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.
They were served a subpoena to aid in an ongoing investigation.
They are not under investigation .
You make some pretty big assumptions in your post.
I have spoken with people from the company directly on a few occasions and I can assure you outright that Ziv was never in charge of much of anything.
He was more interested in food, travel and schmoozing.
Other than being a name on some of the patents that's as far as his involvement ever went.
You list some of the things he was supposed to be in charge of as being science related.
Where would he have the qualifications to be in charge of such things?
He was clueless.
Sorry.
The whole premise of his presence here on the board is a mishap...lol
OWCP LONG AND STRONG!
What is clear to investors is this:
The company responded to the subpoena..
Anything said beyond that is pure speculation on your part....
which you seem to spend most of your time doing...
I take everything you write with less than a grain of salt because none of your rants are substantiated by facts... they are all supposition and based on cherry picking your comments which are always out of context.
And when you are called out on things you've stated as fact that turn out to be untrue...you fail to address those issues and just ignore them...
OWCP is not a pink sheet stock.
Again with the misdirection.
Bottom feeders?...now that's rich.
I disagree with you..if someone bought in lower and wants to sell a block or two...what's wrong with that?
This is unpredictable right now and there is never anything wrong with taking some money off the table.
This is not going to resolve overnight so there are opportunities to make some money in the interim.
I personally don't buy into the fear mongering tactics about not being able to get back in..
You can always get back in..the question is at what price and no one can predict that.
Then what is this?
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1527084341415698200/european-wealth-wins-us-approval-for-newbridge-acquisition.aspx
You previously said the deal was dead and never happened.
So what...
it's not a list you want to be one but there are way bigger names than Newbridge on the list.
These enforcement actions are a way of life.
And don't put words in my mouth.
Find one of my posts where I touted how great Newbridge is.
They are but an intermediary in the transaction...That's it.
I suppose if the deal had been brokered with UBS or Goldman you'd still be doing the same thing.
ROTFLMAO!!! SMH
Unsuitable investments...3 people filed a complaint..lol...What happened in 2008? Every firm in the USA was selling toxic investments...
I guess that's not important...just that Newbridge has some customers unhappy....just like every other firm..
We have already been through this...Pull up any firm and do a search and see what comes up regarding Finra actions...they all have them...
As far as the transaction I see nothing that says it hasn't happened.
Let's see what is on European Wealth's financials come year end in June 2018.
Until then you are as usual speculating.
Another one of your posts debunked.....
"London-based financial services firm European Wealth Group is purchasing independent broker-dealer Newbridge Securities Corporation and its affiliated registered investment adviser Newbridge Financial Services Group for an undisclosed sum. The acquisition is expected to close in late 2017 or early 2018, subject to FINRA approval."
This is obviously a material event.
Why would it be highlighted on a June 2017 financial statement when it hasn't even been completed yet?
You trying to mislead and outright lie to people on this board is really getting old.
I think what's rich is you post a financial report that goes up until the end of June 2017 when it says right in their press release that the deal will be consummated as late as early in 2018.
So what does posting a financial report prove that ends in June 2017?
As per 100% of all your other dreck, absolutely nothing!
When you learn to post pacts and the truth then you might be worth paying attention to but as per usual you post a lot of cherry picked non factual crap that is meaningless and only fills your narrative which nobody here cares about.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
That's rich...funny how a bottom feeding brokerage gets swallowed up by a large British financial firm...
Do you really think that companies are in the business of throwing money away on so called "bottom feeder" outfits? ....
Just laughable and none of you have any credibility whatsoever when you make unsubstantiated statemnents and post them as fact.....
https://thediwire.com/newbridge-securities-sold-london-based-financial-firm/
“Newbridge presents a unique opportunity to invest in an established, well-positioned and nationally represented company. It significantly increases our global footprint by gaining immediate access to the largest wealth management market in the world, which we intend to build and scale substantially."
I am done with the turd.
The company responded to the subpoena..
Anything said beyond that is pure speculation on your part....
which you seem to spend most of your time doing...
I take everything you write with less than a grain of salt because none of your rants are substantiated by facts...
And when you are called out on things you've stated as fact that turn out to be untrue...you fail to address those issues and just ignore them...
Like the Michael Grimes thing and that he never called shareholders...
I have asked you three separate times to respond..and nothing...
So you have zero credibility.
