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.
Actually the OSC has halted trade and will determine at the hearing if the halt will be extended..
mo
Bd
For those who do not know what a Wells Notice is"
Wells notice
A Wells notice is used when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission might bring an enforcement action against a person or a firm. The Wells Notice indicates that the SEC staff has determined it may bring a civil action against the target.
There is no legal requirement for a regulator to provide a Wells Notice, however, it is the practice of the SEC and the NASD to provide such notice.
In 1972, SEC Chairman William J. Casey appointed a committee (chaired by John Wells and commonly referred to as the “Wells Committee”) to review and evaluate the SEC’s enforcement policies and practices. Among the recommendations made by the Wells Committee was the following:
"Except where the nature of the case precludes, a prospective defendant or respondent should be notified of the substance of the staff’s charges and probable recommendations in advance of the submission of the staff memorandum to the Commission recommending the commencement of an enforcement action and be accorded an opportunity to submit a written statement to the staff to be forwarded to the Commission together with the staff memorandum."
Although the SEC did not adopt many of the recommendations of the Wells Committee it did adopt this recommendation, and the notice is now known as a “Wells Notice” and the prospective defendant’s response is a “Wells Submission.” The NASD also uses a form of the procedure in its investigations.
end
I would dare say that sljb, PV, Kore, AD and SS know they are under investigation and don't need a Wells Notice. It is not a requirement for an investigation. And, it is the US SEC that sends the Notice. And, since the OEC is investigating them, it seems that the nature of this case precludes the sending of a Wells Notice.
mo
BD
By that ruling Airys has done nothing wrong. It is PV that is giving what might be called selective insider information to Airys. With Airys posting this information asap (to be within 24hrs) he is not with-holding insider information. PV giving information knowing that it will be posted only here at IHUB and on Airys website is the person culpable for this information to the general public rather than just here at the board.
I commend Airys for his persistence in this matter. He is NOT part of the scam.
mo
BD
For ease of the trail, I have used the prosecution by the OSC and SEC. IF the determination of the hearing deems prosecution, yes it will be turned over to the justice department for trial. Repeating this over and over is rather lengthy...just trying to make it easier to read. Sorry if I missed any facts for anyone..
mo
BD
No, I feel that PV has the know-how to set all this up. Maybe SS (since he is a day trader) and PV thought it up all by themselves. And, Loftworks was AD's.
Anything that determines AD's complicity in the allegations is directly determined by how well he distanced himself from PV,Kore and SS after the purchase of Loftworks. With PV having the possibility of loosing a lot of money, and check out all that could happen:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement/Proceedings/AlphaListing/ep_s_index.jsp
I am sure he will not try to protect AD. Besides there are probably subpoena's for Sulja's and Kore's records and investigators talking to the employees of Kore that were doing the trading.
If AD didn't have any doing with the accounts and PR's, then PV and maybe SS really screwed thimselves royally.
I don't really think that the OSC would have set a hearing if they thoght there was nothing there. Do You?
Actually, I do hope he has the evidence to clear himself. I would be willing for all this to subside to get on with business with PV being just plain stupid.
mo
BD
For those who do not know what a Wells Notice is"
Wells notice
A Wells notice is used when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission might bring an enforcement action against a person or a firm. The Wells Notice indicates that the SEC staff has determined it may bring a civil action against the target.
There is no legal requirement for a regulator to provide a Wells Notice, however, it is the practice of the SEC and the NASD to provide such notice.
In 1972, SEC Chairman William J. Casey appointed a committee (chaired by John Wells and commonly referred to as the “Wells Committee”) to review and evaluate the SEC’s enforcement policies and practices. Among the recommendations made by the Wells Committee was the following:
"Except where the nature of the case precludes, a prospective defendant or respondent should be notified of the substance of the staff’s charges and probable recommendations in advance of the submission of the staff memorandum to the Commission recommending the commencement of an enforcement action and be accorded an opportunity to submit a written statement to the staff to be forwarded to the Commission together with the staff memorandum."
Although the SEC did not adopt many of the recommendations of the Wells Committee it did adopt this recommendation, and the notice is now known as a “Wells Notice” and the prospective defendant’s response is a “Wells Submission.” The NASD also uses a form of the procedure in its investigations.
end
If the OSC convicts and submits the investigative papers and determinations to the SEC, they are not required to send a Wells Notice as the determinations is precluded. The SEC is not required to send a Wells Notice anyway. Also the Wells Submition is a confidential response to the notice and can be used in court against the respondent. Serious consideration should be used in response to a Wells Notice.
mo
BD
That I don't know. More than likely the SEC is going to let the OSC do all the preliminary inquiries and if convicted, the OSC would only have to turn over the SEC and all findings will have been done for them. I am sure that the OSC and the SEC have been in contact with them. With the PV's residence in Canada and the most obvious violator, the OSC probably has first choice. Once the outcome is determined then the SEC can take over as AD is an American Citizen.
