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.
OT: The Been_Burned_Before Story.....
Plumber,<br><br>If you (and others) must know: The reason I have been burned before is because I made a foolishly tragic mistake. I fell deeply in love with a winning horse going into the 2000 bubble.<br><br>I bought in at $7, and it went to $100 in less than a year. I chose to stay with it much too long and allowed it to slide way too far (from $100 to $50 to $25 to $12 to $6), prayerfully hoping and believing it to bounce back. Well, it eventually hit an ice patch and went into bankruptcy. My common shares (50,000) of them converted into practically worthless warrants - these warrants would have converted back into common shares IF within 2 years the stock would average $15.44 for 90 days - it missed this by only a couple of months. Currently, that stock is again worth $25, but I don't own any of it.<br><br>Anyhow, as most people who have been burned before, I am much keener and much wiser. I study a stock much more in depth today, and I don't allow myself to fall in love with the winning horse - I only allow myself to enjoy the wild ride while it lasts.<br><br>And I tell you this: I am seriously enjoying my wild ride with VPHM. When my ride is over, I will gladly give this horse back to its rightful owner, but this, my fellow investor, will not happen to VPHM for a very, very good while. This horse is only just getting clear of the gates.<br><br>Been_Burned_Before
Andy, I agree T.A. on a pink is useless. However, we're not talking T.A. here, just an obvious trend. Anyone can see the consistent downward pattern in Grifco's price pattern. You can draw a striagt line at the top of above and below the trend and you can see that Grifco has been going straight down within a channel. On a dialy basis it will be green one day and red the next but the overall pattern is a lower high and a lower low. Until the pattern breaks out of that channel and starts marking consecutive higher highs, there is really nothing to rejoice about.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=GFCI&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p43086039615
Trading for dummies part II a.k.a. remedial trend analysis.
Stocks don't trade in a straight line usually it trades within a resistance/support trendline. Grifco has been trading consistenly within a down trending channel. Every week the support goes lower and lower, and the resistance goes lower and lower. One green day moving up 1/2 is followed by a red day. Today it's traded near the top of the channel (resistance). Until GFCI can break through the resistance and score higher high on a consistent basis there isn't nothing to be overly optimistic about. Thus far, Grifco still haven't shown any signs of the trend reversing.
Well, in all fairness to BBB a B.O.D. are usually nominated by a committe and voted in by the shareholders in most companies. If the election committe nominates BBB and majority of SH of Grifco votes him in, more power to BBB. Unfortunately, Jim Dial is the entire BOD and majority shareholder so it's really up to JD. Sad but true.
Interesting best2l, of course in my casse I filed a compalint directly with the regulatory body CFTC, who decided baed on evidence and corraborating facts from other investors, to pursue the case.
The trend in dispute resolution is going in a totally different directon. There are increasing number of organizations moving towards mediation and arbitration as a remedy to disputes. You will even the ADR (alternative dispute resolution) riders written in most contracts now days. For one thing lawsuits are very costly for companies to defend. Secondly, it is bad PR because legal proceedings become public information. Class action law firms know this and milk it for what its worth. It's really a shame. ADR keeps the dispute private, and cost 75%-90% less than a lawsuit. Plus, there are no appeals and it is binding.
Here is an interesting article about ADR:
http://www.mccammongroup.com/articles/new-tools.asp
Last little tidbit. Most states require a mediator to be certified. Certification can cost $1,200 - $3,000 depending on the state and it will only take about a year. Mediators make upwards of $300/hour.
Knowitall, As I mentioned before I am a plaintiff in a suit against the broker. I didn't spend a penny because through my complaint with the regulatory board, they found enough cause to pursue action. Similarly, IMO there is enough cause for SEC to take action against Grifco. Just as with 75% of the cases, when SEC comes knocking the company will try their dardnest to cooperate and settle withoug admitting any wrong doing.
"but I would just love to goto any of my law professors and validate a claim via Wikipedia and say that it must have been cut and pasted from an "authoritative"
Come on, you're smarter than that. BTW, I never said wikipedia was an autohrative source. Just as I never said certain SH were "paid" to pump GFCI as you suggested (instead I said they were used by the CEO). To properly cite the law would require the code, section and paragraph.
