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.
I'll bet ya dollars to doughnuts that he is in the Central Time Zone, just an hour off Eastern.
I don't think talking to him would do you or him any good. I know his type very well. He will not hear anything you have to say. In his mind, he is the only one here making any sense.
I don't know, I'm just guessing.
Here is my profile of him.
Came from a big, working class family. Dropped out of school in the sixties. Got an okay job for a utility company, worked like a dog. Very bright, but barely literate until internet came along. Near death experience along the way. Strong belief in reincarnation, druids and his own psychic abilities. Anti-social personality. No kids. Recently retired.
You haven't been hosed.
He really can't spell. He is a simple guy, worked for the utility company all his life. Lots of time on his hands.
He who smelt it, dealt it.
Congratulations on your marriage.
I already knew what you looked like from some bublevision video thing, but the person I assume to be your bride looks remarkably similar to Kate Pierson of the B52's, which makes you sooper-doooper lucky!
Hmmm, I don't think of myself as bad, nasty or an ihubber, but I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.
My recent posts may seem more level-headed because I have decided that my Quahog alias here will be the non-stock-talking, rational guy. My dozens of other aliases here are mostly devoted to my job as a paid basher for Pink Sheet and OTCBB market makers.
Hi Doug,
I'm not sure if I got your point, but I might have. I do know that the Next Gen. episode you refer to is one of my favorites!
Re making business sense, this is what I mean: I see the long-term costs of allowing rape jokes and "faggot" and "towelhead" humor outweighing the long term benefits that could be associated with running a more professional site not filled with idiotic graffiti. I think of potential buyers or partners or investors, who read this stuff in the jailhouse and view it as a liability.
I wonder whether the income derived (if any) from the handful of members who do the bulk of this posting offsets the income lost from people who leave the site because of it. A business calculation.
I recall the discussion, and I understand that this is Matt's sandbox. It just doesn't make sense to me that he finds a middle finger to be offensive, and gripes and moans about wanting people to talk about investments, but then encourages the crude and sophomoric references and graphics regarding anal rape, and he tolerates the use of the term "faggot" as a standard insult.
Aside from whether his policies make common sense, to me they just never made any business sense.
To get back on Matt's good side, and to conform to good taste normally displayed here at iHub, I suggest that you replace that photo with one referring to anal, jailhouse rape. You will score extra brownie points by referring to others here as "faggot."
Google says you're wrong about everything.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=sempiternal+terahertz+sanctifying+generator
That's a lot of money to spend just to play this:
http://www.pdatopsoft.com/software/item.php?pid=3314
Talk about Treo-Friendly
I have about 2,500 sq. ft. of living area.
According to the site you gave, there are 5,618 HDD in the listed city nearest to me (Providence).
No A/C (except for window units). No ductwork.
I think you are right that my attic is a likely problem. I have never done more than pop my head into it (access is a problem, but I can get up there if I have to). I popped my head up there one day last summer and almost passed out from the heat trapped up there.
If you've ever had a house that heats up late in the afternoon and then gets warmer even after the sun is off the house
That's a big 10-4.
I'll make a trip up there this weekend and report back as to what I find in the way of insulation or lack thereof.
I've heard nothing but good things about it, and I've been intrigued by it ever since it started creeping into This Old House installations several years ago.
You heating the whole outdoors?
Seems like it sometimes.
There are a lot of different things at work here. I am in the Northeast, very close to the Ocean. My house was built in the 1930's as a summer cottage. Over the years, there have been numerous additions, all done poorly. The house is now rather large, with three different heating zones. It runs forced hot water through baseboard copper pipes. It is an old and inefficient system. Insulation in the house is awful, the windows are crap.
So, you are right. There is much I could do to improve my heating efficiency, and I will make some of these improvements within the next two years. There is just SO MUCH to do. One big mistake I made was when I first moved in here, I installed about 300 sq. ft. of ceramic tile in one of the rooms, and didn't think to put down a radiant heat system while I was at it. I'm tiling the kitchen soon, and do plan to install it there.
It actually looks like for $500 I can have about 400 gallons worth of storage tanks which would be about 2 yrs worth.
Must be nice to live in Atlanta. I think 400 gallons lasted me all of January this past Winter.
Take it to your local service station.
Get an oil change while you're there and they probably won't even charge you a disposal fee.
Here's an old one I missed:
Friday, June 29, 2001
Story last updated at 8:04 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2001
SEC looking into Winners Internet PR dealings
By Mark Basch
Times-Union business writer
Winners Internet Network Inc., an Internet transaction processing company formerly based in St. Augustine, said yesterday that the company is in "a very weak but salvageable position" and that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the company's relationship with a public relations firm.
According to a letter to shareholders posted on the company's Web site yesterday, the SEC is investigating the relationship between Winners Internet and a European firm called Stockreporter that issued favorable research reports about Winners Internet after being retained by the company.
Winners Internet said efforts to settle the investigation last year were unsuccessful and that the investigation is ongoing.
Winners Internet was formed in the 1990s to provide clearinghouse services for Internet casinos. The company was headquartered in St. Augustine, but when founder David C. Skinner Jr. resigned as president and chief executive officer in March, the company apparently moved its headquarters operations to Liechtenstein, where its computers were located. Liechtenstein resident Stefan Vogt was appointed president and CEO when Skinner resigned.
The company has not reported any financial data since recording revenue of $822,673 and a profit of $5,067 in 1999. Its stock, which trades in the over-the-counter market, has been priced below 10 cents a share in recent days.
Winners Internet and Stockreporter issued a joint press release in January 2000 announcing that Stockreporter was beginning coverage of Winners Internet with a "strong buy" recommendation and a "conservative target price" of $12. The stock was trading at $2.50 at the time and rose to a high of $7.88 in March 2000.
Stockreporter is a Germany-based company that publishes research on small companies through its Web site at www.stockreporter.de.
The press release with Winners Internet did disclose that Stockreporter usually receives consideration in cash or stock when it evaluates a company and that investors should view that as a potential conflict of interest. It did not say anything specific about the relationship between Winners Internet and Stockreporter.
Vogt and Stockreporter did not respond to e-mail inquiries yesterday.
The Winners Internet shareholder letter said the company has a "serious liquidity problem" and "it is possible that the company will not be able to pay its bills in June" without additional funds. The company is looking for new investors.
While Winners Internet was started to provide processing services for Internet casinos, it has expanded to provide transaction processing for other types of e-commerce businesses. In the shareholder letter, the company said it plans to change its focus away from gambling and toward more traditional e-commerce.
The complete text of the letter can be seen at the company's Web site at www.winr.net
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062901/bus_6561968.html
It is primarly due to Ihub's excellent search engine that I decided to post every fact about WINR here that I could dig up. Many of these old links have been dead for a long time and would now be lost if not for SI and IHub. The old PR's from 1997 and 98, the first paid tout reports, even emails from
Skinner.
I just figured that eventually if every bit of info was archived and easily searchable, then somebody would figure out exactly what happened and who was responsible.
In my opinion, each of these scam penny operations could be viewed as a RICO enterprise and prosecuted accordingly. There just isn't enough call for the U.S. Attorneys (usually political up and comers looking for high publicity cases and biding their time before moving on to higher office) to cause their white collar crime units to look into it. It is just left to the SEC, who seem content to enter into settlements for chump change fines and voluntary injunctions.
