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.
The absence of conversions in 2015 is irrelevant, Notimpressed.
Let me remind you of your 'insight'.
No open market purchases by Macallan Partners, goodboy.
There's no evidence that Macallan Partners made open market purchases of REVO shares.
When will UBRG debut on the grey market?
It's quite possible the auditor is ignoring Ali, Wilma
I agree with you. It's quite likely that both REVO and Ali's other company are without an auditor. That could explain why neither company has filed accounts.
But, despite ignoring REVO directors, the auditor remains in business. He hasn't been struck off and he hasn't retired. It seems he's just avoiding contact with REVO and Solomon Ali.
REVO directors were daft to blame their auditors.
I don't know the extent to which the auditors knew what was going on. But I do know they will protect themselves from accusations of willful negligence, or misrepresentation, in the preparation of REVO accounts.
I suspect that Bongiovanni went along with what they were being told, until it became impossible to reconcile the REVO version of events with the audit paper trail. Then they walked away.
We know Bongiovanni won't return calls from REVO. But I'm willing to bet they'll return calls from the SEC. And I'll bet they won't be protecting REVO directors, when returning those calls.
Interestingly, Bongiovanni remain auditors of Ali's other company.
The fact that Bongiovanni remains in good standing with the SEC, as an auditor, and remain as auditor to companies linked to REVO directors, suggests that they can be contacted. But choose not to return calls from REVO.
The most likely reasons why the auditors are not return calls from REVO are: (a) they haven't been paid and (b) they do not want to be tainted by association with REVO, during any SEC investigation.
Ron Carter's "It wasn't me, it was the auditors" defense is pathetic inept and doomed to failure.
Let's see if Bongiovanni remains associated with the other company...
The auditors are the independent accountants to REVO.
That's a simple fact which the company has stated in two recent 8-Ks.
On August 11th the company stated that they had been unable to discuss matters with their accountants.
Here's their statement:
The rope is for hanging from, not climbing.
Wise investors flipped REVO. They made money.
Not so smart investors, who held on to REVO shares, are now sitting on big losses.
Those who knew REVO was fronting a scam didn't fall for exaggerated claims made for patents of negligible value.
Some fell for those exaggerated and 'unreliable' claims and cannot bear to admit they've been had.
Simple.
No questions about REVO and revenues?
REVO directors, and supporters, read this board, goodboy.
Those directors, and their supporters, saw the detailed questions being raised on this board about the accounting treatment of the $900k 'profit' from Eyetalk365 and the 'income' from Greenwood.
It's obvious that REVO directors knew what questions to ask their professional advisors. But it appears they chose not to ask those pertinent questions before the SEC came calling.
So, it is entirely proper to focus on management when considering how the company could issue 'unreliable' statements for such an extended period of time.
After all, REVO management did not rely on any professional advisors, when producing and issuing PRs to promote their 'unreliable' statements.
Turning a blind eye is poor strategy, rocky.
Let's separate facts and opinions rocky.
Your opinions may be strongly held, but that doesn't convert them into facts.
It appears the SEC agrees with you, Notimpressed,
With the SEC breathing down their necks, REVO filed an admission that their public statements, filed accounts and other public statements are all 'unreliable'.
You expressed some truisms which, whether or not you intended it, apply to REVO:
There's no safe harbor for forward looking lies.
There is a safe harbor for forward looking statements which are honestly made.
I doubt there'll be another run on REVO, redzone.
But I do expect the patents to make some money, from royalties.
Most of any income received by REVO will be used to meet debts owed to Solomon's company, Rainco, so I don't foresee much being distributed to REVO shareholders, as dividends.
Ron went from 'Honest' to 'Unreliable' in one 8-K
They should call him Mr Unreliable.
How can Ron make things right, skeet?
Both Ron Carter and Solomon Ali have made statements unsupported by facts. Many were, by their own admission, 'unreliable.' Some were, at best, misleading. Others were downright lies.
Those statements were made to influence people into buying REVO shares, and to affect the REVO share price.
Those statements did influence people to buy REVO shares, and did affect the share price.
Ron Carter and Solomon Ali have made money as a direct result of this.
Others have lost money as a result.
Now, with the SEC breathing down his neck, you assure those who lost money that:
The SEC can provide some reputable auditors, skeet
There are incriminating things Ron must have known, skeet.
REVO is run by 2 people: Solomon Ali and Ron Carter. It's ludicrous, bordering on pathetic, for either of them to claim that they didn't know what was going on.
For example: Ron must have known that Greenwood Financial was not an established company, when he agreed to 'buy' it from Solomon Ali. And both of them knew that Greenwood Financial had no retained earnings, no current cash, no future income, no liquid assets, and no network of sales agents. So they both must have known, despite PR's to the contrary, that acquisition of Greenwood could not fund any product development by REVO.
Here's another example. Ron and Solomon both knew Ross Helfer and must know who, if anyone, other than Ross Helfer owns Eyetalk365. They must also both know if Eyetalk365 has any cash or assets and if it ever paid out $900k for the license.
Ron and Solomon are in this thing together. They can't be separated.
Both sides settled. Neither side won.
There is a simple, and obvious answer to the question you pose
The Eyetalk365 attorney says they own the patents.
