for you and your kind." Take a look at Sunrise's latest 10-Q and tell me if you can come to any other conclusion than this company will soon be bankrupt.
CONCLUSION
Love him or hate him — and he is widely reviled by the stockholders of many companies he targets — Asensio's book is well worth reading. I'll let him give the last piece of advice:
"There are two things that every investor can do to foil stock fraud: Don't be cynical, be skeptical. And be informed. Due diligence does not mean perfunctory, one-source research. It does not mean taking as gospel the pronouncements of a broker or some financial pundit. And it most definitely does not mean taking the advice of some stranger phoning at dinnertime from a boiler room in New Jersey."
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
What makes a company a scam
Big different between total scam and just a bad investment. When I talk about a scam I'm NOT talking about companies with bad business plans, lack of adequate funding, undesirable products and management teams that aren't too smart. I'm not talking about basic unintentional failures but total intentional scams or companies with some scammy elements, companies who's main business is printing shares and paying the insiders in self dealing and inflated salaries, companies who knwo the business itself has no chance to succeed normally. They are in business just to scam investors for profit.
UMCC Ultra Motorcycle started off as a motorcycle company with a bad plan, inferior product, lack of funding and inferior managment. When things went downhill they got a little scammy trying to raise funds and the share price using stock promoter Westergaard and extremely misleading and fraudulent press releases predicting share price at $3, millions in profits and deals with companies like Castrol oil and Costco which never truly existed. They were a bad business with some scammy elements half way through.
ASTN on the other hand I believe started out as a stock scam. The mob did thier ipo through first united equities. The mob boilerroomed their stock and the insiders sold for a profit. The mob withdrew their support and the stock fell. The ceo then hired stock promoters westergaard then CCE to get the share price back up so he could sell some more shares. All the while he is promising investors that the product will be functional soon. The company doesn't keep its promises and they start to run out of money. They hook up with a scammy element Kernaghan to raise funds through toxic convertible death spiral financing which directors in the company arrange for a profit. All the while they are self dealing to each other, giving money to each other's private companies as consulting fees. They know the run is over so they will try to milk it for all it's worth. Their product gets lots of "approvals" but is never profitable.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
two of jmhollen's posts removed/personal attack
Please do not post personal attacks. They will be removed.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
astn filing late
because of finance situation
State below in reasonable detail the reasons why Forms 10-K, 20-F, 11-K, 10-Q, N-SAR, or the transition report portion thereof, could not be filed within the prescribed time period.
The Registrant is renegotiating the terms of a financing arrangement which would provide necessary capital to its business operations. On June 19, 2001, the Registrant requested the withdrawal of a registration statement covering the resale of 7,450,000 shares of its common stock to be sold pursuant to an equity line financing arrangement entered into in February 2001. The withdrawal was requested to modify the structure of the equity line transaction in a manner that could not be achieved within the context of the registration statement as filed. The results of this renegotiation will require the Registrant to significantly change the classification of items in its financial statements and the notes related thereto, and the discussion of its liquidity and capital resources. These changes could not be made in time for the Registrant to file its Form 10-K on the prescribed due date without unreasonable effort or expense.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
you told us to be good
if we can't say something nice, we shouldn't say anything at all. Now we got nothing to talk about
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Word from A@P
He challenges anyone to show that his press release was basically false. This is great!
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=16020690
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
My communication error
I should have been more clear.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
ASTN resumes
Ivan Gothner
Current director of ASTN.
Managing director of First United Equities during the time of the mob involvement, 1994 to 1997 as per latest FBI press release. Was managing director of First United when they did ASTN's ipo. This company is out of business and the SEC and FBI arrested some of the people involved. Go see sec.gov link in press release, March 8, 2001.
He is also a director at Mobile P.E.T. He set up some toxic convertible financing with his buddy mark valentine of Kernaghan. This financing almost killed the company and ruined it's share value. He set up the same thing for astn for a fee.
His own company has been paid consulting fees from ASTN. Self dealing
Mark Valentine
Current director of ASTN. He owns and controls a lot of Thomason Kernaghan a canadian brokerage house which also does stock analysis (stock promotion), investment funds, arranges toxic convertible death spiral financing through strawnmen in the caymans and shorts stocks as it's legal and easy in Canada. His firm currently has six canadian securities investigations. He has also been sued numberous times for stock manipulation and fraud. He sues people who mention this. You see, HE doesn't do the dirty work, it's his evil strawman in the caymans. I read on RB that some people in Canada think he launders money for the mob and sets up offshore accounts for them.