For a law student you sure have a problem with reading comprehension. I looked at the wikipedia article and the person who posted copied the rule and posted on the site. No he didn't say Rule 10B-5 was a lesbian. Verbatim = word for word. So whether if it's written on toilet paper or in a law book, if it says exactly the same thing as the original, it carries exactly the same weight.
BTW, I don't use spellcheck on IHUB so if I occasionally misspell a word or two, I don't give a f#$%. However, As long as I feel I get the point accross, a mis-spelled word here in the context of things is 'de-minimis'.
LOL, Apparetnly the shorts had been shaking in their shorts since GFCI was at $0.40.
Knowitall, the same law applies to a pinksheet CEO as a NADAQ CEO. Pinksheets are exempt from certain filing requirments. That's obvious but they are required to operate within the same legal and ethical framework as all public company. JD isn't required to disclose the financials or disclose any company information at all. BUT, if he does he is required to follow the RULES and REGULATIONS set forth by the SEC.
Knowitall..LOL, a law school student. It figures as much. First of all the source of Rule 10b is from the SEC verbatim. I copy and pasted the information from the 'Securities Lawyers Deskbook' at the University of Cincinatti school of Law website. (does this make you fell better? http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-5.html). Yes I copy and pasted. Why would I "re-write" law? Second, Wikipedia is a collection of information contributed by users. Often times they copy and paste definitions from various authoratative sources and post them in wikipedia. I'm surprise that you claim to be a law student studying securites law and you don't even know this. You can find the Decleration of Independence on Wikipedia too, but is it b.s. because it's posted there? Nice try, but I doubt if you're really a law student.
Rule 10b-5 is titled "Manipulative and deceptive devices and Contrivances". This rule has been applied to numerous instances in circumstances I previously explained. It should be easy for a 1st year law student to find this out. There are plenty of references in Lexis-Nexis or RIA.
Lastly, the point of going to court is to prove the allegations. To say the court would dimiss it as a summary judgement because you can't prvoe it was intentional is ridiculous. There is definatley enough cause for this to go to trial.
trinytz1, obviously you don't get it. Maybe this anology will help. John Doe, a Canadian, goes to Houston, TX and shoots Mr. C in the head and kills him. Laterthat evening the Ontario Star Telegram reports John Does crime. According to your logic, the crime was never comitted because it was reported in the Canadian newspaper. The fact is, he killed someone. He committed a crime in the U.S.
Now, SLJB was a small mom and pop hardware store that reversed merged into a shell corporation in Neveda, thus enabling them to sell shares of stock in the U.S. under the pinksheet quotation system. AS the Onatarioa Sec. Comm. stated...THEY DID NOT SELL SHARES IN CANADA but in the UNITED STATES!. In short they scammed the U.S. investors. All their PR was released in the U.S. They put out false PRs to pump up the stock while the CEO and his cronies sold into the spike. The "bold" words in the prior post highlights the modus operandi. The results of a security investgation exposed the SCAM.
YES SEC IS INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGATIONS:
SLJB Announces Internal Review of Prior Public Disclosure and Other Matters; Also Discusses Actions by Ontario Securities Commission and Inquiry by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Wednesday January 10, 9:45 am ET
I mean really trinytz, if you're that dense I can't help you.
Trinytz, Again - Pinksheets are bound by the same rules and regulations as any other public company. Trust me on this. Call the SEC and ask them.
trinytz1, it's not Canadian law, it's an example of how some Pinks operate. IMO (and I'm sure there are others in agreement) Grifco's events parallels what took place with this company. Read the message in its entirerty before you judge. Notice it states that Sulja Bros.
Only trades in the U.S. in the pinsheet quotation system. Transfer Online is their agent.
They are a "Neveda Corporation".
They issued PR promising release of financials.
They issued false PRs and sold into the spike.
Happens all the time. Canadian law has nothing to do with it. Only reason they were involved was becaus the company is out of Canada. Also know that SEC is involved in the investigation. Again, these are all facts. Let the facts lead to the truth. I haven't specifically said this is what Grifco is doing. Not even evidence to draw a conclusion yet. ALL THIS WAS PROMPTED BY THE FACT BY HOW YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES TIRELESS EXCUSE GRIFCO'S BEHAVIOR WITH THE "IT'S A PINK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD". .
Just trying to prove a point that Pinks do in fact have Accountability!!!
