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.
Because Ihub has NOT updated the info.
What I posted comes directly from all the SEC filings.
From the latest filing dated 2-23-10....
"Unico has a total of 2,801,858,976 shares of its common stock issued and outstanding as of February 22, 2010."
And there have been at least an additional 200 million dumped since then.
This is a classic PUMP AND DUMP SCAM!!!!!
fairmount flash....
This time last year there were only about 30-40 mil shares outstanding. Today there are over 3 BILLION.
The dilution machine is in high gear....
Here's what has happened to the share structure over the years...
Shares outstanding:
Under Ray Brown:
7/7/00 55,266,712
12/27/00 64,785,046
5/22/01 66,893,060
7/6/01 67,893,969
10/08/01 70,054,487
12/31/01 69,678,487
5/21/02 72,062,974
7/10/02 74,112,974
10/7/02 74,112,974
1/8/03 75,112,974
6/11/03 77,507,974
7/10/03 78,257,974
10/15/03 85,852,974
1/9/04 88,952,974
5/27/04 93,462,974
7/14/04 93,462,974
Quite a reasonable amount of dilution for a company trying to do something.
Now enter Mark Lopez as CEO and his Death Spiral Financing scheme...
11/22/04 335,427,896
2/23/05 484,427,896
5/20/05 498,427,896
Note that the Authorized shares were almost maxed out at 500 mil.
7/13/05 498,427,896
10/14/05 498,427,896
1/3/06 498,427,896
Now the Authorized shares was raised to 5 Billion.
6/2/06 4,899,096,450
7/17/06 4,909,096,450
First MASSIVE reverse split 1:100
8/11/06 49,090,965
10/12/06 182,411,108
1/11/07 747,899,608
6/11/07 1,906,735,609
7/6/07 2,915,363,072
1/7/08 4,815,363,072
5/8/08 4,940,363,072
Now the second MASSIVE reverse split 1:500
7/1/08 9,880,726
10/10/08 12,306,929
1/12/09 23,679,981
6/4/09 141,784,859
7/5/09 202,750,052
8/31/09 280,967,605
10/10/09 420,489,553
11/3/2009 521,194,256
12/2/09 714,659,863
1/12/2010 1,218,000,643
2/22/2010 2,801,858,976
Verrrrry interesting to say the least....
AVEW lists this address in their SEC filings...
Actionview International, Inc.
29970 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
SUITE 203
MURRIETA CA 92563
29970 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
951-677-6735
Now guess who else lists the SAME address, SAME Suite number and SAME phone number..... none other than Stevie Peacock's Javelin Advisory Group, the PUMP AND DUMP specialists.....
JAVELIN ADVISORY GROUP, INC.
29970 Technology Drive
Suite 203
Murrieta, California 92563
Phone: 951-677-6735
Fax: 951-677-6573
Looks like Shane Traveller is in need of some money (and fast) and may be dumping shares to get it!!!!!
ROTFLMAO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1488
RUSSELL TODD HUTTENSTINE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; RONALD A. SCHINDELER; ROBERT G. COLE; JAMIE SLAUGHTERBECK; WILLIAM SCHUTTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DENNIS MAST; GEORGE A. MOORE; SHANE TRAVELER; ROSS W. SMITH; HYDROFLO, INCORPORATED; METALS AND ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00152-F)
Argued: May 14, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Traxler joined.
ARGUED: Terence James Rasmussen, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Laurence Mathew Rosen, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: L. Neal Ellis, Jr., Edward Avery Wyatt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant Shane Traveler. Donald J. Harris, HARRIS, WINFIELD, SARRATT & HODGES, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants Dennis Mast, George
A. Moore, Ross W. Smith, HydroFlo, Incorporated, and Metals and Arsenic Removal Technology, Incorporated. Kevin B. Cartledge, WILSON & COFFEY, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
After stockholders of HydroFlo, Inc., commenced this securities class action against HydroFlo and its officers and directors, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs $425,000, in exchange for which the plaintiffs agreed to release the defendants and dismiss the action. After the district court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, the defendants refused to pay the $425,000 within ten days, as required, and the district court enforced the settlement agreement, entering judgment against the defendants for $425,000 plus interest. From the judgment enforcing the settlement agreement, the defendants appeal.