It is these injunctions that really take the cake. These crooks agree to be enjoined from further violating the law. No shit, you don't need an injunction for that. Most people understand that breaking the law is already prohibited. It is like the old Chris Rock bit where he describes a guy bragging that he "takes care of his kids," or "ain't in jail." WELL YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR KIDS AND STAY OUT OF JAIL! You don't get bragging rights for doing what you should be doing, and along those lines I don't see how the SEC thinks it is a big deal for a crook to agree to stop breaking the law going forward.
Okay, enough ranting for the day. Back to Spring cleaning.
You know,
after a while you get the feeling that every penny stock that ever existed was the brainchild of the same dozen or so guys. Same dirty lawyers, same scamming incorporators, same shell operators/sellers, same crooked accountants, same IR/PR touting firms, and one guy sitting at home on his computer with 300 screen names pumping the crap out of it here and on RB.
Just stay away from "auditing" any penny stocks and you should be A-Okay.
I mean, how is it that so many of these pennies from all over the country find and use little ol' Michael Johnson & Co., based in Littleton, Colorado?
He must be REALLY, REALLY good!
Hey Gary!
I am guessing that it was just an outcrop of the stockreporter investigation. The bigger fish here, unfortunately for us, is probably Johnson. I am guessing that they got his employee, Ms. Gardner, to agree to testify against Johnson in exchange for this lenient settlement. It also appears that Skinner has already cut a deal to disgorge some of his ill-gotten gain, and possibly pay a civil penalty, probably in return for his testimony against Johnson too.
As for the entire Q family, it has been drastically reduced. Fortunately, there is still me and my son, and that is a lot.
I hope your NCAA brackets did better than mine this year. See ya round.
Quahog
SEC SUES LITTLETON ACCOUNTANT:
DenverPost.com
April 1, 2004. Business Briefs.
The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday sued a Littleton accountant, an online transaction-processing firm in Houston, and its chief executive on charges of securities fraud. The SEC alleges that American Television and Film Co., formerly known as Winners Internet Network, and CEO David Skinner Jr. published misleading financial reports for investors and failed to file the proper reports with the SEC. The lawsuit claims that Michael B. Johnson, president of Littleton-based Johnson & Co., handled accounting work for the company and destroyed some audit papers before his interview with the SEC. With the lawsuit, the SEC filed consent decrees in which Skinner, without admitting or denying guilt, agreed to a ban from serving as an officer of any publicly traded U.S. company. Johnson's attorney did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment late Wednesday.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~2054469,00.html
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER ENTERED AGAINST ACCOUNTANT MARGARET GARDNER
On March 31, the Commission issued a cease-and-desist order against
Margaret M. Gardner, an accountant employed by Michael Johnson & Co.,
LLC (Johnson & Co.), a Denver, Colorado accounting firm. In the Order
the Commission found that, in late 1999 and 2000, Johnson & Co.
purported to be the independent auditor for Winners Internet Network,
Inc. (Winners), a publicly traded company. Gardner made entries to
certain of Winners' accounts, and participated in the preparation,
compilation, audits and/or reviews of certain of Winners' financial
statements included in a Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
registration statement, a current report on Form 8-K and quarterly
reports on Forms 10-QSB and 10-QSB/A filed with the Commission by
Winners between Dec. 23, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000.
The Commission further found that Winners' financial statements
prepared, compiled, audited and reviewed by Gardner materially
overstated Winners' assets by up to 2,550% and revenues by up to 83%,
and understated expenses by up to 16%, by improperly: capitalizing
certain expenses, recognizing assets from a transaction that lacked
economic substance, recording license fees and receivables, recognizing
receivables from licensing fees that Winners had little or no chance of
collecting, and recognizing revenue and receivables that had not been
realized or earned by Winners. Moreover, the Commission found that, for
the year ended Dec. 31, 1999, the overstatements of revenue and
understatements of expenses enabled Winners to report net income of
$5,067 instead of a net loss of over $501,000.
Finally, the Commission found that Gardner caused Johnson & Co. to issue
audit reports that falsely stated that the firm's audits of Winners'
1997, 1998 and 1999 financial statements were presented in conformity
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and that the audit
of the 1999 financial statements was conducted in accordance with
Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). According to the Order,
these statements were false because, among other things, by
participating in both the preparation and audit of the 1999 financial
statements, Gardner failed to maintain her independence from Winners.
Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's order,
Gardner consented to the issuance of an order requiring that she cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1; and from causing any violations and
any future violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13. (Rel. 34-49510; AAE
Rel. 1982; File No. 3-11452)
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig040104.txt
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 49510 / March 31, 2004
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 1982 / March 31, 2004
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-11452
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of
MARGARET M. GARDNER,
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-
AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS, MAKING
FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER PURSUANT
TO SECTION 21C OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate that cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), against Margaret M. Gardner ("Respondent" or "Gardner").
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer"), which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over her and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Order"), as set forth below.
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent's Offer, the Commission finds1 that:
1. Gardner, age 65, is a resident of Denver, Colorado. Gardner, who has never been a certified public accountant, has worked as an accountant for Michael Johnson & Co., LLC ("Johnson & Co.") since February 1998.
2. As an employee of Johnson & Co., Gardner participated in the audit of the financial statements for Winners Internet Network, Inc. ("Winners"), now known as American Television and Film Company ("American"), for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1998, and participated in the compilation of financial statements for the ten months ended October 31, 1998 and October 31, 1999, which were included in a Form 10-SB registration of securities of a small business issuer filed by Winners with the Commission on December 23, 1999.
3. Gardner also participated in the preparation and audit of Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements, which were included in a current report on Form 8-K filed by Winners with the Commission on May 15, 2000; and participated in the preparation and review of certain of Winners' financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2000, versions of which were included in Forms 10-QSB and 10-QSB/A filed by Winners with the Commission on November 21 and 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000, respectively, under the name of Winners' wholly owned subsidiary, Glennaire Financial Services, Inc.
4. Winners, a former Nevada corporation with offices in St. Augustine, Florida and the country of Liechtenstein, offered online processing of Internet gaming and other financial transactions using its proprietary processing software between 1999 and June 2002. Thereafter, Winners had no operations.
5. In December 1999, Winners filed a general form of registration of securities of a small business issuer with the Commission on Form 10-SB, which Winners withdrew before it became effective. In May 2000, Winners' common stock became registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, when Winners acquired Glennaire Financial Services, Inc., a corporation whose common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, effective September 1999. On February 26, 2004, Winners terminated the registration of its common stock by filing a Form 15 with the Commission. Therefore, from May 2000 to at least February 26, 2004, Winners, now American, was required to file periodic reports with the Commission. American's stock is listed in the electronic quotation service operated by The Pink Sheets LLC.
6. Once its operations began in 1999, Winners maintained incomplete and inaccurate books and records for its European operations that encompassed accounts including its software asset, receivables, revenues, and the majority of its expenses and liabilities. In connection with the preparation of the financial statements identified in Paragraph 3, Gardner knowingly made false entries to certain of Winners' accounts.
7. The financial statements of Winners referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above materially overstated Winners' software asset by between $75,000 and $300,000, resulting in an overstatement of total assets by between 3% and 191%, by improperly capitalizing purported demonstration software costs in Winners' software asset account.
8. Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements, which Gardner participated in preparing and purporting to audit and that were filed with the Commission in Winners' Form 8-K current report, materially overstated Winners' software asset by approximately $421,000 by improperly capitalizing operating expenses in the software asset account. This resulted in an overstatement of total assets by 416%.
9. Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements also materially overstated Winners' licensing and processing revenues by approximately $372,000, resulting in an overstatement of total revenues by 83%, and accounts receivable by approximately $533,000, resulting in an overstatement of total assets by 528%, and understated expenses by $161,000, resulting in a 16% understatement of total expenses, by improperly: (a) recording licensing fees; (b) recognizing receivables from licensing fees Winners had little or no chance of collecting; and (c) recognizing revenue and receivables that had not been realized or earned by Winners. These overstatements enabled Winners to report net income of $5,067 instead of a net loss of over $501,000.
10. Financial statements for the initial three quarters of calendar year 2000 were included in Forms 10-QSB and 10-QSB/A filed by Winners with the Commission in November and December 2000. These financial statements improperly recognized a $1 million software asset from a transaction that lacked economic substance, resulting in an overstatement of total assets by between 73% and 2,550%.
11. Johnson & Co. issued audit reports accompanying Winners' year-end financial statements for 1997 and 1998 that contained a going concern qualification and an unqualified audit report for 1999. These reports falsely stated that the financial statements were presented fairly in all material respects in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and that the audits of these financial statements were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS"). These statements were false, since portions of the underlying financial statements were not presented in conformity with GAAP, which, in turn, rendered false the statements that the audits were conducted in accordance with GAAS, since the failure to address a deviation from GAAP in an audit report is a violation of GAAS. In addition, Johnson & Co.'s audit of Winners' 1999 financial statements was not in accordance with GAAS because, among other things, by participating in both the preparation and audit of these financial statements, Gardner failed to maintain her independence from Winners.
12. Gardner acted recklessly by participating in preparing, compiling, reviewing and auditing Winners' financial statements, which contained the false statements described in Paragraphs 6 through 11.
13. As a result of the conduct described above, Gardner: (a) violated and, with respect to Johnson & Co.'s audit reports, caused violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which prohibit fraudulent conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of securities; (b) violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which, among other things, prohibits any person from knowingly falsifying any book, record or account subject to Section 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act; (c) violated Rule 13b2-1, which prohibits any person from directly or indirectly falsifying or causing to be falsified, any book record or account subject to Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act; (d) caused Winners' violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder, which require every issuer of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to file with the Commission, in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate for the proper protection of investors and to insure fair dealing in the security, such quarterly and current reports as the Commission may prescribe; and (e) caused Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires public companies to make and keep books and records which accurately and fairly reflect its transactions and dispositions of assets.
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Gardner's Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent Gardner cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 promulgated thereunder, and from causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.
By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary
Endnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent's Offer of Settlement and are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-49510.htm
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 18652 / April 1, 2004
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 1983 / April 1, 2004
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. MICHAEL B. JOHNSON, MICHAEL JOHNSON & CO., LLC, DAVID C. SKINNER, JR. AND AMERICAN TELEVISION AND FILM COMPANY f/k/a WINNERS INTERNET NETWORK, INC., No. 04-RB-0626 (USDC D. Colorado).
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that it filed an injunctive action on March 31, 2004 against Colorado resident Michael B. Johnson, his Colorado-based accounting firm, Michael Johnson & Co., LLC ("Johnson & Co."), American Television and Film Company f/k/a Winners Internet Network, Inc. ("Winners"), a Nevada corporation, and Florida resident David C. Skinner, Jr., Winners' former president and chairman of the board of directors. The Commission's complaint alleges that between December 1999 and December 2000, Winners and Skinner carried out a scheme to defraud investors by filing reports and a registration statement with the Commission containing false financial statements that fraudulently overstated Winners' revenues, income, assets and cash inflows and understated expenses. According to the complaint, Johnson and Johnson & Co. assisted in the scheme by performing a range of accounting functions for Winners, including purporting to audit financial statements they had previously prepared for Winners. Further, between January and October 2000, Skinner and Winners reviewed or disseminated three promotional "analyst reports" containing baseless financial projections.
The Commission's complaint alleges that: (1) Johnson, Johnson & Co. and Skinner violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aided and abetted violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder; and (2) Winners violated Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder. The complaint seeks injunctions and third-tier civil penalties against all of the defendants; disgorgement and prejudgment interest from Johnson, Johnson & Co., and Skinner; and officer and director and penny stock bars against Skinner only. Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Skinner has consented to the entry of an order that would enjoin him from future violations of the foregoing provisions and direct him to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined after the completion of the Commission's discovery in this action; and in which he would agree to the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of determining whether to assess civil penalties against him.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18652.htm
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 04-RB-0626
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL B. JOHNSON,
MICHAEL JOHNSON &CO., LLC,
DAVID C. SKINNER, JR. and
AMERICAN TELEVISION AND FILM COMPANY,
formerly known as WINNERS INTERNET NETWORK, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its complaint, alleges as follows:
A. Summary
1. Between December 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000, Winners Internet Network, Inc., now known as American Television and Film Company (hereinafter referred to as "Winners"), and its then-president, David C. Skinner, Jr. ("Skinner"), carried out a scheme to defraud investors by filing eight reports and a registration statement with the Commission containing numerous false statements, including material overstatements of Winners' revenues, income, assets and cash inflows through the improper capitalization of certain expenses to Winners' software asset, recognition of assets from a sham transaction, recording fictitious licensing fees as revenue, recognition as valid income receivables from licensing fees Winners had little or no chance of collecting, recognition of revenue and receivables that had not been realized or earned by Winners, and false reports of stock issued for services or assets as stock issued for cash proceeds.
2. Winners' outside accounting firm, Michael Johnson &Co., LLC ("Johnson &Co.") and its sole officer and shareholder, Michael B. Johnson ("Johnson"), assisted in the scheme by performing a range of accounting functions for Winners.
3. Furthermore, between January and October 2000, Skinner and Winners reviewed or disseminated three promotional "analyst reports" containing baseless financial projections and false statements about the independence of the analysts.
4. Skinner profited from the fraud by selling Winners stock into the resulting inflated market, thereby realizing proceeds of at least $170,701.
5. In addition, Winners, assisted by Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co., failed to create and maintain required books, records and accounts that accurately and fairly reflected transactions and dispositions of its assets, and Winners, assisted by Skinner, failed to devise and maintain a required system of internal accounting controls.
6. Finally, Winners also failed to file mandatory periodic reports with the Commission between March 31, 2001 and February 26, 2004.
7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Section 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78u] for an order permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants Johnson, Johnson &Co., Skinner and Winners and granting other relief.
8. In addition to permanent injunctive relief, the Commission also seeks other relief including, without limitation, orders:
a. requiring Johnson, Johnson &Co. and Skinner to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received or benefits derived from the illegal conduct alleged in this complaint, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
b. requiring Johnson, Johnson &Co. and Skinner to pay third tier civil money penalties pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)].
c. prohibiting Skinner from serving as an officer and director of a public company pursuant to Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)] of the Exchange Act and the general equitable powers of the Court; and
d. prohibiting Skinner from participating in any offering of penny stock pursuant to Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)] and the general equitable powers of the Court.
B. Jurisdiction and Venue
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d) and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78aa].
10. In connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business described in this Complaint, Defendants Johnson, Johnson &Co., Skinner and Winners directly or indirectly, have made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, of the facilities of a national securities exchange, and/or of the means and instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce.
11. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act because certain of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of business constituting the violations of law alleged herein occurred within this judicial district. In addition, Johnson resides, and Johnson &Co. is domiciled, in this judicial district.
C. The Defendants
12. Defendant Johnson, a resident of Littleton, Colorado, has been the president and sole shareholder of Johnson &Co. and a licensed certified public accountant in Colorado since 1975. He also is a licensed certified public accountant in Florida and Mississippi.