My Opinion
BD
No, as the information and investigational process would have been completed to conviction. All the OSC would have to do is turn over the records.
mo
BD
updated last message.
I believe that the OIC (criminal courts) probably have a unilateral agreement considering the laws of the OIC and SEC are similar. I would believe a criminal conviction in Canada should have a similar proceeding in the US as the same SEC rules have been violated. It is not like someone commited a crime in the US and cannot be extradited from Canada. SLJB is an american corporation. The alledged crime was dually comitted in Canada and in the US. IF the OIC offer a conviction, then the evidence would be awfully convincing in an American court with allegations brought up by the SEC. in fact an easy conviction for the SEC. I for one would not want to be the SEC if there is a criminal conviction and not do anything. The Press would have a field day. That would be cool that PV and AD fined by the OIC and the SEC if dual convictions arise. They better have DEEEEEEP pockets.
mo
BD
I know you did not post to me, but..
The OIC has halted trading of SLJB stock through the Canadian stock market and has extended the halt until this is resolved.
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement/Proceedings/NOH/noh_20061227_suljabros.jsp
The SEC might halt it, also, or see what the OIC does before taking any action what so ever. Gotta quarter..call it-heads or tails.....
Price? Got me. Just doesn't seem logical that it would go up.
mo
Bd
Well, I would tell him "Good Luck". He should be really careful what he does on the blog and what information he gives to anybody now. You are right that the blog is nothing but trying to validify what was done. I don't believe for a second that the OIC will have the blog and say "oh, ok."
mo
BD
Absolutely! Posting the AF's as they were given to PV, he admits that he would go to jail. He knew that he no longer could control the arena there and I believe is trying hard to find a "get out of jail free card". That, plus the Windsor article was the start of the unraveling of the characters concerned here. Having a trustee account also did not eliminate any insider trading per the SEC and was required to be submitted for approval. So, his saying he did not own any stock shares doesn't hold water either. Or, that AD was not involved with SLJB. Seems the OIC agree..
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement/Proceedings/NOH/noh_20061227_suljabros.jsp
It seems that he might not be able to do anything but drop a dime on AD...lol
My Opinion
BD
There are rules that bind management and consultants against distributing insider information, whether public pr, websites, selective insider information and blogs. To the best of my knowledge, PV is still a consultant and there to answer questions. The kicker is conversations with senior management which is insider information. Just saying that he no longer is the CEO doesn't hold water.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
It also includes the pink sheets. Long read, but worth it.
mo
BD
If the discovery deems that AD and PV were soley the brains of this activity, and SS had no part, I would believe all moneys profited by AD and PV would be returned to SLJB and the fines etc. would come out of AD and PV's pockets since the funds couldn't be returned to the stockholders. Unless, it was set up that the company use the moneys to rebuy the stock at a set price for owners of stock at a particular date. I really don't know what I am talking about here, just rambling. Probably wouldn't be anything left after lawyers were done anyway. Hopefully the company will continue forward.
mo
BD
You are right. Just optionsxpress wouldn't let me do a trailing stop.
mo
Bd
You might be right. If he was no part of this cherade, then PV and AD have raped his company, his name, his reputation and his well-being. I would have also called the OIC. It would make sense that the lawyers have gagged him and the company. PV might be in deep doodoo. Man, what conspiracy theories we have..lol
mo
BD
And I won't work in a restaurant! (FGFC)
mo
BD
lol You have got a point there. Maybe buy them with the part time job someone is going to offer me...
mo
BD
I am sure there are contacts in the ME that won't follow this tirade and recognize the name SULJA as trustworthy. Besides I do believe they do have the new cement contract that would be worth buying the company for.
We all should just get together and buy majority shares and elect our own CEO and do what needs to be done.
mo
BD
Thank...I needed that. LOL
BD
By the way...probably need a part time job, now..anybody hiring?
lol
mo
BD
True. Having been in business for a while, I know that it is very difficult to keep emotions out of the decision making process.. I have promoted persons that I did not personally like, but could do an outstanding job in that position. I have taken stores that I was told would do no business by neighboring stores ending up them playing catch-up to my progress. I have learned that management decisions and the tone created within the company is what makes it successful. All goes no farther than the reputation.