And by the way...I am involved in a huge shareholder lawsuit(BCIT) that is in court in NY right now and one of the defendants is Finra...they did some illegal stuff in cahoots with market makers and brokerages..
So your post the other day touting when Finra gets involved..it's serious and means OWCP is in big doodoo...is a joke..and yet another attempt to spread unsubstantiated facts and fear.
They are criminals too... I found this post quite entertaining considering that in our lawsuit we have caught Finra bending the rules, not enforcing the rules, ignoring the rules and just plain acting like they are above the law. https://www.theblot.com/finra-impartial-corrupt-wall-street-watchdog-7733581
Are you now admitting the SEC did in fact talk to owcp investors..because in many of your previous posts you claimed that never happened...?
You also claimed you'd contact Michael Grimes..that never happened...
"I know Grimes and will call him tomorrow - where is your proof that he talked to investors - what did he want to know about the OWCP scam - of course this is more BS from desperate shareholders.
Post your proof that Grimes spoke with investors?
IG "
So what is the correct story?
Also...
If you read the complaint as written and investigated it doesn't implicate OWCP, the company in any way shape or form.
The investigation is ongoing as it relates to the complaint.
Where is the company named in the complaint?
"The SEC’s complaint charges Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC, and Intiva Pharma LLC with violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars. The complaint also named Kathy B. Friedland, Lane 6552 LLC, Aspen Upper Ranch LLC, Assurance Management, LLC, and the Jeffrey and Kathy Friedland Irrevocable Trust as relief defendants."
They have responded to a subpoena...in the JF matter.
That is it.
You saying they're being investigated to make it sound like they are guilty of something is supposition and bs.
What is a subpoena?
It is court-ordered command that essentially requires you to do something, such as testify or present information that may help support the facts that are at issue in a pending case.
I don't see where it assigns guilt or culpability.
I understand..a sign..any sign....lol
NIte is on the ask now..The fact he's not level one doesn't mean he's expecting anything..lol
Nite primarily moves stock for discount brokerages like TD Waterhouse in Canada / TD Ameritrade and other discount brokerages.
If he's not there , then there are no orders at the level 1 bid or ask...plain and simple.....
Tuner had absolutely nothing to do with any safety trial...why would you even say that or think it?
As a fellow long I get dismayed when garbage like this is posted.
I agree with the rest of your post.
Are you now admitting the SEC did in fact talk to owcp investors..because in many of your previous posts you claimed that never happened...?
You also claimed you'd contact Michael Grimes..that never happened...
"I know Grimes and will call him tomorrow - where is your proof that he talked to investors - what did he want to know about the OWCP scam - of course this is more BS from desperate shareholders.
Post your proof that Grimes spoke with investors?
IG "
So what is the correct story?
Also...
If you read the complaint as written and investigated it doesn't implicate OWCP, the company in any way shape or form.
The investigation is ongoing as it relates to the complaint.
Where is the company named in the complaint?
"The SEC’s complaint charges Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC, and Intiva Pharma LLC with violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars. The complaint also named Kathy B. Friedland, Lane 6552 LLC, Aspen Upper Ranch LLC, Assurance Management, LLC, and the Jeffrey and Kathy Friedland Irrevocable Trust as relief defendants."
All of these posts of yours are supposition and bs and at best a fantasy from your own mind.
They have responded to a subpoena...in the JF matter.
That is it.
You saying they're being investigated to make it sound like they are guilty of something is supposition and bs.
What is a subpoena?
It is court-ordered command that essentially requires you to do something, such as testify or present information that may help support the facts that are at issue in a pending case.
I don't see where it assigns guilt or culpability.
I will contact them just the same way you called Michael Grimes.
In your opinion....only....
Supposition and bs...that is what all your posts highlight.
How about answering the questions posed to you in my previous message.
The sec is not investigating owcp...
Again..it will have no bearing on the company....
Hirsch has made a statement...OWCP neither knew or was involved..PERIOD.
The fact the investigation may be open and ongoing is not relevant here yet you and others attempt to make it so...which is bs.
The open investigation does not involve owcp..
Read the complaint again...for the 50th time...
If you read the complaint as written and investigated it doesn't implicate OWCP, the company in any way shape or form.
The investigation is ongoing as it relates to the complaint.
Where is the company named in the complaint?