The defendants concede that they failed to pay the $425,000, as agreed. But, in some incomprehensible way, they maintain that their payment was a condition precedent to the settlement agreement’s effectiveness and that therefore their failure to fulfill the condition precedent resulted in cancellation and termination of the settlement agreement, leaving them with no further obligation.
The settlement agreement is staged so that after the defendants make the $425,000 payment into an escrow fund, the plaintiffs, on the effective date of settlement, release the defendants and dismiss the action. Obviously, the settlement
3
agreement provides that the effective date of settlement, when plaintiffs’ release is deemed effective, is conditioned on the defendants’ making the agreed-upon payment. As the settlement agreement provides:
K. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT
1. The Effective Date of the Settlement shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of all of the following events:
* * *
e. Defendants shall have paid the Settlement Amount, as set forth in paragraph C., above [detailing the escrow fund].
Relying on this language, the defendants argue that since they did not pay the $425,000 settlement amount, the settlement agreement is no longer operative and binding. They claim that their argument is bolstered by a later provision of the settlement agreement, which states:
If all of the conditions specified in paragraph K.1 are not met, then the Stipulation shall be canceled and terminated . . . .
Thus, the defendants contend that when they failed to pay $425,000 into escrow, the condition precedent for the settlement agreement’s effective date failed, and therefore the settlement itself was “canceled and terminated.”
This argument fails for lack of a fundamental understanding of the settlement agreement’s operation. The duty to pay $425,000 into escrow was a promise by the defendants, not a
4
condition precedent to their performance under the settlement agreement. See Harllee v. Harllee, 565 S.E.2d 678, 682 (N.C. App. 2002) (discussing distinction between promise and condition precedent). Indeed, the defendants’ promise to pay $425,000 was the only consideration given by them for the plaintiffs promise to drop the class action and release the defendants. When the defendants failed to pay, they breached their promise, giving rise to a claim for damages, which the district court correctly ascertained to be $425,000 plus interest.
The settlement agreement labeled the payment a “condition” for the effective date because payment was a condition precedent for plaintiffs’ dropping the class action on the effective date. In other words, the $425,000 payment was a condition precedent for the plaintiffs’ performance of their obligations, not for the defendants’ performance. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 cmt. d (1981) (“The same term may . . . be interpreted not only to make an event a condition of the obligor’s duty, but also to impose a duty on the obligee that it occur”).
Moreover, even if the defendants sought to take advantage of a condition precedent in the settlement agreement, they could not unilaterally “cancel and terminate” the settlement agreement by their own failure to satisfy the condition. “[O]ne who prevents the performance of a condition, or makes it impossible
5
6
by his own act, will not be permitted to take advantage of the nonperformance.” In re Bigelow, 649 S.E.2d 10, 13-14 (N.C. App. 2007) (quoting Mullen v. Sawyer, 178 S.E.2d 425, 431 (N.C. 1971)); accord Torrey v. Cannon, 88 S.E. 768, 770 (N.C. 1916).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
And how about this one re: Shane Traveller.....
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1488
RUSSELL TODD HUTTENSTINE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; RONALD A. SCHINDELER; ROBERT G. COLE; JAMIE SLAUGHTERBECK; WILLIAM SCHUTTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DENNIS MAST; GEORGE A. MOORE; SHANE TRAVELER; ROSS W. SMITH; HYDROFLO, INCORPORATED; METALS AND ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00152-F)
Argued: May 14, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Traxler joined.