You should argue with the attorney, not with me.
Attorney Gary Sorden filed a Memorandum, with the court, on April 2 2015 which included the following as a statement of fact.
Wrong on every count, Trout.
The SEC doubt Eyetalk365 'purchased' REVO patents, sumdude.
The license agreement between Eyetalk365 and REVO was a sham. And your description of it is accurate:
Some clarity on the Eyetalk365 deal, as requested, Sumdude
Eyetalk365 had to show an 'ownership interest' in the patents so that they could pursue infringement claims in its own name.
The contract between REVO and Eyetalk365 gave Eyetalk365 that ownership interest by granting it exclusive control of the patents, for their duration. Eyetalk365 'owns' the patents for as long as they meet the contract terms.
That's why REVO was not a joint plaintiff in the 4 infringement cases brought by Eyetalk365.
Eyetalk365 received control over the patents for an initial 'payment' of $900k and additional payments of 40% payable ONLY from any royalty income which MIGHT become due.
A good deal for Eyetalk365. Not so good for REVO shareholders.
REVO isn't liable for lies issued by Eyetalk365, lantern.
It was the Attorney for Eyetalk365 who was briefed to say there would be a product. Eyetalk365 is not regulated by the SEC.
Although the Memorandum produced by the Attorney for Eyetalk365 is riddled with inaccuracies those inaccuracies do not amount to actionable perjury.
It should come as no surprise that Eyetalk365 makes statements that have the same distant relationship with the truth as those issued by REVO. After all, both companies are controlled by Ron Carter and Solomon Ali.
Here is the corroboration you requested, Lantern.
Attorney Gary Sorden filed a Memorandum, with the court, on April 2 2015 which included the following as statements of fact.
You don't know what the settlement was, skeet.
Your 'honest' friend Ron Carter may know what (if anything) REVO has received from the settlements. But, unless he's given you inside information, you do not.
And that's a fact.
You make a good point,oingo boingo.
I could just pass a file of evidence to the SEC.
But I must admit that I am intrigued to see how far some will go in denying that Carter and Ali scammed investors.
I am convinced that some of the outlandish denials posted here are inspired by briefings from Carter and Ali.
Ali isn't solely responsible for everything, wilma.
Ali is responsible for devising scam PRs to raise the pps. He also makes money by selling the REVO promissory notes.
Giving Eyetalk365 a 60% interest in the patents doesn't fit Ali's game plan, as he can't sell promissory notes from an LLC.
The transfer of control over the patents to Eyetalk365 mirrors an earlier scheme put in place by Ron Carter. That scheme is described, in some detail, in court documents filed during the case Ron brought against his previous patent attorneys.
The documents show that when Ron received a credible buy-out offer for the patents, he made plans to strip the patents out of REVO, and into a private LLC. That private LLC was to be owned by him and the prospective buyer. The purpose of the plan was to reduce the payback to initial REVO investors.
Although that deal fell through the idea of stripping assets out of REVO, to short-change investors, was stored away for future use.
Eyetalk365 LLC., and its 60% interest in the patents, revives that idea. And it is an idea which was formed before Solomon Ali arrived on the scene.
Where are you getting your information from, skeet?
How do you know that Ron is dealing with the SEC?
Channeling operations through Eyetalk365 does not benefit shareholders, wilma.
The purpose of establishing Eyetalk365 LLC was to transfer effective operations and accountability from an SEC regulated public company (REVO) to a non SEC regulated LLC.
Your comment, quoted below, has two distinct elements:
Who told you they're not ignoring the SEC, skeet?
Have you spoken to Ron?
Is Ron's honesty being questioned by the SEC?
Please tell what evidence you have, if any.
You're correct, Sumdude, the NDA is pretty ineffective.
REVO doesn't have an NDA with any of the defendant companies, because REVO was not the plaintiff, and was not a party to any of the settlements. That suggests they're hiding behind an NDA with Eyetalk365.
But, REVO cannot use an NDA to hide income. It must account for all income due from, or to, Eyetalk365.
REVO financials, if accurate, would immediately reveal the value of any settlements obtained by Eyetalk365.
It would be in REVO's best interests to file those accounts IF the settlements were valuable ... So, their refusal to file them speaks volumes.
REVO 10-Ks are largely works of fiction, notimpressed.
Your post rests on the shaky grounds of 'forward looking statements' in a REVO 10-K.
This example serves to illustrate the point.
REVO accounting for the Eyetalk365 'deal' is problematic.
The licensing deal between REVO and Eyetalk365 provides for the Licensor (REVO) to receive a 40% equity interest in the licensee (Eyetalk365).
That 40% equity interest means that REVO and Eyetalk365 are associated companies.
If Eyetalk365 is under the effective control of REVO (which it is) then it is a subsidiary of REVO, and it's accounts should be consolidated with those of REVO.
The last thing Carter and Ali want to do is file consolidated accounts for REVO and Eyetalk365, because that really would give the game away.
REVO did not develop, or patent, any software.
The idea that REVO created software to link a cell phone or PC to a camera is ridiculous.
No home monitoring industry before REVO, ceo? Ridiculous.
It's an opinion shared by many disgruntled rays, ceo.
What product did REVO intend to produce, ceo?