"The SEC’s complaint charges Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC, and Intiva Pharma LLC with violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars. The complaint also named Kathy B. Friedland, Lane 6552 LLC, Aspen Upper Ranch LLC, Assurance Management, LLC, and the Jeffrey and Kathy Friedland Irrevocable Trust as relief defendants."
There is no evidence that OWC colluded with Jeffery Friedland in 2014. Jeffery Friedland’s activities in Colorado were his activities, not those of OWC.
If you read the complaint as written and investigated it doesn't implicate OWCP, the company in any way shape or form.
The investigation is ongoing as it relates to the complaint.
Where is the company named in the complaint?
"The SEC’s complaint charges Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC, and Intiva Pharma LLC with violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars. The complaint also named Kathy B. Friedland, Lane 6552 LLC, Aspen Upper Ranch LLC, Assurance Management, LLC, and the Jeffrey and Kathy Friedland Irrevocable Trust as relief defendants."
False allegations..just wishful supposition...
I-GLOW wrote:
“Yes, most certainly there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014. The scam started at the Friedland dinner party in 2014.”
This statement of yours is no where in the SEC complaint document: “there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014”, and does not merit a preface such as “Yes, most certainly”. The SEC action did not state this. It is not fact. It is not “most certainly”. The SEC complaint against Jeffery Friedlant actually exonerates OWC in my opinion, and they are not a party in this SEC action; fact.
There was no representative of OWC at Jeffery Friedland’s dinner party in Colorado in 2014. This was Jefferey Friedland doing his own thing in Colorado and the OWC management in Israel was not party to it.
According to the SEC, concerning OWC’s interaction with Jeffery Friedland in 2014, the FACTS ARE:
"29. In August 2014, Friedland purchased 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock for $119,000 pursuant to a subscription agreement that he signed on behalf of Intiva, and the ownership of these securities was identified in OWC’s SEC filings (albeit with “Invita” rather than Intiva). On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC issuing 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock to Intiva in August 2014. Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 is information not given by the SEC.
————————————————————————————————
Furthermore,
It is misleading to quote small bits out of the context of the actual SEC document; especially when you leave the year off, which was included in the document. The 3 different years of the 3 different 144 Opinion Letters as clearly stated in the SEC document is absolutely relevant. This SEC complaint exonerates OWCP.
Fact: The SEC did NOT state anywhere that OWC was party to any of Jeffery Friedland’s fraudulent activity, NOR Friedland’s fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter in January 2017.
Fact: The SEC stated that it was Friedland himself who provided the fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter to the transfer agent in January 2017.
Here is what the SEC document actually says about the 3rd opinion letter provided to the transfer agent in January 2017:
46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney. "
Just so the FACTS are KNOWN AND CLEAR as the SEC has presented them; NOWHERE in the SEC complaint against Jeffery Friedland does it state that the two opinion letters provided by OWC in 2014 and 2016 are fraudulent. On the other hand, the SEC complaint does clearly state that the opinion letter provided by Jeffery Friedland in 2017 was fraudulent with this clear language used by the SEC in the SEC complaint (paragraph 46, page 14).
"Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552."
The definition of purported is:
"appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess."
The SEC used very specific language as to why this opinion letter is fraudulent. This opinion letter was provided to the transfer agent in January 2017 by Jeffery Friedland (not OWC).
Since the SEC used the word purported, the opinion letter including the attorney's signature may have been forged. Either way, OWC is not implicated in any way regarding the 2017 opinion letter provided by Jeffery Friedland.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014 and 2016. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 or February 5, 2016, is information not given by the SEC.
The FACTS have been presented by the SEC in their complaint against Jeffery Friedland, his wife, and their companies in Colorado. Those are the defendants in this case. OWC or OWCP are not implicated in the Friedland's fraudulent activity which started in January 2017.
The SEC complaint document does not state anywhere that Jeffery Friedland used the same attorney as OWC. Anytime I have worked with a lawyer, I have hired a lawyer somewhere near me. Friedland lives in Colorado and had 2 or more companies in Colorado between 2014 and 2017. It goes to reason that the lawyer(s) Friedland used in his affairs with his two Colorado companies is not the same lawyer used by OWC, a company located in Israel. Jeffery Friedland would have no problem finding lawyers in Colorado.
FACT: There are over 1.3 million attorneys in the United States.