13. Defendant Johnson &Co. is an accounting firm located in Denver, Colorado. Johnson is the only shareholder of, and the only certified public accountant affiliated with, the firm. Johnson &Co., through Johnson and an employee under Johnson's supervision, made entries to Winners' books, records and/or accounts and prepared, compiled, audited and/or reviewed certain financial statements of Winners filed with the Commission by Skinner and Winners between December 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
14. Defendant Skinner, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, was the president, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors of Winners from July 1997 to March 2001.
15. Defendant American Television and Film Company, formerly known as Winners, is a Nevada corporation, which, at all times relevant to this Complaint, maintained offices in St. Augustine, Florida and/or in the country of Liechtenstein. Between 1999 and June 2002, Winners offered online processing of Internet gaming and other financial transactions using its proprietary processing software and thereafter had no operations. Winners' name was changed to American Television and Film Company in February 2004. Winners' offices are currently located in Houston, Texas.
16. In December 1999, Winners filed a general form of registration of securities of a small business issuer with the Commission on Form 10-SB, which Winners withdrew on February 17, 2000, before it became effective.
17. On May 15, 2000, Winners' common stock became registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, when Winners acquired Glennaire Financial Services, Inc., a corporation whose common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, effective September 1999.
18. On February 26, 2004, Winners terminated the registration of its common stock by filing a Form 15 with the Commission. Therefore, from May 15, 2000 to at least February 26, 2004, Winners, now American, was required to file periodic reports with the Commission. Winners' common stock is quoted on the National Quotation Bureau's Pink Sheets.
19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Winners' stock has been a "penny stock" as defined by Section 3(a)(51) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1 because it did not qualify for any of the exemptions from the definition of a penny stock.
D. Factual Allegations
Winners' Commission Filings
20. On December 23, 1999, Winners and Skinner and filed with the Commission an Exchange Act registration statement on Form 10-SB, which included financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1998 and for the ten months ended October 31, 1998 and October 31, 1999. Skinner reviewed and signed the Form 10-SB before filing it with the Commission.
21. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson audited Winners' financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1998 and compiled the financial statements for the ten months ended October 31, 1998 and October 31, 1999, all of which were included in Winners' Form 10-SB referenced in Paragraph 20.
22. On May 15, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission a current report on Form 8-K, which included financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1999. Skinner reviewed and signed the Form 8-K before filing it with the Commission.
23. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson audited Winners' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and prepared and audited Winners' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1999, both of which were included in Winners' Form 8-K referenced in Paragraph 22. In preparing Winners' financial statements for December 31, 1999, Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson decided the values that would be assigned to certain of Winners' accounts and made false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts.
24. On May 19, 2000 Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission a quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 on Form 10-QSB, which included financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 ("original March 31, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB before filing it with the Commission.
25. Johnson and Johnson &Co. did not participate in the preparation, compilation or review of Winners' original March 31, 2000 financial statements included in the Form 10-QSB referenced in Paragraph 24.
26. On June 21, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission an amended quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 on Form 10-QSB/A, which included amended financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 ("first amended March 31, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB/A before filing it with the Commission.
27. Johnson and Johnson &Co. did not participate in the preparation, compilation or review of Winners' first amended March 31, 2000 financial statements included in the Form 10-QSB referenced in Paragraph 26.
28. On November 22, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission a second amended quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 on Form 10-QSB/A, which included amended financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 ("second amended March 31, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB/A before filing it with the Commission.
29. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson prepared and reviewed a version of the financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 that were included in the Form 10-QSB/A filed on November 22, 2000 and referenced in Paragraph 28. In preparing Winners' these financial statements, a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson decided the values that would be assigned to certain accounts and made false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts.
30. On August 17, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission a quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 on Form 10-QSB, which included financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 ("original June 30, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB before filing it with the Commission.
31. Johnson and Johnson &Co. did not participate in the preparation, compilation or review of Winners' original June 30, 2000 financial statements included in the Form 10-QSB referenced in Paragraph 30.
32. On November 22, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission an amended quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 on Form 10-QSB/A, which included amended financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 ("amended June 30, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB/A before filing it with the Commission.
33. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson, prepared and reviewed a version of the financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 that were included in the Form 10-QSB/A filed on November 22, 2000 and referenced in Paragraph
32. In preparing these financial statements, an employee supervised by Johnson made decisions concerning the values that would be assigned to certain accounts and made false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts.
34. On November 21, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed a quarterly report for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 on Form 10-QSB, which included financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 ("original September 30, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB before filing it with the Commission.
35. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson prepared and reviewed a version of the financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 that were included in the Form 10-QSB/A filed on November 21, 2000 and referenced in Paragraph 34. In preparing these financial statements, a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson decided the values that would be assigned to certain accounts and made false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts.
36. On December 6, 2000, Winners and Skinner filed with the Commission an amended quarterly report for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 on Form 10-QSB/A, which included amended financial statement for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 ("amended September 30, 2000 financial statements"). Skinner reviewed and signed this Form 10-QSB/A before filing it with the Commission.
37. Johnson &Co., Johnson and an employee supervised by Johnson prepared and reviewed a version of the financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 that were included in the Form 10-QSB/A filed on December 6, 2000 and referenced in Paragraph 36. In preparing these financial statements, a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson decided the values that would be assigned to certain accounts and made false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts.
False Financial and Other Statements in Commission Filings
Overstatements of Assets Due to Improper Capitalization of Demonstration Software Costs
38. Winners' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997, the ten months ended October 31, 1998 and each of the original and amended financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2000 reported as part of Winners' software assets demonstration software valued at $300,000.
39. Winners' financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1999 and the ten months ended October 31, 1999 reported as part of Winners' software assets demonstration software asset valued at $75,000.
40. Winners' Forms 10-SB and 8-K, referenced in Paragraphs 20 and 22, respectively, falsely claimed that the demonstration software had been used in the development of Winners' proprietary processing software, referenced in Paragraph 15.
41. The inclusion of the $75,000 and $300,000 demonstration software values in Winners' assets was improper, because the demonstration software, which was actually purchased for approximately $50,000, was never was used in the development of Winners' proprietary processing software.
42. In addition, $250,000 worth of stock issued by Winners that was included in the $300,000 demonstration software value was not, in fact, issued for the purchase of the demonstration software.
43. The improper capitalization of purported demonstration software costs to Winners' software assets resulted in materially false statements in each of Winners' financial statements filed with the Commission concerning the value of Winners' total assets, by overstating total assets by between $75,000 and $300,000, or between 3% and 191%.
44. During the audit of Winners' December 31, 1997 financial statements, a Winners employee supervised by Skinner notified Johnson and Johnson &Co. that Winners did not use the demonstration software in developing its proprietary processing software and that the $250,000 Winners had previously claimed was used to purchase the demonstration software was not, in fact, used to purchase the software.
45. Despite knowing that none of the purported costs of Winners' demonstration software could be capitalized to Winners' assets, Johnson and Johnson &Co. allowed Winners to include a demonstration software value of $300,000 in Winners' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997, the ten months ended October 31, 1998, and in the second amended March 31, 2000 financial statements, the amended June 30, 2000 financial statements, and the original and amended September 30, 2000 financial statements, and a demonstration software value of $75,000 in the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1999 and the ten months ended October 31, 1999.
46. Furthermore, a Johnson &Co. employee under Johnson's supervision made the decision to increase the value of Winners' demonstration software from $75,000 at December 31, 1999 back to $300,000 in quarters in 2000 and made the false entries to Winners' books, records and accounts increasing this value.
