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.
Paul Williams -- Rendal's son or relative?
Same point of contact info listed in WHOIS for:
Cubicle Assault Team => http://www.cubicleassault.com/
Digital Earth Media => http://www.digitalearthmedia.com/
Nevada's Assessor database shows the listed address is an apartment.
A company is not required to report minor lawsuits like this one in their 10Q. Since the judgment amount is small and it was open/closed quickly, the case might be for something like delinquent payroll tax.
Legal Proceedings
Reg. §229.103. Item 103.
Describe briefly any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the registrant or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is the subject. Include the name of the court or agency in which the proceedings are pending, the date instituted, the principal parties thereto, a description of the factual basis alleged to underlie the proceeding and the relief sought. Include similar information as to any such proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities.
Instructions to Item 103.
1. If the business ordinarily results in actions for negligence or other claims, no such action or claim need be described unless it departs from the normal kind of such actions.
2. No information need be given with respect to any proceeding that involves primarily a claim for damages if the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed 10 percent of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. However, if any proceeding presents in large degree the same legal and factual issues as other proceedings pending or known to be contemplated, the amount involved in such other proceedings shall be included in computing such percentage.
3. Notwithstanding Instructions 1 and 2, any material bankruptcy, receivership, or similar proceeding with respect to the registrant or any of its significant subsidiaries shall be described.
4. Any material proceedings to which any director, officer or affiliate of the registrant, any owner of record or beneficially of more than five percent of any class of voting securities of the registrant, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate of the registrant, or security holder is a party adverse to the registrant or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the registrant or any of its subsidiaries also shall be described.
5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an administrative or judicial proceeding (including, for purposes of A and B of this Instruction, proceedings which present in large degree the same issues) arising under any Federal, State or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment shall not be deemed "ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business" and shall be described if:
A. Such proceeding is material to the business or financial condition of the registrant;
B. Such proceeding involves primarily a claim for damages, or involves potential monetary sanctions, capital expenditures, deferred charges or charges to income and the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds 10 percent of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis; or
C. A governmental authority is a party to such proceeding and such proceeding involves potential monetary sanctions, unless the registrant reasonably believes that such proceeding will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $100,000; provided, however, that such proceedings which are similar in nature may be grouped and described generically.
Ref: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/regsk.htm#leg
gump, after rereading the temp order again today, it seems like it can be interpreted either as banning trading for the company plus the three or applies to everyone. Among the charges against them is selling stock w/o registering it, getting a receipt for an exemption, and/or providing a prospectus. In the US, that normally refers to stock sold by the company itself not what's held in personal accounts.
bluediamonds also posted some links from proboards earlier today where a poster's broker supposedly told him the stock was banned from trading in Sask. Then, today his broker said it wasn't. At the very least, I think this order includes not only the insiders' personal accounts but also stock directly from the company.
Shaun resigned from GPVN. PR guy there said he's still with that one though as a consultant.
i think nearly all that have invested in CMKX know that it is an all or nothing shot, i don't expect to see my money sit in CMKX until I retire
Perhaps you think this way but unfortunately many others don't. Sterling, WillyWiz, Green Baron, Pedro, Dr. Diamonds, etc spent many months convincing a lot of people through their whacky projections that this stock is close to a guarantee of making them rich. Some have backpeddled a bit while others haven't. There's quite a few who still think it's only a matter of time before millions of dollars appear in their accounts.
Don't know if that poster is him or not, but he's associated w/ North Star.
Looks like Seagrove, which took over the former Carolyn Pipe claims, is one of Shaun Spelliscy's companies
Seagrove Capital Corporation - Goldilocks Prospect Saskatchewan Update
For further information: Seagrove Capital Corporation, (306) 543-5678,
Fax: (306) 543-5688, seagrove@imagewireless.ca
Ref: http://www.newswire.ca/releases/July2003/14/c2105.html
Shaun Spelliscy
P.O. Box 1111
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 3B2
Phone: (306) 543-5678
Fax: (306) 543-5688
Ref: http://www.gov.mb.ca/itm/mrd/info/companies/
Mr. Shaun Spelliscy, V. President, RIO NEVADA MINES CORPORATION @ 306-543-5678
Ref: http://www.infomine.com/press_releases/rn/pr111396rn.html
Seagrove also recently entered into a purchase agreement w/ Solitaire Minerals Corp. for some uranium claims located in Northern Saskatchewan.
Ref: http://www.solitaireminerals.com/gold/IR/NewsRelease.asp?News=&NRID=87
Are Regulators Conspiring With 'Short Sellers' In Trading Halts. Not Likely, Says Stock Patrol
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=23769957&brk=1
This is FinancialWire's rehash of Stockpatrol's last article.
bluediamonds: I reread the order again. Seems like it could apply to everyone in Sask so I take back what I previously said. As for whether it was lifted, the government's site still shows an expiration on 9 Nov: http://www.sfsc.gov.sk.ca/ssc/enforcementorders.shtml . I looked around a bit and didn't see anything saying it was shortened. Maybe the poster would be willing to ask his broker for a copy of what they have showing it was.