As of 2016, there are 1,315,561 Licensed Lawyers in the United States of America.
http://www.denniswpottslaw.com/united-states-attorneys-map/
If Friedland's Attorney was disbarred as a result of the SEC’s investigation then it is most likely that he was disbarred in 2017 after having drafted and/or signed the third [fraudulent] opinion letter which Jeffery Freidland (not OWC) provided to the transfer agent. However, this information is not given by the SEC.
According to the SEC, here are THE FACTS ABOUT THE 3 DIFFERENT OPINION LETTERS TO THE OWC TRANSFER AGENT (years 2014, 2016, 2017)
——————————————— 2014 ———————————————
"29. In August 2014, Friedland purchased 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock for $119,000 pursuant to a subscription agreement that he signed on behalf of Intiva, and the ownership of these securities was identified in OWC’s SEC filings (albeit with “Invita” rather than Intiva). On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC issuing 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock to Intiva in August 2014. Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent. According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 is information not given by the SEC.
——————————————— 2016 ———————————————
"31. On January 21, 2016, Friedland and his company Global entered into a two-year “Media, Public Relations and Investor Relations Services Agreement” with OWC (hereinafter, the “Global PR/IR Agreement”), which Friedland signed as Managing Director of Global.?Under the terms of the Global PR/IR Agreement, Friedland agreed to develop a media, public relations, and investor relations program to create interest in OWC on the part of financial journalists, institutional investors, and the general investment community. In this role, Friedland agreed to “create a higher level awareness of [OWC], as well as the anticipated impact with the investors[;] [Global] will provide both an introduction of the company to the overall American population, as well as specifically target investors.” The agreement also states that Global would assist OWC in reaching investors by writing news releases, shareholder letters, corporate summaries, profiles, and website copy, and would establish OWC’s Facebook and Twitter accounts. The Global PR/IR Agreement stated that it could only be amended if executed by the parties in writing.
32. Pursuant to the compensation terms of the Global PR/IR Agreement, OWC transferred 5,134,375 OWC shares to Global on February 5, 2016. OWC provided an attorney opinion letter to OWC’s transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with the issuance of OWC’s stock to Global. OWC disclosed in reports it filed with the SEC in February 2016 that Global owned these shares of stock – 6.3% of OWC’s common stock at that time – and that Friedland controlled them as Global’s President and CEO, but neither OWC, Friedland, nor Global made any disclosure as to how the shares were acquired by Global."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC entering into a 2-year “Media, Public Relations and Investor Relations Services Agreement” with Friedland and his company Global and they paid him according to the agreement a reasonable amount of 5,134,375 OWC shares to Global. On January 21, 2016 the PPS of OWCP stock was .04 to .08 and therefore 5,134,375 shares would have been worth $205,375 at .04. It’s fair to say that if someone had done a PP with OWCP during that same time period, they could have gotten a PPS of .04 or less.
Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent. According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2016. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after February 5, 2016 is information not given by the SEC.
"36. On March 15, 2016, OWC issued a press release via PR Newswire announcing that Friedland had joined OWC’s Advisory Board to advise on business development efforts, and that Friedland would serve as the Company’s U.S. representative."
——————————————— 2017 ———————————————
"39. On or about January 3, 2017, Kathy Friedland organized Lane 6552 LLC, a company with no apparent business purpose or operations, with herself listed as the company’s sole member and principal.
43. On or about January 14, 2017, Friedland submitted a request to OWC’s transfer agent to reissue Global’s 5,134,375 shares of OWC stock to Lane 6552 LLC and remove the restricted legend from the securities.
45. In order to sell his restricted shares in the public marketplace, Friedland needed to have OWC’s transfer agent remove the restricted legend on Global’s 5,134,375 shares.
46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney. "
According to the SEC, it was this 3rd opinion letter provided in January 2017 to OWC’s transfer agent that was fraudulent with “misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552”. The SEC complaint is very clear that it was Jeffery Friedland who provided this 3rd fraudulent opinion letter (not OWC).