47. Skinner, who reviewed, signed and filed every Winners filing that included the materially overstated demonstration software asset, knew that Winners did not use the demonstration software in the development of Winners' processing software, particularly since he supervised the employee who developed Winners' processing software without using the demonstration software. Furthermore, as a member of Winners' board, which authorized all issuances of Winners' stock, Skinner knew that Winners did not issue $250,000 for the purchase of demonstration software.
Overstatements of Assets Due to Improper Capitalization of Certain Expenses
48. Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements filed with Winners' Form 8-K identified in Paragraph 22, included in Winners' proprietary processing software asset $421,000 of improperly capitalized expenses, including wages, payroll taxes, rent, travel, marketing and consulting expenses for the entire 1999 fiscal year primarily related to Skinner, who played no role in developing Winners' processing software.
49. The capitalization of the expenses identified in Paragraph 48 was improper, because, in addition to the fact that many expenses unrelated to developing Winners' proprietary processing software were capitalized, generally accepted accounting principles dictated that Winners could capitalize relevant expenses only between the date its software reached technological feasibility, approximately October 1, 1998, until the date that Winners' software was available for general release to customers, approximately January 31, 1999.
50. The improper capitalization of 1999 expenses to Winners' software asset resulted in materially false statements in Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements concerning the value of Winners' total assets, which were overstated by over $421,000, or 416%.
51. Johnson and Johnson &Co. knew that the 1999 expenses identified in Paragraph 48 could not be capitalized to Winners' software asset. They knew that Winners had sold its processing software to customers beginning in early 1999, yet they allowed Winners to capitalize expenses incurred throughout the entire year.
52. Furthermore, Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson jointly decided which of Winners' 1999 expenses would be capitalized to the software asset, including Skinner's 1999 salary and other expenses, and the Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson made the journal entry that improperly increased the software asset by over $421,000.
53. Skinner, who reviewed, signed and filed the Form 8-K incorporating the December 31, 1999 financial statements, which included the improperly capitalized 1999 expenses, was at least reckless in not knowing, at a minimum, that his 1999 salary could not be capitalized to Winners' software asset, since he played no role in its creation. Overstated Licensing Revenues and Accounts Receivable and Understated Expenses Due to Recording of Fictitious License Fees and Uncollectible License Fee Receivables
54. Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements also contained materially false statements concerning the value of Winners' licensing revenues and licensing receivables by overstating such revenues and receivables by $140,000 and $301,000, respectively.
55. Winners' licensing revenues and receivables were materially overstated due to the recording of fictitious license fees and the recognition of receivables from licensing fees that Winners had little or no chance of collecting. In addition, by failing to write off receivables that Winners had little or no chance of collecting, Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements contained materially false statements concerning its expenses, which were understated by $161,000 or 17%.
56. Winners reported fictitious licensing fees by valuing licensing revenues of one client at $130,000 and license fee receivables at $107,500, when the client's contract with Winners, a portion of which appeared in Johnson &Co.'s audit workpapers, showed that the client's license fee totaled only $50,000.
57. In addition, while another client's licensing fee was just $10,000 and its corresponding receivables were only $9,000, Winners included $70,000 in revenues and $69,000 in receivables from that client in its December 31, 1999 financial statements. 58. Winners failed to write off $133,500 in receivables from licensing fees it had little or no chance of collecting. For example, the licensing receivables from three of Winners' clients had been outstanding for periods of over 330 days, with at least one client having terminated its relationship with Winners by the end of 1999, and there was no evidence of payment or confirmation of validity of the receivables by the clients. 59. Furthermore, Winners agreed on March 1, 2000 to refund license fees paid by a fourth client in response to a claim by that client that Winners had breached its contract, and therefore Winners would not receive the $27,500 in licensing fees still owed by the client. Winners' improper accounting for these receivables resulted in a material understatement of expenses of $161,000, or 17%, for the year ended December 31, 1999.
60. Johnson and Johnson &Co. knew that Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements materially misstated licensing revenues, receivables and related expenses. Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson determined the amount of licensing revenues and receivables that would be recorded for the year ended December 31, 1999 while knowing that Winners' documents and their own audit workpapers did not support the reported revenues and receivables, and that the auditors did not perform adequate audit test work.
61. For example, Johnson &Co.'s audit workpapers included only partial license fee contracts for only some of Winners' clients, and only some of these partial contracts showed the amount of license fees owed to Winners by the respective clients.
62. With respect to at least one client, Johnson and Johnson &Co. never saw the license fee contract or other documentation showing the client's license fees.
63. In addition, there was no documentation in Johnson &Co.'s workpapers showing the amount of license fees paid and owed by Winners' clients.
64. In many instances in which there was no documentation supporting certain licensing revenue or receivable values, Johnson and Johnson &Co. relied merely on unverified representations by Winners' management concerning the values and failed to perform adequate audit test work to confirm those values.
65. Johnson and Johnson &Co. ignored the documentation and information that did exist concerning the true amounts of Winners' licensing revenues and receivables and instead recorded significantly higher values for these accounts for the year ended December 31, 1999.
66. As stated in Paragraph 61, Johnson &Co.'s own audit workpapers included partial contracts that set forth the amount of license fees owed by some clients, yet Johnson and Johnson &Co. allowed Winners to record significantly higher licensing revenue amounts for these clients.
67. In addition, a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson knew, and documents in Johnson &Co.'s workpapers state, that certain of Winners' clients had accused the company of breaching its contracts with them and that Winners had agreed to refund one client's licensing fee, thereby making it unlikely that Winners would receive or retain those fees.
68. Winners continued to report $200,000 of uncollectible licensing receivables in all of its quarterly financial statements for the year 2000, and therefore these financial statements contained materially false statements concerning its licensing receivables and expenses.
69. Skinner reviewed, signed and filed the Form 8-K and the Forms 10-QSB and Forms 10-QSB/A in which the overstated licensing revenues and receivables and understated licensing-related expenses appeared, while knowing that Winners' documents did not support the reported licensing revenues and receivables and that certain clients likely would never pay Winners their licensing fees
.
Overstated Processing Revenues and Accounts Receivable
70. Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements materially overstated Winners' processing revenues by inappropriately including in revenues and receivables amounts that had not been realized or earned by Winners.
71. Winners historically collected all gaming proceeds due to its casino clients, extracted fees of between 1% and 5%, and paid the remaining 95% to 99% to its clients. For the month of December 1999, however, Winners reported as revenue all of the gaming proceeds it received instead of its much smaller retained processing fees, which were its true revenues. Winners did not record a corresponding expense.
72. Furthermore, Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements also included as processing income over $115,900 of licensing and processing fees that Winners had not earned but that it anticipated receiving upon the signing of certain license fee contracts in 2000. These amounts had been neither realized nor earned by Winners, since the anticipated contracts had not been executed and Winners had not rendered any services or delivered products to the potential clients. In fact, the contracts were never signed.
73. As a result of the improper recognition of revenue that was neither earned nor realized by Winners, Winners' financial statements for December 31, 1999 contained materially false statements concerning its processing fee revenues and receivables, each of which were overstated by $232,766, resulting in overstated total revenues of 52% and total assets of 230%.
74. Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee under Johnson's supervision decided to report as revenue 100% of Winners' gaming proceeds for the month of December 1999, without recording a corresponding expense, while knowing that Winners' true revenues were only 1% to 5% of that amount.