Last but not least, Rule 10b-5 can be found at SEC.gov not businessjive.com. It's not found under the 'darkside.html', but you can find it under the Exchange Act of 1933.
elcheepo, in case you haven't noticed there are alot of people interested in taking action. Also, how can facts = bashing? Prove where I'm lying about any of this. You crack me up! I cut and paste an SEC regulation and you call it bashing. Maybe SEC is bashing by setting rules and standards Grifco can't uphold.
Your tactic, like many others, seems to be if you can't comprehend it excuse it as bashing! BTW, I've received several PM contrary to your opinion, but I respect your opinion. You're not interested, but you have no authority or legitmacy to speak for anyone else nor instruct how I should carry on. BTW, if you're not interested you can always hit "ignore". That's about the only control you have on this board.
OT:Read this Sulja allegations! Makes you think doesn't it! (Mods there is some parallel to Grifco's activities)
Ontario Securites Commissions: http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement/Proceedings/SOA/soa_20061227_suljabros.jsp
IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT
R.S.O. 1990, c.S.5, AS AMENDED
- and -
SULJA BROS. BUILDING SUPPLIES, LTD. (NEVADA),
SULJA BROS. BUILDING SUPPLIES LTD.,
KORE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT INC.,
PETER VUCICEVICH AND ANDREW DeVRIES
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
OF STAFF OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
Manipulative Trading of Sulja Nevada Shares
6. Sulja Bros. is quoted on the Pink Sheets, an over-the-counter quotation system in the United States. It is not listed for trading on any exchange or trading system in Canada.
7. From or about September 2004 to August 2005, Vucicevich set up trading accounts at two Canadian discount brokers using employees of Kore and/or members of the Sulja family as nominees (the “Nominee Accounts”).
8. Between August 2006 and November 2006, Vucicevich and DeVries directed trading in the Nominee Accounts as follows: Sulja Nevada shares were received in large quantities into the Nominee Accounts by journal entry from Transfer Online, a transfer agent in Portland, Oregon, and were thereafter sold from the Nominee Accounts. Vucicevich and De Vries instructed the account holders of the Nominee Accounts when to trade, at what price to trade, and how many shares to trade at a given price.
9. The shares were received into the Nominee Accounts from Sulja Nevada’s treasury either directly or through Kore. In both circumstances, the trading constituted a distribution which requires in each instance the issuance of a prospectus receipt by the Commission for the securities of Sulja Nevada or a proper exemption under Ontario securities law. No such receipt has been issued nor have the Respondents demonstrated the existence of a proper exemption from the requirement, contrary to section 53 of the Act.
10. Within the Nominee Accounts, the effect of the trading in securities of Sulja Nevada as directed by Vucicevich and DeVries and as facilitated by Sulja Bros. and Kore, was to maintain a certain share price in Sulja Nevada, resulting in a misleading appearance of trading activity and an artificial price level for the shares of Sulja Nevada in breach of section 126.1 of the Act.
11. The proceeds of the trading in securities of Sulja Bros. from the Nominee Accounts as described above are approximately $7.8 million (US).
Misleading Disclosure
12. Sulja Bros. issued press releases dated August 11, 2006 and August 23, 2006, in which each time it stated that it was negotiating with KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”) to handle all future SEC filings and reporting. The press releases further represented that those firms would be conducting an audit of certain transactions and that the audited financial were “upcoming”.
13. Sulja Bros. issued a press release dated September 5, 2006, stating that it has a contract for building materials in the Middle East which will produce annual revenues of $3.5 million.
14. The representations made in the press releases described above are untrue. Neither KPMG nor PWC have or have had any involvement with Sulja Bros. Furthermore, the contracts in the Middle East referred to in the press release dated September 5, 2006 do not exist.
15. Vucicevich and DeVries are responsible for Sulja’s improper disclosure and for the misrepresentations made in the press releases.
16. By issuing disclosure that contained statements that were in a material respect misleading or untrue, Sulja Bros., Vucicevich and De Vries are in breach of section 126.2 of the Act.
Conduct Contrary to Ontario Securities Law and Contrary to the Public Interest
17. The Respondents have issued false press releases contrary to section 126.2 of the Act that misrepresent the business of Sulja Bros. and its prospects.