ARGUED: Terence James Rasmussen, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Laurence Mathew Rosen, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: L. Neal Ellis, Jr., Edward Avery Wyatt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant Shane Traveler. Donald J. Harris, HARRIS, WINFIELD, SARRATT & HODGES, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants Dennis Mast, George
A. Moore, Ross W. Smith, HydroFlo, Incorporated, and Metals and Arsenic Removal Technology, Incorporated. Kevin B. Cartledge, WILSON & COFFEY, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
After stockholders of HydroFlo, Inc., commenced this securities class action against HydroFlo and its officers and directors, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs $425,000, in exchange for which the plaintiffs agreed to release the defendants and dismiss the action. After the district court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, the defendants refused to pay the $425,000 within ten days, as required, and the district court enforced the settlement agreement, entering judgment against the defendants for $425,000 plus interest. From the judgment enforcing the settlement agreement, the defendants appeal.
The defendants concede that they failed to pay the $425,000, as agreed. But, in some incomprehensible way, they maintain that their payment was a condition precedent to the settlement agreement’s effectiveness and that therefore their failure to fulfill the condition precedent resulted in cancellation and termination of the settlement agreement, leaving them with no further obligation.
The settlement agreement is staged so that after the defendants make the $425,000 payment into an escrow fund, the plaintiffs, on the effective date of settlement, release the defendants and dismiss the action. Obviously, the settlement
3
agreement provides that the effective date of settlement, when plaintiffs’ release is deemed effective, is conditioned on the defendants’ making the agreed-upon payment. As the settlement agreement provides:
K. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT
1. The Effective Date of the Settlement shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of all of the following events:
* * *
e. Defendants shall have paid the Settlement Amount, as set forth in paragraph C., above [detailing the escrow fund].
Relying on this language, the defendants argue that since they did not pay the $425,000 settlement amount, the settlement agreement is no longer operative and binding. They claim that their argument is bolstered by a later provision of the settlement agreement, which states:
If all of the conditions specified in paragraph K.1 are not met, then the Stipulation shall be canceled and terminated . . . .
Thus, the defendants contend that when they failed to pay $425,000 into escrow, the condition precedent for the settlement agreement’s effective date failed, and therefore the settlement itself was “canceled and terminated.”
This argument fails for lack of a fundamental understanding of the settlement agreement’s operation. The duty to pay $425,000 into escrow was a promise by the defendants, not a
4
condition precedent to their performance under the settlement agreement. See Harllee v. Harllee, 565 S.E.2d 678, 682 (N.C. App. 2002) (discussing distinction between promise and condition precedent). Indeed, the defendants’ promise to pay $425,000 was the only consideration given by them for the plaintiffs promise to drop the class action and release the defendants. When the defendants failed to pay, they breached their promise, giving rise to a claim for damages, which the district court correctly ascertained to be $425,000 plus interest.
The settlement agreement labeled the payment a “condition” for the effective date because payment was a condition precedent for plaintiffs’ dropping the class action on the effective date. In other words, the $425,000 payment was a condition precedent for the plaintiffs’ performance of their obligations, not for the defendants’ performance. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 cmt. d (1981) (“The same term may . . . be interpreted not only to make an event a condition of the obligor’s duty, but also to impose a duty on the obligee that it occur”).
Moreover, even if the defendants sought to take advantage of a condition precedent in the settlement agreement, they could not unilaterally “cancel and terminate” the settlement agreement by their own failure to satisfy the condition. “[O]ne who prevents the performance of a condition, or makes it impossible
5
6
by his own act, will not be permitted to take advantage of the nonperformance.” In re Bigelow, 649 S.E.2d 10, 13-14 (N.C. App. 2007) (quoting Mullen v. Sawyer, 178 S.E.2d 425, 431 (N.C. 1971)); accord Torrey v. Cannon, 88 S.E. 768, 770 (N.C. 1916).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Have you seen the latest Court docket?????????