75. Furthermore, a Johnson &Co. employee under Johnson's supervision knew that over $115,900 of anticipated licensing and processing fees had not been earned in 1999, and Johnson &Co.'s audit workpapers were devoid of any documentation concerning these anticipated fees, yet Johnson and Johnson &Co. allowed Winners to record them in its December 31, 1999 financial statements.
76. As a result of the overstatements of licensing and processing revenues and the understatement of licensing- and processing-related expenses, Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements contained materially false statements concerning its revenues, assets, expenses and net income, and its net loss of over $501,000 was reported as net income of over $5,000.
Overstated Assets and Revenues Based on Sham Asset Exchange
77. Beginning with Winners' October 31, 1999 financial statements filed with Winners' registration statement on December 23, 1999, Winners engaged in a pattern of improperly recognizing assets and revenues from a sham asset exchange between Winners and CyberLink Monetary Systems AG ("Cyberlink"), a Liechtenstein trust which existed for the sole purpose of allowing Winners to conduct business in Liechtenstein. In a series of purported transactions, Winners purported to sell its processing software to Cyberlink for $3 million, and Cyberlink purported to sell certain domain names to Winners for $4 million.
78. The purported transactions with Cyberlink lacked economic substance because, among other things, Cyberlink and Winners functioned as the same entity, and Winners already owned the asset it purportedly agreed to purchase for $4 million. Therefore, Winners should not have reported assets or revenues from the transactions, or, in the alternative, the transactions should have been eliminated in the consolidation of Winners' and Cyberlink's financial transactions.
79. The improper recognition of assets and revenues from the sham transactions identified in Paragraph 77 resulted in the following materially false statements in Winners' financial statements: (a) overstatement of Winners' accounts receivables by $1,200,000, resulting in overstatements of total assets by 3% and total revenues by 218% in Winners' October 31, 1999 financial statements; (b) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $1 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of 205%, and overstatement of revenues of $1,500,000, resulting in an overstatement of total revenues of 1,125%, in Winners' original March 31, 2000 financial statements; (c) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $4 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of 923%, and overstatement of revenues by $3 million, resulting in an overstatement of total revenues of 22,497%, in Winners' first amended March 31, 2000 financial statements; (d) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $1 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of 231%, in Winners' second amended March 31, 2000 financial statements; (e) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $4 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of 2,550%, and overstatement of revenues by $3 million, resulting in an overstatement of total revenues of 1,749%, in Winners' original June 30, 2000 financial statements; (f) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $1 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of 638%, in Winners' amended June 30, 2000 financial statements; (g) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $1 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of over 100%, in Winners' original September 30, 2000 financial statements; and (h) overstatement of the value of Winners' software asset by $1 million, resulting in an overstatement of total assets of over 100%, in Winners' amended September 30, 2000 financial statements.
80. Compounding the falsity of the asset and revenue values in Paragraph 79, the Management's Discussion and Analysis section of Winners' registration statement identified in Paragraph 20 stated that Winners' October 31, 1999 revenues of $1,744,878 "were generated from [Winners'] European processing operations," when, in fact, $1,200,000 of Winners' October 31, 1999 revenues were the result of the improper recognition of revenues from the sham transactions identified in Paragraph 77.
81. In addition, the notes to Winners' original March 31, 2000 financial statements contained in the Form 10-QSB identified in Paragraph 24 stated that the increase in revenues of $1,516,419 from March 31, 1999 to March 31, 2000 "was primarily due to an overall increase in [Winners'] operations," when, in fact, $1,500,000 of the increase in revenues from March 31, 1999 to March 31, 2000 was the result of the improper recognition of revenues from the sham transactions identified in Paragraph 77.
82. Johnson and Johnson &Co. knew that Cyberlink and Winners were essentially the same company and, therefore, Winners had no valid basis for recognizing such assets. Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson were sufficiently concerned about the purported asset exchange between Winners and Cyberlink that they did not allow Winners to record any assets or revenues from the transactions in the December 31, 1999 financial statements they prepared and audited.
83. In addition, in February 2000, during their audit of those financial statements, Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson advised Skinner that no revenues from the exchange should be recognized.
84. Nevertheless, Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson prepared and conducted reviews of the second amended March 31, 2000 financial statements, the amended June 30, 2000 financial statements and the original and amended September 30, 2000 financial statements, which recognized assets based on the asset exchange.
85. Furthermore, none of Johnson &Co.'s workpapers indicate that Johnson or Johnson &Co. took any steps to determine whether assets were actually bought or sold pursuant to the purported asset exchange.
86. Skinner, who signed, reviewed and filed with the Commission every report containing the overstated assets and revenues based on the sham asset exchange and the false statements in two of the reports that increased revenues were due to reasons other than the sham asset exchange, knew that Cyberlink and Winners were essentially the same company and, therefore, Winners had no valid basis for recognizing such assets.
87. Moreover, even after Johnson and a Johnson &Co. employee supervised by Johnson advised Skinner that no revenues could be recognized from the exchange in 2000, Skinner continued to file with the Commission quarterly reports that included Cyberlink-related revenues of between $1.5 million and $3 million and Cyberlink-related assets of between $1 million and $4 million.
Overstated Cash Inflows
88. Six of seven of Winners' quarterly financial statements contained in quarterly reports filed with the Commission in 2000 contained materially false statements concerning Winners' cash inflows from financing activities, which were overstated by between $423,172 and $2,476,432, or between 135% and 790%, due to the improper reporting of stock issued for services or assets as stock issued for cash proceeds.
89. Skinner, who reviewed, signed and filed every quarterly report containing the financial statements that overstated Winners' cash inflows, knew or was reckless in not knowing that Winners' cash inflows were materially overstated, given the magnitude of the overstatements and Skinner's position as president and chairman of Winners' board of directors, which authorized all issuances of Winners' stock.
False Statements in Audit Reports
90. Johnson and Johnson &Co. issued audit reports accompanying Winners' year-end financial statements for 1997, 1998 and 1999. As to 1997 and 1998, the audit opinions each contained a going concern qualification. As to 1999, the audit opinion was unqualified. The 1997, 1998 and 1999 audit reports falsely stated that the financial statements were presented fairly in all material respects in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and that the audits of these financial statements were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS").
91. The statements in Johnson &Co.'s audit reports referenced in Paragraph 90, that Winners' financial statements for 1997, 1998 and 1999 were presented in conformity with GAAP, were false, because, as discussed above, these financial statements included numerous financial misstatements.
92. The statements in Johnson &Co.'s audit reports referenced in Paragraph 90, that its audits of Winners' 1997, 1998 and 1999 financial statements were conducted in accordance with GAAS, were false, because portions of the underlying financial statements were not presented in conformity with GAAP, which, in turn, rendered false the statements that the audits were conducted in accordance with GAAS, since the failure to address a deviation from GAAP in an audit report is a violation of GAAS.
93. In addition, Johnson &Co.'s audit of Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements was not conducted in accordance with GAAS because, among other things, by participating in both the preparation and audit of these financial statements, Johnson and Johnson &Co. failed to maintain their independence from Winners.
94. Johnson and Johnson &Co. also failed to conduct their audit of Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements in accordance with GAAS, because they failed to adequately plan their audit, failed to obtain competent evidential matter, failed to use due professional care, failed to properly evaluate Winners' ability to continue as a going concern, and failed to adopt reasonable procedures to retain audit documentation. Improper Document Creation and Destruction by Johnson and Johnson &Co.
95. Certain original Johnson &Co. workpapers relating to the audit of Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements were missing within approximately fifteen months after completion of the audit. These documents were inappropriately recreated by Johnson the night before his investigative testimony before the Commission and inserted into the original audit workpapers.