18. At the same time, the Respondents have traded or have caused to be traded, large numbers of shares of Sulja Nevada to third parties in a manner which constituted distributions for which no preliminary prospectus or prospectus were filed nor a receipt issued by the Director, contrary to section 53 of the Act.
19. The trading directed by Vucicevich and De Vries and facilitated by Sulja Bros. and Kore have created a misleading appearance of trading activity and an artificial price for the shares of Sulja Nevada contrary to section 126.1 of the Act.
20. The Respondents’ conduct was contrary to the public interest and harmful to the integrity of the Ontario capital markets.
Knowitall, what do you do for a living? Preface your argument with some credintals? You can preach all you want but you are dead wrong in your assumption. I can see your opinions are often based on how you feel things should be. My opinion is based on professional experience and education.
If you believe SEC doesn't investigate pinks. Checkout sljb.pk and see how those investors were scammed. See how SEC halted trading and initated their investigation in this particular pink.
SLJB Announces Internal Review of Prior Public Disclosure and Other Matters; Also Discusses Actions by Ontario Securities Commission and Inquiry by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Wednesday January 10, 9:45 am ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070110/0201781.html
trintyz, Securities Act Rule 10b-5 is no laughing matter.
"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security
material fact = {b}any information that if known, would change a person's decision.
Grifco's PRs are full of material omissions and misstatements!!!. A company selling securities can not selectively omit material information whether through an 8K or a PR. Pinksheet companies are not immune. In fact many shady pinksheet operators had gone to jail becuase they violated this rule.
This will be JD's down fall and ultimately what can put him behind bars. Ironically, or shall I say comically, Grifco's defense against the default of the RR debt is Rule 10b-5. JD feels that RR and the agent didn't make material disclosure regaridng the nature of the loan to Grifco. In essens JD is saying "had we known all the facts, we would have never dealt with this company under these terms".
catani, Auidt is an Audit. Same process. There is no reason to have 2 Auidt firms do an audit. At the end of the day, and Auditor's opinion is a one page letter giving an opinion about 1. The fairness of the finacial statements. 2. Opinion on the effectiveness of internal controls, 3. Auditor's assessment of management's opinion of internal controls.
Well, in my American Derivative situation, I got CFTC involed in pursuing the suit. CFTC regualtes commodity trading. I didn't pay a dime but it took nearly 2 years to get some action. SEC has an enforcement division. I think if you/we provide them with the PRs and a timeline of the events thus far, SEC may initiate an inquiry.
OT:Catni and other pissed off investors. Going after JD and Grifco legally is not out of the question. I advocated this 9 months ago when they failed to issue the CTT dividend and release the financials as promised. It wasn't a matter of trying to shut down the company but a matter of SH asserting their rights. It appeard JD was hijacking the company. If Grifco didn't do anyting wrong they wouldn't have to worry about right? SEC makes an inquiry JD answers the questions and shows documents, end of story. On the other hand if there are some shady stuff going on SEC would suspend trading and probably freeze Grfico's assets.
I am a plaintiff in a lawsuit that was successfully bought on with the help of CFTC-Commodities and Futures Trading Commission against a shady commodities brokerage. I went through the process of filing complaints, making the calls and kept at it. I worked quite a bit the past 2 years on getting this case to trial. CFTC did find enough cause to litigate and now has filed a class action suit agianst the company on behalf myself and handful of investors. They have also frozenWe shold be in court by this July. I've already been contacted by CFTC's lead attorney to testify.
http://www.cftc.gov/files/enf/05orders/enfamericanderivativesorder.pdf
Knowitall,
I can say this about Jim Dial. He's been very accessable to certain shareholders that post on this board and on RB. Dial had fed them some information prior to making these information public. The merger with TTII is a good example. Do I have proof that someone posting here had that infomation a month before it became public - YES!
Dial has answered direct questions or provided further clarification of certain statements he made in his PRs to these people who as a result posted the infomration on this board. How do I know it came from Dial? Well because these individuals said it did. They all had the same spin. These information were something Dial couldn't say directly to the public as it would go beyond the typical forward-safe harbor statements. For example, he told these people Grifco was debt free. He told them CTT diviend was going to come in 2 months at the very latest. When Dial didn't deliver he told these shareholders why CTT was having problems and blamed it on the previous shell company. Ironically, the former CEO of this shell company responded on RB and he was unfairly characterized by Dial. He also mentioned what Dial said was untrue.