That's not the actual temp order though. It was addressed to the company and three individuals not to brokerages and others. They may have released something separately to them but I haven't seen it.
The order didn't apply to brokerages just to Urbie, Melvin, David, and the company itself.
Very interesting. /eom/
Like many others, Mach's anger is misdirected. It's far easier to blame a stock's price decline on naked shorters rather than realizing overvalued stocks eventually gravitate to a more realistic market cap. Although still overvalued, CMKX' price can't go too much lower w/o a r/s.
If he and others want to complain about shorters, go for it. Attention though will go straight to the insiders here because the complainers have no proof of illegal naked shorting nor can they justify this company deserves a market cap worth hundreds of millions to trillions. If he wants to stop losing money, then learn to trade.
I agree. It's not to their personal benefit though to be a reporting company because there is a higher, albeit not too much higher, level of regulatory scrutiny. Many investors assume public smallcap insiders share the same motivation to succeed as they do. The reality is many of them don't have the right skill set or the drive to grow a successful company.
Sure, Melvin is a loose cannon. IMO Urbie doesn't bring a whole lot to the table himself. Yes, they're amateurs at running a business but pretty adept at stock promoting.
With any luck the SEC might reveal the o/s. If they take enforcement action against USCA, I don't see why they wouldn't go after CMKX too. The two intertwined themselves so much.
From what I've read, it appears the whole event was well organized. I agree they should have said something even if it was to tell folks their attorney has advised them not to talk specifics due to the pending regulatory actions.
Since attendees didn't pay, the companies probably picked up the tab. Neither one has reported any revenues. So, the cost was probably born by their shareholders with the companies deducting this as a business expense.
Wow, you bought all that crap huh? Baaaaaa
I agree. It is arrogance.
Investors help breed this though by not learning how to properly invest/trade and be able to recognize whether a company has a viable business plan w/ qualified management as opposed to being a stock peddler. Both types can be played successfully if one learns when to buy, hold, and sell. Many also attach themselves w/ superglue onto folks who preach myths and unrealistic projections feeding into their greed emotion instead of constantly seeking out what is reality. So, normally intelligent people turn into a herd of passive, blind-folded sheep easily led to their slaughter. The system also breeds this arrogance because regulators are not agressive enough in prosecuting securities wrongdoers and most offenders only get their hands slapped instead of serious jail terms. This is not the first time some of these players (like Urbie and Mr Ed) have crossed too far over the line.
From what I've researched so far, none of the players here have run successful businesses in the past. To think they will drop their self-enrichment motives to run a sucessful, reputable business now is being overly wishful.
No, it's not minor charges. The temporary order, which btw could easily be made permanent, did not state timeframes for the offenses.
That's not what arete said hippie. Just pull out and read the Sask's Security Act of 1988. I posted the respective parts of it last night. What these guys are accused of doing is illegal. They're not the saints you and many others so want them to be. Live with it. Having securities regulators go after you is in no way good publicity. I doubt Urbie ever said this. If he did, please tell him to put it in writing for all to read.
Regulators don't care about a small company hosting a shareholder party. They move on their own timetable. I bet this was not a suprise to the players involved here or to Glenn.
Is selling unregistered shares not illegal outside Sask.?
Apparently nobody complained to the SEC, or they just don't care.:)
In the US, pinkies fall under state law for this. Many states do require that stock be registered before selling to their residents or be able to qualify for an exemption. If they broke state securities laws, each affected state could file a separate lawsuit and ban brokerages from selling the stock to their residents.
Aren't you able to tell right from wrong yet? What they did is illegal. They got caught. We live in a society of laws. If people don't follow them, we end up w/ chaos and people purposely hurting others w/o threat of any consequences.
In addition to the three named individuals, the company itself cannot trade any stock either. The order is forbidding them from buying/selling stock to Sask residents thru at least 9 Nov. The authorities can always decide to make this permanent.
arete: The SEC assigns a unique number called a CIK to each company filing reports. This number stays w/ the company even if it changes names several times. No, they cannot just start all over new by changing names. The CIK will link together all their filings.
And your point is? hehehe
Any idea why a claim gets restaked when it changes hands? Don't the boundaries on these stay the same?
Aaaah, the only thing that matters though is whether other people will listen to him and then buy the stock. They do.
LMRI: The SEC only has power to suspend a stock's trading for two weeks and add one or two extensions to it. For anything longer, they have to go to court and get a favorable ruling from a judge. It takes a winning case to do that.