I have no emotional attatchment with SLJB other than the investment and (like others) would like my money back. The problem is with sljb management, not the company itself or the investors (infestors?) and get this board back to what it should be - a discussion of events and sharing of information. IF current management is taken out of the company, new CEO or sold, the success of the company can be a future.
mo
BD
I agree that all new investors need both side of the picture. The problem with some posters is with personal attacks and those stating that longs are stupid (one particularly pissed me off by calling me a pathetic investor). Though we have lost a lot here, we are still people. Reminds me of bullies in the schoolyard. Just can't help rediculing others when they are down. It shows a lot of their character.
mo
BD
If PV, AD and SS are part of this circus and the OIC and SEC remove them, SLJB would probably be sold unless they have someone in mind to run the company. I think I would rather it be sold. Hopefully to someone that takes their company's success seriously and keep their instant gratification (as many of us here have) out of the picture.
mo
BD
I didn't stay long on purpose. I work where there is no computer that I can use. The stock dropped so fast that there was no reason to sell at such a loss. imo. I use optionsxpress and they wouldn't let me do a trailing stop on this stock. Probably since it was a grey stock. At that time, there seemed to be some hope that it would rise again if PV got it together with the AF's. Lots have transpired since then.
mo
BD
Very good post..
mo
BD
I am long here, but it sure does seem this way to me. Check out all the dd, check out the oic link and the sec link from my last post. Read all the past pr's and see what has materialized. Hopefully SS had no part and SLJB will continue. IF all allegations are true, PV and AD need to be penalized to the fullest extent of the law here and in Canada.
mo
BD
It seems that PV and AD initiated a well orchestrated attempt to make millions off stockholders. They rm Sulja Bros into Loftworks (not really clear if it is finalized). Set up trustee accounts with which it seems Kore employees were able to buy or sell sljb stock with the direction of PV and AD. They were able to sell into the highs with PR's, blog, anticipated AF's, etc. If PV thinks he is not culpable, read this link on the rules of disclosure - http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
All of this might have worked without a hitch if sljb didn't appear to be such an undervalued stock with tremendous potential for success and not gain so much attention. I doubt seriously that PV and AD expected as much attention and scruteny from investors. Many invested in this stock due to the proforma, pr's, and anticipation of the AF's. SLJB received such attention - calls, faxes, visits, Windsor Star attention. calls to the OIC and SEC that it seems that PV did the only thing correct in this circus. He did not submit the AF's. He was right that if he put them out as is, he probably would go to jail.
The only thing I can see from here is to let the OIC do their thing. PV and AD go to the hearing, then to criminal court for their actions. I do not think that PV or AD have the proof to rebuke the allegatons by the OIC and be finalized with an order by the OIC. I would think the SEC would follow suit shortly thereafter. - http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement/Proceedings/NOH/noh_20061227_suljabros.jsp
It seems to me that the lawyers have gagged SLJB and SS to try to distance them from PV and AD. If it can be proven that SS had no hand in this circus, there might be some hope for SLJB down the road. If this stock survives, we have a LONG term investment. Lot of IF's here.
I have lost only what I can afford and feel the loss of those who will endure hardships due to the activities of a few. Hopefully there will be a light at the end of the tunnel.
My Opinion
BD
Either way, trustee account or nominating trustees does not eliminate his liability to the selling of the shares..
mo
BD
I agree..the way I read the post, PV, Steve, trustees or anyone affiliated with sljb must stop trading..
mo
BD
Actually catching up on sljb. Probably did better than others there. I lost only one arm, knee cap, kidney and an ear. Gonna hobble over to another stock, I guess. Interesting read this morning, though..long read but really good about insider disclosure. I believe that PV is still has liability for continued information to Airys. Might want to check it out.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
mo
BD
Nah, nothing that'll stick..
lol
BD
lol..Boy wouldn't that be cute..
mo
Bd
not so. PV has regular conversations with Steve, the board? and the lawyers which gives him insider information which makes his postings, letters and conversations intentional selective disclosure.
mo
BD
I was pointing more to the selling of sljb stock. Even through a third person or entity is insider trading. Nominating Trustees does not eliminate the liability of disclosure. The disclosure act was in 2000 with many amendments (long read), determines what is intentional (including PR's and selective disclosure) and non-intentional (reckless). The selling of their own stock seems to be a biggie to me.
mo
BD
It took a while, but I read the full material,non-material disclosure act
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
It seems that Airys did nothing wrong considering he immediately forwarded the contact, conversations, letters, etc to the board.
Contrary, it seems PV and Devries and perhaps Steve is in deep doodoo. My take is even though SLJB is a non-reporting company, material information-ie: splits, buying of stock, retiring, selling of stock, etc. even through a third person or entity, relates to insider transactions. Actions as this must be pre-announced through public vehicle-even through their website. Confidential particulars need not be advertised. Violations can be determined with intentional (knowing) or non-intentional (reckless). Being a grey or non reporting stock does not eliminate the responsibility or liability.
I have been long with this stock for a while and have been anticipating a rise in SP, though down substantially from my original investments here. It may be a while for all this to shake out. Good luck to me..
my opinion
BD
Agreed!
mo
BD
Great Post!
mo
BD
Good post
mo
BD