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.
yea they were paid to pump garbage. third party simply means they were paid by a third party representing the company. No investor pays $150K to promote a position because it would require a significant risk at recouping.
WRONG. They can share anything any company can share. the only caution they have to make is to throw caution into making accurate and truthful disclosures. That really should not be a hard thing to do. In fact, it should be a standard applied to investing. Companies report SEC investigations and discuss SEC investigations all the time. ZLUS would be no different.
Are you implying the suspension has removed some level of rights to legal disclosure?
Yea, one of the wingnuts keeps e-mailing me asking about this that and the other and then fighting my responses. apparently because Silverman asked the SEC questions, that authenticates things. Does anybody know what the SEC told him? Nope.
never before have I seen a group of shareholders that think they are entitled with legal representation without paying out a dime.
So what do the shareholders do after the judge throws out that flaky motion.
i have yet to see one shareholder actually offer up a scenario as to how this would work. instead they are relegated to throwing out baseless claims and more outlandish lines of reasoning.
zagdad, interesting your view on facts. I woulds suggest that there are many facts regarding ZLUS and current management that are being completely ignored while many unsubstantiated rumors are running wild.
Fact: Less than a year ago ZLUS and all their operations were in a state of near bankruptcy.
Fact: Ault is being civil sued for misconduct
Fact: Ault's public resume for ZLUS contradicts all of his prior resume's made public.
Fact: ZLUS had ZERO capital to acquire all these wells they claim to now own.
Fact: The company remains nearly a year behind in filings for no cause.
Fact: The SEC has admitted publicly that they have suspicions about the company.
those are all FACTS.
exactly...got any real facts?
worst web site ever. just more proof what an amateur fraud this is
Yea, i have read that line many times leading into regulatory actions.
the only cure for short sales and short sale abuses is revenues and transparency. what do you have here at EMLL?
and how will you know if the estimates are real or not? The SEC has recently taken action against several for forging these documents. without audited financial;s you have to trust people who have so far been less than trustworthy.
now now...play nice. I thought pumping was what you enjoyed. i know the truth is not of interest to you.
yea, it is always good to have the system throw you out. maybe the SEC will be the next ones to throw them out.
and some think that is a good thing. it appears some prefer to know absolutely nothing about their investments - except what the company is willing to put out in pump PR's. Like no pinkie ever lied in a press release before.
But the good news is, the shorts won't know how bad a pos the company is. then again, without filings the investors won't know when it is the officers dumping shares either.
your joking I hope. you are actually pleased that this company has elected to go silent and deny shareholders info, and you think that will generate investors? LMAO
The only thing this move generates are the pump and dump schemers.
Well that order should jump start this market. 1000 whole sales at $500.00 ea. To meet the order they are working the suppliers (can you say expedite fee) cutting into the already unknown margins. my bet is this will still not make the company cash flow positive by any stretch.
didn't they file to go non-reporting? Hardly a direction of transparency. Without certified financials made public they can PR all the crap they want and nobody can dispute it.
I was in contact with the SEC but not a personal friend. My contact is a matter of public record.
The judge has no way to proceed with this motion. At best the judge can dictate to the trustee that he must review the current share structure of the company. That has already been defined by the TA so it would be interesting as to where else he would look.
The Court could suggest the Trustee look into the fails to deliver but…oops…those are published by the SEC twice a month.
Beyond that the courts have no jurisdictions. This judge can not issue a subpoena forcing the SEC to investigate settlement failures because:
1. the judge has no authority over the SEC’s investigative decisions and work assignments
2. the courts have no proof that there are claims beyond that of a conspiracy group.
The Judge can not issue a subpoena against the broker-dealers or DTCC because the brokers and DTCC are not a direct party in this bankruptcy and the data they possess is proprietary. In all the lawsuits filed by the lawyers fighting NSS abuses, it was impossible to get a judge to issue these subpoena’s when the DTCC and BD’s were defendants. Does a bankruptcy judge think they have more authority over these private businesses when these businesses are not even a party to the issue?
To get a court to move you need to have a reason. Some level of proof that the courts should impose a subpoena on another. So far the SEC has made no claim of fraud by NSS, the FTD data does not support the allegation, the actions taken against the officers support the selling coming from insiders, so what compelling data would push a judge to act?
For those that believe, feel free to explain in detail exactly how you think this investigation works and by whom.
scotch, your actions on ZLUS are coming back to haunt you. more specifically your demands at having the truth silenced.
I first informed the board in November/December after i spoke to an SEC attorney and during that period when i was questioning rainbolt. angel notified the board before i did.
fact remains, most people refuse to learn until they are burned and then some still won't learn. there are many who have been burned repeatedly and still believe. there is no policy in place that can protect against them.
BTW...promoters go far beyond 'paid'. Promoting can be simply knowing caution exists but failing to disclose it because it is outside personal financial interests. In pennies these promotions are as serious if not more-so to paid promoters.
The investors here have no excuse, they heard such an investigation existed and denied it. The red flags were raised and ignored. It is not the SEC's job to protect against denial.
I would suggest that had people bailed when they first were informed would they still be happy?
Buyer beware and risk v. reward are all part of investing and the pinkies are the highest risk. i have read here about decisions made on risk v. reward so there is no excuse being upset after the fact and placing blame elsewhere.
They may not even know or care.
BTW...the link to the SEC enforcement does not have to apply to all companies involved in the DTCC action.
asked before and stated...read the responses.
really? guess again.
take it any way you want. unregistered shares start WITH the company.
95% of stocks do not have the actions the DTCC just took. that in itself is a red flag to consider.
do we have an independent third party verification of what this company possesses? Please provide a link.
Is there a company filing disclosing revenues, share structure, operating costs, or who they paid and with what to promote their stock?
i mean if we are all about transparency and disclosure would you not want it to start with the company you invest in? silly me for thinking otherwise.
yard sale value at best. knowing UC, the market is flooded with them.
details details...those are mere details.
i am sorry to hear for your and others losses. To think that executives would take this down to these levels by lying and by severe dilution is inexcusable. I wonder how anybody could find this an acceptable solution.
Most under the delinquent filer program wind up never trading. that is not the case here as there is no admin order as a delinquent filer. this seems more of an enforcement case.
do you have a link that says they are not?
And just as much unsupported support based on lack of transparency. The DTCC action is clear transparency IMO.
i have had some personal luck as of late and it in part has to do with relationships and credibility.
funny you say that. In my discussions with the authorities I suggested just that and offered up some they should follow closely. I provided some details of most recent history as an example.
I can only guess the boards you speak of.
I think you have to look at this with a bigger view on damages.
you don't want the police to put out a notice that you are a suspect to a murder while they make their case because the appearance alone can kill you.
Similarly, the SEC can't put a Caveat Emptor tag on companies they are investigating because that can cause irreparable damage on the company. Damned if you do, damned if you don't is best served by efficiency and swiftness in the investigation process.
You can almost track future scams by tracking certain individuals/promoters. I actually suggested such to the ZLUS enforcement attorney.