Knotitall..absolutely have proof. Go back and read BBBs earlier post on this board and RB.
I'm not going to say anything else about BBB since the mod on this board are a little delete happy. I'll stick with Grifco.
Most & Co. did the Audit February 2006, the Audit as part of the TTII merger process was done by Chisholm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC of Bountiful, Utah.
My god I think you got it.
knowitall, don't bitch if your friend beat you fair and scare. Only bitch when he beat you by repeatedly cheating and manipulating the deck.
I don't think people here are bitching because they lost money on this pinkie. People at bitching because they been lied and cheated out of their money.
elcheepo, no axe to grind. Just pointing the holes in your statement. Everything I said is true, is it not? Maybe I should take your suggestion and cash out 5,000 shares of Grifco and take my wife out for a nice steak dinner. Funny thing, 5,000 shares would have paid for a cruise a year ago.
BTW, elcheepo, what's your penny-stock chart say now? Is the moon moving into Aquarius?
So you're saying a fly-by-night website is the authoritize source of information about the naked share count? There is no official share count released by the CEO. Jim Dial refuses to give it out and instructed the transfer agent not to disclose the figure. So how does this website know how much naked short shares are out there where we don't even have a basis for a share count? Do you base your judgement on the fact that the website is called an offical sounding "stock report"?
Go to the OTCBB website. They got the short interest posted for GFCI. It was 0 in February 2006.
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/OTCE_Short_Interest_popup.asp?Symbol=gfci&StlmtDt=02/15/2007
So go ahead and spin my friend. There's been overwhelming evidence presented in the past year that screams - YES IT IS JIM DIALS FAULT! Yet, there seems to be these newbies that popup here and there with a fraction of knowledge about the company and its history, thinking this penny stock is going to make them very rich in the near future. It isn't happening. Even the biggest huggers of JD & Grifco are off the bandwagon. Rational people can only be lied to so many times before they figure it out. It's the boy that cried wolf. Jim Dial has cried wolf with his phony PRs too many times (what's the offical count of the unsuccessful PR's 60-65?)
Ironically, lot of the biggest critics of this company now were once a big hugger like yourself. Of coures the alpha-pumpers are have all disappeared in shame.
Grifco doesn't necessairly need to file 144A to sell shares. Read regulation A of the Securites act of 1934. Jim Dial can issue up to $2,000,000 worth of security in a year without a public filing or a Rule 144A registreration if he doesn't sell the shares through a broker. He can also sell more than that amount through private placement.
I think some people here have bits and pieces of a regulation but don't realize there are many loopholes and exceptions. The printing press theory isn't that far fetched. In fact, with the electronic exchange Jim Dial doesn't need to print anything. He and the BOD (ooopps, it's also JD)...He and He can decide on how many shares to sell in the open market and sell it. At least TTII 8K's the shelf registeration to sell 25 million shares. OBTW, I have also seen agreements where the principal of a merger ask for reimbursement of cost if the merger or the buyout doesn't go through.
IMO, Auditors would have exposed the poor Internal Control (IC) within Grifco. IC has a lot to do with risk management. There isn't enough segregation within Grifco to have a proper checks, balances, and assurances that the operatin has effective controls to manage fraud and risk. Case in point, Jim Dial is the PR agent, CEO, Presdient, Manager, Board of Directors...in short he is Grifco.
Auditor of a company is like a doctor performing a physical on his patient; a building inspector who inspects the condition of a building; a food service inspector who inspects the cleanliness of a restaurant; an auto mechanic inspecting the mechanical soundness of a car; regardless if the news is good or bad they're going to give an opinion as a result of their engagement.
Grifco had been audited twice! We know for certain the second Audit was a PCAOB audit. An Auditor has 60 days to complete an Audit and up to 90 days to issue an Audit Opinion. The fact that Jim Dial did not release the result of an audit is very telling.. Anyone that says anything else otherwise is nuts. TTII's PR clearly stated the audit started on November 14th. February 14th would have been 90 days. The silence is deafening.
Here is a standard audit opinion. You can look at numerous 10Ks of a public company and you will find that the wording contained in the Auditor's Letter (in this case unqualified opinion) are all pretty much the same.