John Westergaard
Past stock promoter of ASTN. He is currently being sued for fraud for the promotion he did while promoting ASTN. He didn't have the necessary disclaimemrs on his site which would have shown that he was paid to promote ASTN. He was not an independent analyst. He didn't even have a license. He lost it in l998. He was here telling people to mortgage their house to buy this stock and do it on margin. He also promoted PLSIA and PPD besides a host of other companies that are either bankrupt or have SEC problems or shareholder lawsuits or whatnot.
Continental Capital
Past stock promoter of ASTN. Also was sued by the SEC for fraud. Did not have a disclaimer and insider trading. I think the CEO is in jail for his involvement. He also used to brag about working with the mob. More info. here http://www.mary.cc/astn
They have a new CEO and changed their name to Madison and Wall. They are currently promoting GENI. SEC is looking at GENI. They also halted their stock on thursday or friday I think because they were going to release news about l00M new financing. Then they released the news. Then it turns out they don't really have l00M in financing.
Fred Rittereiser
He was an excop who grew up on the streets of New Jersey. He'd seen the bad element. He says he can smell hoodlums. He has no formal education, just cop school, but decides he wants to go to wall street. I think he was an MM. After a while on Wall Street he goes to work with Brennan, who was later sued by SEC for securities fraud, bankruptcy fraud, you name it. He's in jail now. He was a total scam guy. This fraud was committed while fred with working with brennan at First Jersey. Then I think fred took over and then sherwood group took first jersey over? I was told this. He was the ceo then he was fired then he was sued by the sherwood group and lost. I posted the lawsuit here before. He had to pay up. I think he lost his boat to forclosure around this time also and perhaps this is when he got his nasd ding. He currently has no nasd license as per nasd. I called them up.
Then in l993 he started planning the direction of astn. l995 FUE took astn public. Fred came onboard through a company of his named dover. People say he couldn't come in directly because of his nasd ding which was later removed or just fell off his record. Still trying to figure that one out. He wasn't sole owner of dover at time but he is now. This was for legal reasons, I believe.
When he came on board he cut a deal with Rosensaft of UTTC. Then he didn't do what he promised (he diluted rosensaft's interest) and Rosensaft sued him and won over $1M. He didn't have the money to pay him so astn paid his bill for him. Check SEC docs for actual deal. I posted it here before.
After first united went under I think he hired Ivan Gothner the ex managing director to be a director in astn. When he was working with atg canada he met mark valentine and hired him to be a director in uttc. Then he approved of ivan and valentine's toxic convertible deal, said it was swell even though it has killed other companies. Fred said he doesn't trust people unless he's known them a long time. You would want to trust a director before you hire him, no? Perhaps fred knew these two guys for a while.
Fred makes a bunch of rosy projections for the company and stock and doesn't deliver. He hires stock promoters to pump up the price. He sells a good bit of shares when the stock price is up. He likes to watch the Sopranos.
Share price goes down because of lack of performance and dilutive financing but he blames message board posters for it. then he sues one of them because she was posting nonanonymous (ME!). That's where we are so far in his resume.
Did I miss someone?
Oh yeah, mst, hypester extraordinaire. He's been hyping astn stock since l997. He is an attorney by day and a hypester by day and night. He's been telling people for four years now that astn is a great stock and a great company and he's always buying more, when it goes up, when it goes down and even when it goes sideways. Buy, buy, buy!
He posts in multiple user names, even tells people about this in his private clubs. He even tells them about pp shares in there. He talks to fred and has met him a few times also I believe. Fred tells him positive stuff so he can post it on the board for him. mst is a good little boy, mind his brown nose. Most of the stuff fred feeds him does not come to pass and mst ends up with egg on his face and just a few pennies in his pockets.
When people post the truth and their opinions, if it isn't positive he attacks them then begs fred to sue them. Then fred does sue one person. Then mst gets dragged into the case.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Anyone seen GENI lately?
Truthseeker has been covering that suspect company on the RB board. Adnan Khashoggi is a major owner. They are also being promoted by CCE now called Madison and Wall. LA Times front page business section did a story about the SEC taking a look at them and the legal problems of the major shareholders and their associates. They recently announced news of new funding to the tune of 100M dollars from a well known financier. The SEC halted the stock on teh release of hte news. Now it turns out the news wasn't l00% correct. There currently is no actual deal for the financing. RB GENI has more. The usual suspects are involved.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
Not personal attack on you, bird of prey
It was off topic and not really that relevant to the real topic here. That's why I deleted my own post.
___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
The below ad is an ihub ad.