Since Jeffery Friedland was on OWC’s Advisory Board as announced in a PR by OWC about 10 months earlier on March 15, 2016, he may have used this leadership position with OWC which included his own OWC Email (Jfriedland@owcpharma.com), to have OWC’s transfer agent remove the restricted legend on Global’s 5,134,375 shares.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know if the attorney who drafted and/or signed the opinion letter had a current license to practice law at that time or was disbarred prior to January 2017. The attorney may have been disbarred later, that information is not given by the SEC, but if the Attorney was disbarred as a result of the SEC’s investigation then it is most likely that he was disbarred in 2017 after having signed the 3rd opinion letter which Jeffery Freidland provided to the transfer agent.
According to the SEC, here is what fraudulent documents were provided to the transfer agent by Friedland (not OWC) in January 2017:
1. “46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney.”
2. “48. Friedland also indicated on forms signed by his wife that were provided to the transfer agent that Global purchased the stock from OWC in January 2016 at a cost of $51,343.75, but there is no evidence of such payment from Global to OWC. The terms of Global’s agreement with OWC indicate the stock was compensation for media and investor relations services and not in exchange for any payment."
3. “49. Friedland further represented to the transfer agent on these forms that the OWC stock was not being transferred from Global to Lane 6552 as a gift, inheritance, or wash sale, but were instead acquired by Lane 6552 on January 13, 2017 at a cost of $205,375. There is no evidence of any payment to Global from Lane 6552 in that amount or on that date.”
"51. On February 3, 2017, OWC’s transfer agent, relying on the information provided by Friedland, removed the restrictive legend from Lane 6552’s stock."
————————————————————————————————
I-GLOW writes in previous post:
"What part about OWCP providing a Fraudulent Opinion Letter to expedite the removal of the restrictive legend are you ignoring."
Where does it say this in the SEC document? Paragraph and page please.
I'm still waiting...
Can you provide just the paragraph number please?
$OWCP
If you read the complaint as written and investigated it doesn't implicate OWCP, the company in any way shape or form.
The investigation is ongoing as it relates to the complaint.
Where is the company named in the complaint?
"The SEC’s complaint charges Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC, and Intiva Pharma LLC with violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars. The complaint also named Kathy B. Friedland, Lane 6552 LLC, Aspen Upper Ranch LLC, Assurance Management, LLC, and the Jeffrey and Kathy Friedland Irrevocable Trust as relief defendants."
Correcting a spelling typo is very rich..lol
Admit you screwed up..it's so obvious.
I don't blame the company for anything.
I made the trades.
I have never once come on here and done that and I am under water....have been since I sold..and bought back in...just like you obviously did..
You got caught because you believed this was a get rich quick scheme and you thought being a penny stock there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
The company has always been a research and development operation.
They have never once claimed they would ever have anything for sale.
The plan was always to do that through third parties.
If you really cared about your investment and you were a true long you wouldn't come onto the board and complain.
Ya sure you did..your complaints are too vocal and too often for someone who banked 100k...unless of course you bought back in at a higher price after you got out...Either way I don't believe you.
Yes it was and many of them went crazy..CNB* went mental....
JF must have pumped that one too...lol
If you've owned this stock for 18 months you had ample opportunity to make some serious coin..
If you didn't that's on you...not the company.
November 2016 till May 2018 is 18 months.
What was the price in late 2016? .10-.12 cents.
It hit a high of 3.23 in Feb/Mar 2017.
Quite blaming the company and take responsibility....
There is no evidence that OWC colluded with Jeffery Friedland in 2014. Jeffery Friedland’s activities in Colorado were his activities, not those of OWC.
Your post reminds me of a previous false claim you made.
I-GLOW wrote:
“Yes, most certainly there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014. The scam started at the Friedland dinner party in 2014.”
This statement of yours is no where in the SEC complaint document: “there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014”, and does not merit a preface such as “Yes, most certainly”. The SEC action did not state this. It is not fact. It is not “most certainly”. The SEC complaint against Jeffery Friedlant actually exonerates OWC in my opinion, and they are not a party in this SEC action; fact.
There was no representative of OWC at Jeffery Friedland’s dinner party in Colorado in 2014. This was Jefferey Friedland doing his own thing in Colorado and the OWC management in Israel was not party to it.
According to the SEC, concerning OWC’s interaction with Jeffery Friedland in 2014, the FACTS ARE:
"29. In August 2014, Friedland purchased 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock for $119,000 pursuant to a subscription agreement that he signed on behalf of Intiva, and the ownership of these securities was identified in OWC’s SEC filings (albeit with “Invita” rather than Intiva). On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC issuing 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock to Intiva in August 2014. Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 is information not given by the SEC.