96. After receiving the Commission's subpoena to Johnson &Co., a Johnson &Co. employee under Johnson's supervision destroyed the original trial balance relating to the audit of Winners' December 31, 1999 financial statements. According to Johnson, this trial balance contained numerous handwritten notes. The Johnson &Co. employee then recreated or printed a new trial balance, produced it to the Commission in testimony, and falsely testified under oath that she did not know what had happened to the original trial balance.
False and Misleading Analyst Reports
97. On January 13 and February 24, 2000, World of Internet.com AG ("World of Internet"), a German company that touted the stock of microcap companies using the name "Stockreporter," issued analyst reports recommending that investors buy Winners stock ("the Stockreporter reports"). Skinner reviewed and edited the Stockreporter reports prior to their public dissemination. World of Internet posted these reports on its Internet website, where they remained until at least June 26, 2000, and issued press releases linking to the reports. Winners employees supervised by Skinner posted these releases on Winners' website, where they remained until October 14, 2000. The Stockreporter reports stated that Winners would achieve revenues of between $18 million and $35 million and stock prices of between $12 and $23.60 between the years 2000 and 2002.
98. The revenue projections in the Stockreporter reports lacked a reasonable basis because the projections were not supported by Winners' historical operations, and the reports failed to disclose material adverse facts, specifically that the revenue projections were dependent upon Winners obtaining funding from a third party and that Winners had not received any commitments for such funding. The stock price projections were similarly baseless because, among other things, they were based on the false revenue projections.
99. On February 29, 2000, Christina Skousen ("Skousen"), a California resident who wrote analyst reports both for World of Internet and under her business name CSK Securities Research ("CSK"), issued a CSK analyst report recommending that investors buy Winners stock ("the CSK report"). Skousen disseminated this report through a press release, and Skinner reviewed the report prior to its public dissemination. On March 3, 2000, Winners issued its own press release regarding the CSK report. Winners employees under Skinner's supervision posted this press release and the CSK report on Winners' Internet website, where they remained until October 14, 2000. The CSK report stated that Winners would achieve revenues of between $20 million and $50 million and stock prices of between $15 and $38.50 between 2000 and 2002.
100. The revenue projections in the CSK report lacked a reasonable basis because the projections were not supported by Winners' historical operations, and the reports failed to disclose Winners' need for funding. The stock price projections were similarly baseless because, among other things, they were based on the false revenue projections.
101. Stockreporter's press release announcing its report about Winners and Winners' press release announcing the CSK report falsely stated that Stockreporter and CSK were "independent" from Winners. These statements were false, since Winners paid 200,000 shares of its stock to Stockreporter for, among other services, writing and publicizing the Stockreporter report, and Stockreporter, in turn, paid for, and Stockreporter's principals and Skinner reviewed, the CSK report.
Winners' Inaccurate Books, Records and Accounts and Deficient Internal Controls
102. Although, beginning with the registration of its common stock with the Commission on May 15, 2000, Winners was required to maintain books, records and accounts which accurately and fairly reflected its transactions and the disposition of its assets, Winners maintained incomplete and inaccurate books, records and accounts for its European operations, which encompassed its software asset, receivables, revenues, and the majority of its expenses and liabilities.
103. In connection with the preparation of Winners' second amended March 31, 2000 financial statements, amended June 30, 2000 financial statements, and original and amended September 30, 2000 financial statements, a Johnson &Co. employee under Johnson's supervision knowingly made false entries to certain of Winners' books, records and/or accounts.
104. Once its common stock was registered with the Commission, Winners also was required to, but did not, devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances concerning the execution, recording, access to and accountability for Winners' assets.
105. Between May 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000, Skinner knowingly falsified Winners' books, records and/or accounts and, between May 15, 2000 and March 2001, knowingly failed to implement a system of internal accounting controls for Winners.
Winners' Delinquent Filings
106. As a public company registered with the Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Exchange Act, Winners was required to file periodic reports with the Commission from May 15, 2000 until February 26, 2004.
107. From March 31, 2001 to February 26, 2004, Winners failed to file three annual reports and nine quarterly reports.
Trading in Winners Stock
108. Between January 31 and March 3, 2000, when the materially false public statements in the Stockreporter and CSK reports were first disseminated, the price of Winners stock increased from $2.38 to $4.69 per share.
109. Between January and December 2000, when materially false statements concerning Winners were disseminated both in analyst reports and false filings with the Commission, Skinner sold a total of 103,000 shares of Winners stock through open market transactions for proceeds of at least $170,701.
FIRST CLAIM
Violations by Skinner, Winners, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]
110. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
111. Skinner, Winners, Johnson and Johnson &Co., directly or indirectly, with scienter, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, the mails, or any facility of a national securities exchange, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person; in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
112. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner, Winners, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.
SECOND CLAIM
Winners' Violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act
and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, 240.13a-11 and 240.13a-13]
113. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
114. From May 15, 2000 until February 26, 2004, Winners was an issuer of a security registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, and was subject to the periodic reporting requirements imposed on such issuers by the Exchange Act.
115. As described elsewhere in this Complaint, between May 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000, Winners filed materially inaccurate and misleading current and quarterly reports with the Commission.
116. Winners also failed to add such further material information to its current and quarterly reports as was necessary to make the required statements or reports, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
117. Furthermore, between March 31, 2001 and February 26, 2004, Winners failed to file annual and quarterly reports with the Commission.
118. By reason of the foregoing, Winners violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 [15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, 240.13a-11 and 240.13a-13].
THIRD CLAIM
Aiding and Abetting by Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
of Certain of Winners' Violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act
and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-11, and 240.13a-13]
119. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
120. Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. knew or were reckless in not knowing that Winners filed materially inaccurate and misleading current and quarterly reports with the Commission and failed to add such further material information as was necessary to make the required statements or reports, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13, and substantially assisted Winners in committing these violations.
121. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. aided and abetted Winners' violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13 [15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-11, and 240.13a-13].
FOURTH CLAIM
Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)]
122. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
123. Between May 15, 2000 and February 26, 2004, the period in which Winners' common stock was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, Winners failed to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflected the company's transactions and disposition of its assets.
124. By reason of the foregoing, Winners violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)].
FIFTH CLAIM
Aiding and Abetting by Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
of Winners' Violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)]
125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
126. Until his resignation from Winners in March 2001, Skinner knew or was reckless in not knowing of Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and substantially assisted Winners in committing these violations.
127. Until at least December 6, 2000, Johnson and Johnson &Co. knew or were reckless in not knowing of Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and substantially assisted Winners in committing these violations.
128. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. aided and abetted Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)] of the Exchange Act.
SIXTH CLAIM
Winners' Violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)]
129. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
130. During the period in which Winners' common stock was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, Winners failed to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions were recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements.
131. By reason of the foregoing, Winners violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)].
SEVENTH CLAIM
Aiding and Abetting by Skinner of Winners' Violations
of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)]
132. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
133. Until his resignation from Winners in March 2001, Skinner knew or was reckless in not knowing of Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and substantially assisted Winners in committing these violations.
134. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner aided and abetted Winners' violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)].
EIGHTH CLAIM
Violations by Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
of Rule 13b2-1 Under the Exchange Act
[17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1]
135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
136. Between May 15, 2000 and February 26, 2004, Winners' books, records and accounts were subject to Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.