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Sun Hydraulics Corporation:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sun Hydraulics Corporation (a Florida corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 30, 2006, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Sun Hydraulics Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 30, 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of Sun Hydraulics Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2006, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our reported dated March 6, 2006, expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting and an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Kirkland, Russ, Murphy & Tapp, P.A.
Rusty, I'm a CPA. What you're saying is not true. Auditing standards for a public company are governed by PCAOB, which was formed as a result of Sarbanes Oxley. AICPA set the standards prior to Sarb-ox. The only difference is that PCAOB made it an requirement for the mangement and Auditor to give an opinon about the company's Internal Controls based on the COSO Framework.
There are plenty of frims out there that are approved by PCAOB. Auditor's duty is not to prove the capitlization of a public company. That is the sole responsibility of management. The job of the Auditor is to review the financials of the company, and render an opinion if
1. If the Auditor agrees with management's assesment of the company's internal control.
2. The Auditor's own assesment of Internal Control
3. If managements assertion made in the financial statment is presented farily in accordance with GAAP.
The Aduitor's letter is pretty standard language and is only one page long. The Auditor can give one of 5 standard opinions on the management's assertion (presentation) of the financial statements
(from best to worse)
1. unqualified (in accordance with GAAP)
2. unqualified with explanatory language (opinion is unqualifed by further explaination is needed on certain item(s)).
3. Qualified (mostly follows GAAP but there some departures)
4. No Opinion (Auditor refuses to give an opinon usually because of uncertatines in what's presented, information can't be adequately verified etc..).
5. Adverse - financial statement doesn't follow GAAP.
If Grifco's financials are too convoluted for the Auditor to make sense (which I doubt), they would either give it a No Opinion or an Adverse Opinion. Only way an Auditor won't give any opinion is if the company fires the Audit firm in middle of an Audit.
Trinytz: ir·re·gard·less
[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Rusty, there is no Audit test to pass or fail. Understand what an Audit is. It is a review n opinion render by a qualified independent public Accounting firm to give an opinion as to the "fariness of the management's assertion" about it's financials and, to render an opinion on the effectiveness of the company's internal controls, the revelevance and completeness of the financial statements. The Auditor issues a one page Audit Statement giving their opinion if the company's financials is presented fairly according to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles). Irregardless if the books are well kept or in shambles and the internal controls are effective or ineffective Auditor's job is to give an opinion as to the condition.
The whole purpose of the Audit is to protect the public interest. It doesn't matter who owned the company prior to Grifco or what the excuses are, there is absolutely no reason why an auditor can't give an opinion on Grifco.
Since JD had 2 audits done and refused to release the results, one can only speculate the Audit was bad. After all why else would he hide it.
knowitall, Jim Dial is aboslutely responsible He violates many rules and regulation of running a public company. He is a very unethical CEO, and a piss-poor corporate steward. While he pumps and pumps the forward prospects of a company beyond a resonable degree, he fails to follow through on the results of the PR pumps. He promised audited financials twice in the past year and failed to deliver on both promises. He stated CTBG dividend would be released by July 1, 2006 and he failed to deliver. He never followed up with any explaination as to why. Worst part is, he fails to make material disclosure about the company and its operations as required by the SEC regulations.
You can't blame anyone but Jim Dial for these failures.
So you're the guy that sold at $0.40, the high for the day on July 10? It only went to $0.40 for a brief second. The stock open and closed the rest of the day in the low $0.30's. That was the day Grifco followed up their prior week PR about receiving offers from 3 companies with the "2.25 offering" PR".
Stephan, it's been the same rhetoric since you started posting in 2005. Only thing your message trail proves is that you've been dead wrong all along. Your message never changes. Wait until next month...wait until nexst month.
Your opinion has little merit as you attack those that "question" Grifco's performance and JD's intentions. Well, the bulls have been right. Grifco is under $0.03 now and JD hasn't produced a thing for Grifco. Where is the $2.25 offering? Wheat happen to Libiya? Where is the $2.7 million in monthly revenues from Jet Motor that's suppose to revolutionize the oil fields? What about the TTII merger? Where is the CTT dividend?
What's amzaing to me is how people like you can remain optimistic with every new b.s. PR and have the gall to attack those who is just reciting history.
Best2listen, there are laws that protect the creditors like RR in this situation Called the Uniform Fradulent Transfer Act.