DROP DEAD DAY/FINAL PRETRIAL NLO 091100082 State Felony
STATE OF UTAH ATTY: LACHMAR, BARBARA K
VS.
GEDDES, GREGORY G ATTY: SMITH, GREGORY B
OTN: DOB: 04/29/1966
F2 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD - 09/08/08
F2 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD - 09/08/08
F2 - THEFT BY DECEPTION - 09/08/08
> NO OTN NUMBER <
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DROP DEAD DAY/FINAL PRETRIAL NLO 091100625 State Felony
STATE OF UTAH ATTY: LACHMAR, BARBARA K
VS.
GEDDES, GREGORY G ATTY: SMITH, GREGORY B
OTN: DOB: 04/29/1966
F3 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD
Looks like Shane Traveller is in need of some money (and fast)!!!!!
ROTFLMAO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1488
RUSSELL TODD HUTTENSTINE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; RONALD A. SCHINDELER; ROBERT G. COLE; JAMIE SLAUGHTERBECK; WILLIAM SCHUTTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DENNIS MAST; GEORGE A. MOORE; SHANE TRAVELER; ROSS W. SMITH; HYDROFLO, INCORPORATED; METALS AND ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00152-F)
Argued: May 14, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Traxler joined.
ARGUED: Terence James Rasmussen, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Laurence Mathew Rosen, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: L. Neal Ellis, Jr., Edward Avery Wyatt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant Shane Traveler. Donald J. Harris, HARRIS, WINFIELD, SARRATT & HODGES, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants Dennis Mast, George
A. Moore, Ross W. Smith, HydroFlo, Incorporated, and Metals and Arsenic Removal Technology, Incorporated. Kevin B. Cartledge, WILSON & COFFEY, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
After stockholders of HydroFlo, Inc., commenced this securities class action against HydroFlo and its officers and directors, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs $425,000, in exchange for which the plaintiffs agreed to release the defendants and dismiss the action. After the district court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, the defendants refused to pay the $425,000 within ten days, as required, and the district court enforced the settlement agreement, entering judgment against the defendants for $425,000 plus interest. From the judgment enforcing the settlement agreement, the defendants appeal.
The defendants concede that they failed to pay the $425,000, as agreed. But, in some incomprehensible way, they maintain that their payment was a condition precedent to the settlement agreement’s effectiveness and that therefore their failure to fulfill the condition precedent resulted in cancellation and termination of the settlement agreement, leaving them with no further obligation.
The settlement agreement is staged so that after the defendants make the $425,000 payment into an escrow fund, the plaintiffs, on the effective date of settlement, release the defendants and dismiss the action. Obviously, the settlement
3
agreement provides that the effective date of settlement, when plaintiffs’ release is deemed effective, is conditioned on the defendants’ making the agreed-upon payment. As the settlement agreement provides:
K. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT
1. The Effective Date of the Settlement shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of all of the following events:
* * *
e. Defendants shall have paid the Settlement Amount, as set forth in paragraph C., above [detailing the escrow fund].
Relying on this language, the defendants argue that since they did not pay the $425,000 settlement amount, the settlement agreement is no longer operative and binding. They claim that their argument is bolstered by a later provision of the settlement agreement, which states:
If all of the conditions specified in paragraph K.1 are not met, then the Stipulation shall be canceled and terminated . . . .
Thus, the defendants contend that when they failed to pay $425,000 into escrow, the condition precedent for the settlement agreement’s effective date failed, and therefore the settlement itself was “canceled and terminated.”
This argument fails for lack of a fundamental understanding of the settlement agreement’s operation. The duty to pay $425,000 into escrow was a promise by the defendants, not a
4
condition precedent to their performance under the settlement agreement. See Harllee v. Harllee, 565 S.E.2d 678, 682 (N.C. App. 2002) (discussing distinction between promise and condition precedent). Indeed, the defendants’ promise to pay $425,000 was the only consideration given by them for the plaintiffs promise to drop the class action and release the defendants. When the defendants failed to pay, they breached their promise, giving rise to a claim for damages, which the district court correctly ascertained to be $425,000 plus interest.