It's hard to say whether the SEC went to the Saskatchewan regulators or they came to the SEC. Gump explained over on Mach's thread what Urbie, Melvin, and Mr Ed did. The censors over there though deleted his post, but you can read it here: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4420039
Yes, the SEC moves very slowly. Often times, they'll go after ones who have done less than others. To their defense, they have limited manpower and money -- these levels are set and approved by Congress and the President. With so much wrongdoing in the market, they have to pick and choose who to go after. My guess is within the next few weeks we'll see a litigation release with more than just USCA.
if there was any stock that should've been halted and investigated, it was CMKX. Yet they go after USCA. ... So what gives???
CMKX is a pinkie. The SEC rarely suspends trading on pinkies. I don't know why. Plus its price has been pretty flat and doesn't have much downside left to it.
My guess is the SEC will file legal paperwork in the next few weeks giving more details here.
"5. The Respondents have, with the intention of effecting trades in the securities of CMKI and CMKM, made statements which they know or ought reasonably to know are misrepresentations, contrary to subsection 44(3.1) of the Act;"
Prohibition on representations
44(1) No person or company shall, with the intention of effecting a trade in a security or an exchange contract, make any representation, written or oral, that the person or company or any other person or company will:
(a) resell or repurchase a security;
(b) refund all or any of the purchase price of a security;
(c) refund all or any margin or premium paid with respect to an exchange contract; or
(d) assume all or part of an obligation under an exchange contract.
(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a security that carries or is accompanied by:
(a) an obligation of the issuer to redeem or repurchase the security; or
(b) a right of the owner of the security to require the issuer to redeem or repurchase the security.
(2) No person or company shall, with the intention of effecting a trade in a security or exchange contract, give any undertaking, written or oral, relating to the future value or price of that security or exchange contract.
(3) Except with the written permission of the Director, no person or company shall, with the intention of effecting a trade in a security, make any representation, written or oral, that:
(a) the security will be listed on any exchange; or
(b) an application has been or will be made to list the security on any exchange.
(3.1) No person or company shall, with the intention of effecting a trade in a security or exchange contract, make a statement that the person or company knows, or ought reasonably to know, is a misrepresentation.
(4) This section does not apply to any representation mentioned in subsection (1) made to a person or company where:
(a) the representation is contained in an enforceable written agreement; and
(b) the security has an aggregate acquisition cost of more than $150,000.
1988-89, c.S-42.2, s.44; 1995, c.32, s.30; 2001,
c.7, s.13.
Ref: The Securities Act, 1988 http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/S42-2.pdf
"4. The Commission or Director has not issued an order pursuant to sections 83, 160 or any other provision of the Act exempting the Respondents and the securities of CMKI and CMKM from the registration and prospectus requirements of the Act;"
Order re exemption or declaration
83(1) On the application of an interested person or company, or on its own motion and where it is satisfied that to do so would not be prejudicial to the public interest, the Commission may:
(a) rule:
(i) that any trade, intended trade, security, person, company or issuer, or any class of trades, securities, persons, companies or issuers is not subject to section 27 or 58;
(ii) that any person or company or class of persons or companies is exempt from any provision of the Act or regulations relating to section 27 or 58 with respect to its application to any trade or class of trades;
(iii) that any person or company is deemed to be a reporting issuer for any or all purposes of the Act or the regulations;
(iv) that any trade is deemed to be or not to be a distribution; or
(v) that, for any or all purposes of the Act or the regulations, any person or company is deemed not to be in default of:
(A) any written undertaking made by that person or company to the Commission or the Director; or
(B) any provision of this Act, the regulations or a decision of the Commission or the Director; and
(b) impose such terms and conditions on a ruling made pursuant to clause (a) that it considers necessary.
(2) Subject to subsection 158(3), a decision of the Commission made pursuant to subsection (1) is final and there is no appeal from that decision.
1988-89, c.S-42.2, s.83; 1995, c.32, s.43.
General exemption
160(1) Where, in the opinion of the Commission, it is not prejudicial to the public interest, it may by order exempt any:
(a) person or company or category of persons or companies; or
(b) trade or distribution or classes of trade or distribution; from all or any provision of this Act or the regulations.
(2) The Commission may impose any terms and conditions on an order made pursuant to subsection (1) that it considers appropriate.
1988-89, c.S-42.2, s.160.
Ref: The Securities Act, 1988 http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/S42-2.pdf
"3. The Respondents traded in the securities of CMKI and CMKM when no receipt had been issued pursuant to section 58 of the Act with respect to those securities;"
Prospectus required
58(1) No person or company shall trade in a security on the person’s or the company’s own account or on behalf of any other person or company where the trade would be a distribution of the security unless:
(a) a preliminary prospectus relating to the distribution of that security has been filed and the Director has issued a receipt for it; and
(b) a prospectus relating to the distribution of that security has been filed and the Director has issued a receipt for it.