————————————————————————————————
Furthermore,
It is misleading to quote small bits out of the context of the actual SEC document; especially when you leave the year off, which was included in the document. The 3 different years of the 3 different 144 Opinion Letters as clearly stated in the SEC document is absolutely relevant. This SEC complaint exonerates OWCP.
Fact: The SEC did NOT state anywhere that OWC was party to any of Jeffery Friedland’s fraudulent activity, NOR Friedland’s fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter in January 2017.
Fact: The SEC stated that it was Friedland himself who provided the fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter to the transfer agent in January 2017.
Here is what the SEC document actually says about the 3rd opinion letter provided to the transfer agent in January 2017:
46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney. "
Just so the FACTS are KNOWN AND CLEAR as the SEC has presented them; NOWHERE in the SEC complaint against Jeffery Friedland does it state that the two opinion letters provided by OWC in 2014 and 2016 are fraudulent. On the other hand, the SEC complaint does clearly state that the opinion letter provided by Jeffery Friedland in 2017 was fraudulent with this clear language used by the SEC in the SEC complaint (paragraph 46, page 14).
"Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552."
The definition of purported is:
"appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess."
The SEC used very specific language as to why this opinion letter is fraudulent. This opinion letter was provided to the transfer agent in January 2017 by Jeffery Friedland (not OWC).
Since the SEC used the word purported, the opinion letter including the attorney's signature may have been forged. Either way, OWC is not implicated in any way regarding the 2017 opinion letter provided by Jeffery Friedland.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014 and 2016. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 or February 5, 2016, is information not given by the SEC.
The FACTS have been presented by the SEC in their complaint against Jeffery Friedland, his wife, and their companies in Colorado. Those are the defendants in this case. OWC or OWCP are not implicated in the Friedland's fraudulent activity which started in January 2017.
The SEC complaint document does not state anywhere that Jeffery Friedland used the same attorney as OWC. Anytime I have worked with a lawyer, I have hired a lawyer somewhere near me. Friedland lives in Colorado and had 2 or more companies in Colorado between 2014 and 2017. It goes to reason that the lawyer(s) Friedland used in his affairs with his two Colorado companies is not the same lawyer used by OWC, a company located in Israel. Jeffery Friedland would have no problem finding lawyers in Colorado.
FACT: There are over 1.3 million attorneys in the United States.
As of 2016, there are 1,315,561 Licensed Lawyers in the United States of America.
http://www.denniswpottslaw.com/united-states-attorneys-map/
If Friedland's Attorney was disbarred as a result of the SEC’s investigation then it is most likely that he was disbarred in 2017 after having drafted and/or signed the third [fraudulent] opinion letter which Jeffery Freidland (not OWC) provided to the transfer agent. However, this information is not given by the SEC.
According to the SEC, here are THE FACTS ABOUT THE 3 DIFFERENT OPINION LETTERS TO THE OWC TRANSFER AGENT (years 2014, 2016, 2017)
——————————————— 2014 ———————————————
"29. In August 2014, Friedland purchased 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock for $119,000 pursuant to a subscription agreement that he signed on behalf of Intiva, and the ownership of these securities was identified in OWC’s SEC filings (albeit with “Invita” rather than Intiva). On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC issuing 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock to Intiva in August 2014. Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent. According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 is information not given by the SEC.
——————————————— 2016 ———————————————
"31. On January 21, 2016, Friedland and his company Global entered into a two-year “Media, Public Relations and Investor Relations Services Agreement” with OWC (hereinafter, the “Global PR/IR Agreement”), which Friedland signed as Managing Director of Global.?Under the terms of the Global PR/IR Agreement, Friedland agreed to develop a media, public relations, and investor relations program to create interest in OWC on the part of financial journalists, institutional investors, and the general investment community. In this role, Friedland agreed to “create a higher level awareness of [OWC], as well as the anticipated impact with the investors[;] [Global] will provide both an introduction of the company to the overall American population, as well as specifically target investors.” The agreement also states that Global would assist OWC in reaching investors by writing news releases, shareholder letters, corporate summaries, profiles, and website copy, and would establish OWC’s Facebook and Twitter accounts. The Global PR/IR Agreement stated that it could only be amended if executed by the parties in writing.