137. Between May 15, 2000 and March 2001, Skinner directly or indirectly falsified or caused to be falsified Winners' books, records and/or accounts. 138. Between May 15, 2000 and at least December 6, 2000, Johnson and Johnson &Co. directly or indirectly falsified or caused to be falsified Winners' books, records and/or accounts.
139. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. violated Rule 13b2-1 under the Exchange Act [17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1].
NINTH CLAIM
Violations by Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co.
of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5)]
140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 109 above.
141. Between May 15, 2000 and at least December 6, 2000, Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. knowingly falsified books, records and/or accounts described in Section 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
.
142. Between May 15, 2000 and March 2001, Skinner knowingly circumvented or knowingly failed to implement a system of internal accounting controls.
143. By reason of the foregoing, Skinner, Johnson and Johnson &Co. violated Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5)].
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Find that the defendants, and each of them, committed the violations alleged;
2. Enter an injunction permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants Johnson, Johnson &Co., Skinner and Winners, his or its agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of a judgment by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating, directly or indirectly, the provisions of law and rules alleged in this Complaint;
3. Order Defendants Johnson, Johnson &Co. and Skinner to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received or benefits in any form derived from the illegal conduct alleged in this Complaint, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;
4. Order Defendants Johnson, Johnson &Co. and Skinner to pay third-tier civil money penalties pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C.§ 78u(d)(3)] of the Exchange Act;
5. Order that Defendant Skinner be barred from serving as an officer or director of any publicly held company pursuant to Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)] and the general equitable powers of the Court;
6. Order that Defendant Skinner be barred from participating in any offering of penny stock pursuant to Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)] and the general equitable powers of the Court; and
7. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just or appropriate.
Dated: _______________, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Julie K. Lutz
Kelli Farrand Chan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
1801 California Street, Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 844-1000
Fax: (303) 844-1068
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18652.htm
Yes
United States
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 15
CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12(g) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR SUSPENSION OF DUTY TO FILE REPORTS UNDER
SECTIONS 13 AND 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
Commission File Number 000-28641
AMERICAN TELEVISION AND FILM COMPANY
------------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
PO BOX 570611, Houston, Texas 77257
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
registrant's principal executive offices)
COMMON
--------------------------------------------------------
(Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)
N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
under section 13(a) or 15(d) remains)
Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provisions(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:
Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i) X Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)
--
Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) X Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)
--
Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i) Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)
Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)
Rule 15d-6
Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice
date: 138 as of February 25, 2004.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Name
of registrant as specified in charter) has caused this certification/notice to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.
Date: February 26, 2004 BY:/s/ Edward R. Skaggs
-------------------
Edward R. Skaggs
15-12G Last Page of 2 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 2nd
Instruction: This form is required by Rules 12g-4, 12h-3 and 15d-6 of the
General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
registrant shall file with the Commission three copies of Form 15, one of which
shall be manually signed. It may be signed by an officer of the registrant, by
counsel or by any other duly authorized person. The name and title of the person
signing the form shall be typed or printed under the signature.
http://www.secinfo.com/d1529h.12r.htm
I remember ECNC.
That "analyst" that sent the stock soaring turned out to be a part time tree trimmer, part time B movie actor, Steve Sayre. Maybe you would like to rent one of his movies:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheSatanKiller-1042847/preview.php
If you can't get ahold of that movie, he played the "club frisker" in Valley Girl.
Steve apparently opened up a few canadian accounts and had bought a whole lotta ECNC prior to that report. I thought he was indicted, but don't know whatever happened.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello. My name is Quahog, and I suck as a trader.
[Everybody] Hi Quahog
AngelCiti Enters Into $2.43 Million Credit Facility Agreement
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Feb. 12, 2004 -- AngelCiti Entertainment entered into a Loan and Security Agreement for a Credit Facility of up to $2.43 million with Finanzinvest, Ltd., a Bermuda investment company.
The Company intends on using the funds for further development of its online casino and poker software and expansion into the European and Asian markets. The agreement provides for a Credit Facility of up to $2.43 million, to be provided in increments, on a best efforts basis, with initial funding anticipated within 30 days.
'This credit facility is another strong step in the maturation of our Company,' remarked AngelCiti president George Gutierrez. 'We've moved from development stage to expansion and this Credit Facility will provide us with the additional tools necessary to become a leader in the online gaming industry.'
The Industry
A Bear Stearns report for the industry pegged annual revenue at $4.2 billion for 2003, while Christiansen Capital Advisors predicts a slightly more rosy picture pointing to an estimated $4.5 billion in revenue for calendar year 2002, saying 2005 revenue could exceed $10 billion. PokerPulse.com estimates that more than $16 billion will be wagered at online poker sites in 2004.
The Company
AngelCiti's wholly owned subsidiary Worldwide Management provides gaming software to numerous online casinos including SharkCasino.com, SharkPoker.com and TheHouseWins.com, and currently services casinos in English, Spanish, German, Chinese and Japanese.
This news release contains forward-looking statements regarding AngelCiti's business strategies and future plans of operations. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risk and uncertainties. The company's risks and uncertainties include: intense price competition, economic, political and regulatory uncertainties, the need to raise additional capital for growth and expansion and its reliance on the internet as a means for promoting the software it sublicenses. The forward-looking statements contained in this news release speak only as of the date hereof and AngelCiti disclaims any obligation to provide public updates, revisions or amendments to any forward-looking statements made herein to reflect changes in AngelCiti's expectations or future events.
CONTACT: AngelCiti Entertainment, Inc.
Evelyn Fallas
(800) 908-9574
Evelyn@angelciti.com
Me too.
Strange, I would have thought you would be opposed to a banning feature on stock-specific boards, as opposed to general boards.
I guess what I'm getting at, FWIW, is that the banning feature is a fantastic concept for a sponsored message board, but not so good for a stock message board. For instance, if my organization, the Intergalactic Order of the Clam (IOC), wanted to have a message board, with a link from our home page, I would gladly pay you to host the board. Since I'm paying for this service, I would be very pleased to have and control a ban feature to keep out the evil Association of Saucy Shellfishermen (ASS) members, and to make sure that the content was consistant with IOC's mission and goals (World Domination). I would expect that Admin would never show up on my IOC board, or question my sole banning discretion.
Now, on a general message board site, paid for by subscribers, that is supposed to be devoted to investments and securities only, banning by interested persons (stakeholders) seems to be a dangerous game, and certainly not in the best interests of the average investor.
But that's just me, always complaining about something.
Keep up the good work.
Any chance that this new ban feature was never intended for ultimate use here on iHub, but that you are simply testing it for eventual use elsewhere?
I guess "good" is relative.
I have a hard time believing anything is good about this company, but to each their own.
I had never heard of ATVF before, but the best I can tell, and it's all just guesswork, is that ATVF is American Television & Film Co. Whoever controls ATVF probably now has a whole lotta WINR common stock, and vice versa. They need to sell it to make this transaction profitable. WINR has come full circle, and is now in a position similar to where it was in 1997-98. New players, same game.
All just a guess, and just my uninformed opinion.
Playing the 6 degrees of separation game:
Winners Internet Network, Inc.
American Television & Film Co.
Edward R. Skaggs
Skaggs Associates, Inc. (Houston, TX)
Pangea Petroleum
Yep, patience is the key.
I just kept telling myself that trying to eat the big ones quickly would only save me a minute or two, but getting eaten would cost all the time I already put in.
Ultimately, you will get big enough to fill the screen.
85,710 and the game ended with the message:
YOU ATE EVERYTHING AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED THE POND ECO-SYSTEM.
That'll be a big help.
Any relation?
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18307.htm