The settlement agreement labeled the payment a “condition” for the effective date because payment was a condition precedent for plaintiffs’ dropping the class action on the effective date. In other words, the $425,000 payment was a condition precedent for the plaintiffs’ performance of their obligations, not for the defendants’ performance. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 cmt. d (1981) (“The same term may . . . be interpreted not only to make an event a condition of the obligor’s duty, but also to impose a duty on the obligee that it occur”).
Moreover, even if the defendants sought to take advantage of a condition precedent in the settlement agreement, they could not unilaterally “cancel and terminate” the settlement agreement by their own failure to satisfy the condition. “[O]ne who prevents the performance of a condition, or makes it impossible
5
6
by his own act, will not be permitted to take advantage of the nonperformance.” In re Bigelow, 649 S.E.2d 10, 13-14 (N.C. App. 2007) (quoting Mullen v. Sawyer, 178 S.E.2d 425, 431 (N.C. 1971)); accord Torrey v. Cannon, 88 S.E. 768, 770 (N.C. 1916).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Might not be far off lucy.... (right from the Court calendar for Tuesday, Mar 2, 2010)
DROP DEAD DAY/FINAL PRETRIAL NLO 091100082 State Felony
STATE OF UTAH ATTY: LACHMAR, BARBARA K
VS.
GEDDES, GREGORY G ATTY: SMITH, GREGORY B
OTN: DOB: 04/29/1966
F2 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD - 09/08/08
F2 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD - 09/08/08
F2 - THEFT BY DECEPTION - 09/08/08
> NO OTN NUMBER <
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DROP DEAD DAY/FINAL PRETRIAL NLO 091100625 State Felony
STATE OF UTAH ATTY: LACHMAR, BARBARA K
VS.
GEDDES, GREGORY G ATTY: SMITH, GREGORY B
OTN: DOB: 04/29/1966
F3 - COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD
lucy, I strongly suggest that you THOROUGHLY read the link I posted from the SEC. It really points out what an 'upstanding' character Traveller really is --- NOT
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2008/34-58438.pdf
You can try to 'downplay' Traveller's past discressions, however, the fact remains that Traveller was brought up on FRAUD charges by the SEC. Traveller opted to plead out INSTEAD of going to trial and settled with the SEC. He paid a $50,000 fine and was disbarred from holding a position in a public company for 5 years.
That was basically an admission of guilt by Traveller rather than facing FAR, FAR stiffer penalties if he went to court.
Traveller copped a plea regarding his FRAUD charges with the SEC rather than going to court and surely losing big time. (A basic admission of guilt)
Relavent -- YES
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2008/34-58438.pdf
"A stray pleading may refer to a pleading that have lost significance in litigation or which does not have any purpose in the litigation."
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stray-pleading/
Believe that MicroCap Management has at least 1 mil. shares yet to dump.
But let's not forget that Traveller/Geddes need money also to put on the 'show'. The only logical way for them to get that cash is to DUMP shares.
EarnestDD...
The end is VERY near.....