(2) A preliminary prospectus and a prospectus may be filed in accordance with this Part to enable the issuer to become a reporting issuer, notwithstanding the fact that no distribution pursuant to the prospectus is contemplated.
(3) A preliminary prospectus and prospectus may be filed pursuant to this section in the prescribed form where the distribution under the prospectus takes place through the facilities of an exchange recognized for this purpose by the Commission, in accordance with the bylaws, regulations or policies of the exchange.
(4) An abbreviated form of preliminary prospectus and an abbreviated form of prospectus may, if permitted by the Commission, be filed pursuant to this section in the form prescribed by the Commission.
1988-89, c.S-42.2, s.58; 1995, c.32, s.35.
Ref: The Securities Act, 1988 http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/S42-2.pdf
"2. The Respondents traded in the securities of CMKI and CMKM when they were not registered pursuant to section 27 of the Act;"
Registration for trading
27(1) Subject to subsection (2) and sections 38, 39 and 39.1, no person or company shall:
(a) trade in a security or exchange contract unless the person or company is:
(i) registered as a dealer; or
(ii) registered as a salesperson, a partner or an officer of a registered dealer and is acting on behalf of the dealer;
(b) Repealed. 2001, c.7, s.7.
(c) act as an adviser unless the person or company is:
(i) registered as an adviser; or
(ii) registered as an employee, as a partner or as an officer of a registered adviser and is acting on behalf of the adviser; and, where the registration is subject to terms and conditions, the person or company complies with those terms and conditions.
(2) Repealed. 2001, c.7, s.7.
(3) The termination of the employment with a registered dealer or registered adviser of a registrant who is an individual operates as a suspension of the registration of the registrant until:
(a) notice has been received by the Director from another registered dealer or registered adviser of the employment of that individual by the other registered dealer or registered adviser; and
(b) the reinstatement of the registration has been approved by the Director.
(4) The Director may designate as "non-trading" any employee or category of employees of a registered dealer if the employee or category of employees does not usually trade in securities or exchange contracts.
(5) A designation made pursuant to subsection (4) may be cancelled as to any employee or category of employees where the Director is satisfied that the employee or any member of the category of employees should be required to apply for registration as a salesperson, employee, partner or officer.
1988-89, c.S-42.2, s.27; 1995, c.32, s.18; 2001,
c.7, s.7.
Ref: The Securities Act, 1988 http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/S42-2.pdf
Well, they're entitled to legal counsel too. Some attorneys choose to specialize in them. Glenn happens to be one. Depending on the wrongdoing, these securities cases can easily turn into criminal lawsuits. So, it's a good idea to hire someone who has more experience than just doing regular filings.
Most attorneys representing public smallcaps get paid extremely well. Many smallcap officers also give themselves far more compensation than they would ever receive doing the same amount of work for a large cap. This is easy to do even if your company generates no revenues when the public picks up the tab.
Okay, thanks Lee. Too bad their info isn't as open as ours. Guess it's a waiting game.
Lee: Do you have any guesses on how the British regulators fit in here? I checked on Langley Park today and didn't see any announcements for them.
If Glenn was so concerned, he wouldn't have spent so many years working w/ smallcap companies and smallcap financers. Another thing to consider is none of us know what transpired between him and CMKX or him and USCA. Perhaps he accepted because they doubled his fee or it was one of those a friend of a friend asked. Regardless of why he accepted, we will now see how he really performs assuming he is acting as attorney in these specific cases. I don't think Glenn has a license to practice law in Canada so they may need to hookup w/ a local firm up there.
Glenn's publication was aimed at teaching others about the requirements. He is not at fault when a client doesn't listen or takes on someone after wrongdoing has already occurred. If Glenn personally participated in any wrongdoing, it would hurt not only his reputation but also his career. If he did not participate, the only ones who may look down on him are die-hard CMKXers who have had problems separating the role of a company's attorney verus its officers/directors.
Did OJ Simpson's attorneys have their reputations tarnished among those who matter? No. They took on more high-profile cases and became even richer.
CMKX is a pinkie. Pinkies are not required to tell investors anything. Disclosure requirements are for reporting companies. If CMKX has the large assets like they've claimed, they should be doing SEC filings. They do have until 31 Dec to reduce them to avoid even that requirement.
However, all we can do is take Glenn for what he's worth (based on his resume) and believe that he would not touch CMKX with a 1000ft. pole if those "problems" were SEC-related. Why would he waste his time when E&A's client list reads like a corporate all-star team?
Glenn has a lot of expertise in this area. As long as his high fees are paid, it really doesn't matter who his clients are. His own reputation is neither improved nor tarnished by the client's reputation. It is determined by how well he performs on their cases. Anyone who is in trouble w/ the SEC would want the best qualified person he can get.
E&A lists their prestigious clients not all the no-named ones they also represent.