Notwithstanding the many different sources of fraudulent transfers law, they all "boil down" into essentially four different ways a transaction may be attacked. The four lines of attack are as follows:
(A) that the transfer was intentionally fraudulent;
(B) that the transfer was in "reckless disregard" of the effect it would have on the debtor's ability to service its debt;
(C) that the transfer left the debtor with unreasonably small assets for the continuation of its business; and
(D) that the transfer was made while the debtor was insolvent or which caused the debtor to become insolvent.
(A) Intentional Fraud
An intentionally fraudulent transfer is defined as a: "transfer" made, or obligation incurred with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor. The statutory authority for the avoidability of an intentionally fraudulent transfer includes: 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1) (Bankruptcy Code); 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5104(a)(1) (Pennsylvania UFTA); and §7 of the UFCA.
There is seldom extrinsic evidence of intent. Courts use what are referred to as "badges of fraud" as circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent. The badges of fraud, as set forth at 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5104(b), are as follows:
(1) the transfer was to an insider;
(2) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;
(3) the transfer or obligation was not disclosed and/or otherwise concealed;
(4) the debtor had been sued or threatened with a suit before the transfer was made or the obligation incurred;
(5) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets;
(6) the debtor absconded;
(7) the debtor removed or concealed assets;
(8) the value of the consideration received by the debtor was not reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;
(9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(10) the transfer occurred shortly before or after a substantial debt was incurred; and
(11) the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
An intentionally fraudulent transfer can be avoided by both present creditors (i.e., those in existence when the fraudulent transfer occurred), and future creditors (i.e., those that extend credit to the debtor after the transfer).
http://www.katzlawoffice.com/fraud.htm
Only pink I have in my portfolio is Grifco. It's less than 1% of what I own. Besides, this board is entertaining IMO. It's also informative because there are some smart people on the board. I also think some posters are aboslutely nuts but I won't mention any names.
As for my background I'm a CPA working in Public Accounting. Althoug I'm on the tax side I also do some business advisory services, compiationss, and help out on some audits. I also own some investment LLCs, and some interest in an investment trust. I have a degree in Accounting and Economics, magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi.
elcheepo, that's even more puzzling because Grifco's has been in a steady downtrend since it's existance. There are no indicators pointing to a bullish converganece or a trend reversal. IMO, it's futile to technically trade a pinsheet stock because 1. they are too unstable, and have a high Beta. 2. There are no significant institutional play to suppport the pps. 3. Pinks are unregulated, which for a lack of a better word, trade and operate lawlessly.
elcheepo, Grifco is beyond the point of speculation. We were all speculating 1-2 years ago. Many peple bought in to the forward statements made a year ago, mainly on a bet. Today, we're seeing the results, or more accurately the lack of results, from the forward statements. There were assurances made to individual investors months ago that had been confirmed to be out and out lies. If you followed Grifco for a year or longer, you can quite resonably say this whole opeartion was a sham. Sure, UERI struck gas. However, even JD says UERI is an arms-length operation from Grifco. Meaning, this doesn't mean a darn thing to the Grifco shareholders until JD initates a share exchange. From a historical perspective, the chance of a share exchange occuring is very slim. Getting excited about UERI is like getting excited about your next door neighbr winning $500 on a scratch off lotto and you somehow conclude that he's going to give you half of it because your neighbors.
Another thing about UERI - Revenue is the topline of a Profit & Loss/Income statement. Below the topline are the expenses, and the bottom line profit/loss. Then there are the partnership agreement. We know UERI is the general partner for the Gas venture but who are the other partners? How many partners are there? How are the profit/loss distributed? Without knowing the details, stricking Gas on one well doesn't mean j.s.
It is quite laughable for some people on this board to talk about risk/reward, investment analysis when they don't understand the basics structure of a business or think not having financial information is not important as long as they can eyeball some tools sitting in the companies warehouse. I can go to Atlanta aiprort and eyeball hunderds of Delta planes docked at terminals. The CEO of Delta can truthfully say his company earned 16.9 Billion in revenues in 2005. Well would that make me run up and load the boat on Delta. Of course not! When I look at their Income Statement I can see how they lost nearly $4 Billion that same year, with expense running nearly $21 Billion. I can see they have negative equity on the balance sheet.