02/18/2010 51.000 NOTICE OF ISSUE AND REQUEST TO DOCKET Comments:
NASCAR, (4envs)
02/08/2010 50.000 DEFAULT Comments:
agst Aero Exhaust Performance Products Inc
02/08/2010 49.000 MOTION OF/FOR DEFAULT Comments:
agst Aero Exhaust Performance Products Inc
01/20/2010 48.000 RETURNED SUMMONS SERVED Comments:
AERO Exhaust Performance Products Inc
01/20/2010 47.000 NOTICE OF FILING Comments:
affidavit of service of process and order to show cause as to Aero Exhaust Performance Products Inc by NASCAR
12/31/2009 46.000 ANSWER BY/FOR DEFENDANT Comments:
Bryan Hunsaker to 1st amended complaint
12/23/2009 45.000 DEFAULT Comments:
As to TTR HP, by Judge
12/23/2009 44.000 RETURNED SUMMONS SERVED Comments:
(amd comp)Bryan Hunsaker
12/23/2009 43.000 NOTICE OF FILING Comments:
affadvit of service by National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing Inc
12/07/2009 42.000 DEFAULT Comments:
to FLO CO LLC
12/07/2009 41.000 MOTION OF/FOR DEFAULT Comments:
to FLO CO LLC
In less than 6 weeks UNI-CON has substantially more than doubled the Outstanding shares by DUMPING 1,683,858,333 shares.
"Unico has a total of 2,801,858,976 shares of its common stock issued and outstanding as of February 22, 2010."
The dilution machine is in high gear....
Here's what has happened to the share structure over the years...
Shares outstanding:
Under Ray Brown:
7/7/00 55,266,712
12/27/00 64,785,046
5/22/01 66,893,060
7/6/01 67,893,969
10/08/01 70,054,487
12/31/01 69,678,487
5/21/02 72,062,974
7/10/02 74,112,974
10/7/02 74,112,974
1/8/03 75,112,974
6/11/03 77,507,974
7/10/03 78,257,974
10/15/03 85,852,974
1/9/04 88,952,974
5/27/04 93,462,974
7/14/04 93,462,974
Quite a reasonable amount of dilution for a company trying to do something.
Now enter Mark Lopez as CEO and his Death Spiral Financing scheme...
11/22/04 335,427,896
2/23/05 484,427,896
5/20/05 498,427,896
Note that the Authorized shares were almost maxed out at 500 mil.
7/13/05 498,427,896
10/14/05 498,427,896
1/3/06 498,427,896
Now the Authorized shares was raised to 5 Billion.
6/2/06 4,899,096,450
7/17/06 4,909,096,450
First MASSIVE reverse split 1:100
8/11/06 49,090,965
10/12/06 182,411,108
1/11/07 747,899,608
6/11/07 1,906,735,609
7/6/07 2,915,363,072
1/7/08 4,815,363,072
5/8/08 4,940,363,072
Now the second MASSIVE reverse split 1:500
7/1/08 9,880,726
10/10/08 12,306,929
1/12/09 23,679,981
6/4/09 141,784,859
7/5/09 202,750,052
8/31/09 280,967,605
10/10/09 420,489,553
11/3/2009 521,194,256
12/2/09 714,659,863
1/12/2010 1,218,000,643
2/22/2010 2,801,858,976
FastFish....
VWAP takes care of attempts of 'painting the tape' (either up or down) and provides a far more accurate means of measuring the real price trends of a stock.
It's really a shame that charts are not based upon VWAP instead of closing price. If one wants, it is very easy to make your own VWAP chart using MS Excel.
Wanna bet that no money changed hands re: the Form 4????
Remember that David Gillespie is a NEW Director Of UNI-CON and this was undoubtedly a 'signing bonus' to create a PR event, as has happened so many times in the past.
Why would anyone want to buy at 0.0003 when you will be able to buy at 0.0001 VERY soon?????
Your guess is as good as mine lucy as to what VWRT is!!!
Yo keith.... Who you gonna believe..... UNI-CON or a third party
From UNI-CON's very latest 10-Q dated 1-14-2010...
"There are no known, proven or probable reserves on the property."
And....
"Unico has no immediate plans to try to establish any reserves."
Remember a third party can say anything but UNI-CON must tell the real truth in the SEC filings under penalty of perjury.
To all,
I suggest that all posters reread the TOU rules for "Deletion of Posts" at:
http://ihwiki.advfn.com/index.php?title=Handbook#Deletion_of_Posts
All post that have been deleted have violated the TOU rules.
Please try to limit the discussion to the company and/or stock.