32. Pursuant to the compensation terms of the Global PR/IR Agreement, OWC transferred 5,134,375 OWC shares to Global on February 5, 2016. OWC provided an attorney opinion letter to OWC’s transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with the issuance of OWC’s stock to Global. OWC disclosed in reports it filed with the SEC in February 2016 that Global owned these shares of stock – 6.3% of OWC’s common stock at that time – and that Friedland controlled them as Global’s President and CEO, but neither OWC, Friedland, nor Global made any disclosure as to how the shares were acquired by Global."
There was nothing fraudulent about OWC entering into a 2-year “Media, Public Relations and Investor Relations Services Agreement” with Friedland and his company Global and they paid him according to the agreement a reasonable amount of 5,134,375 OWC shares to Global. On January 21, 2016 the PPS of OWCP stock was .04 to .08 and therefore 5,134,375 shares would have been worth $205,375 at .04. It’s fair to say that if someone had done a PP with OWCP during that same time period, they could have gotten a PPS of .04 or less.
Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent. According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2016. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after February 5, 2016 is information not given by the SEC.
"36. On March 15, 2016, OWC issued a press release via PR Newswire announcing that Friedland had joined OWC’s Advisory Board to advise on business development efforts, and that Friedland would serve as the Company’s U.S. representative."
——————————————— 2017 ———————————————
"39. On or about January 3, 2017, Kathy Friedland organized Lane 6552 LLC, a company with no apparent business purpose or operations, with herself listed as the company’s sole member and principal.
43. On or about January 14, 2017, Friedland submitted a request to OWC’s transfer agent to reissue Global’s 5,134,375 shares of OWC stock to Lane 6552 LLC and remove the restricted legend from the securities.
45. In order to sell his restricted shares in the public marketplace, Friedland needed to have OWC’s transfer agent remove the restricted legend on Global’s 5,134,375 shares.
46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney. "
According to the SEC, it was this 3rd opinion letter provided in January 2017 to OWC’s transfer agent that was fraudulent with “misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552”. The SEC complaint is very clear that it was Jeffery Friedland who provided this 3rd fraudulent opinion letter (not OWC).
Since Jeffery Friedland was on OWC’s Advisory Board as announced in a PR by OWC about 10 months earlier on March 15, 2016, he may have used this leadership position with OWC which included his own OWC Email (Jfriedland@owcpharma.com), to have OWC’s transfer agent remove the restricted legend on Global’s 5,134,375 shares.
According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know if the attorney who drafted and/or signed the opinion letter had a current license to practice law at that time or was disbarred prior to January 2017. The attorney may have been disbarred later, that information is not given by the SEC, but if the Attorney was disbarred as a result of the SEC’s investigation then it is most likely that he was disbarred in 2017 after having signed the 3rd opinion letter which Jeffery Freidland provided to the transfer agent.
According to the SEC, here is what fraudulent documents were provided to the transfer agent by Friedland (not OWC) in January 2017:
1. “46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552. The letter was signed by a disbarred attorney.”
2. “48. Friedland also indicated on forms signed by his wife that were provided to the transfer agent that Global purchased the stock from OWC in January 2016 at a cost of $51,343.75, but there is no evidence of such payment from Global to OWC. The terms of Global’s agreement with OWC indicate the stock was compensation for media and investor relations services and not in exchange for any payment."
3. “49. Friedland further represented to the transfer agent on these forms that the OWC stock was not being transferred from Global to Lane 6552 as a gift, inheritance, or wash sale, but were instead acquired by Lane 6552 on January 13, 2017 at a cost of $205,375. There is no evidence of any payment to Global from Lane 6552 in that amount or on that date.”
"51. On February 3, 2017, OWC’s transfer agent, relying on the information provided by Friedland, removed the restrictive legend from Lane 6552’s stock."
————————————————————————————————
I-GLOW writes in previous post:
"What part about OWCP providing a Fraudulent Opinion Letter to expedite the removal of the restrictive legend are you ignoring."
Where does it say this in the SEC document? Paragraph and page please.
I'm still waiting...
Can you provide just the paragraph number please?
$OWCP
Very cool that you will be there...Thanks!
Eastern Time Zone was the original author..I was just reposting to shut down the lies from I-Gloom
That's my birthday Zomby..it will be a good day!
That post which is excellent was not my doing..it is from Eastern..I copied it to use anytime iglo spreads his bs.