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.
We know that right now,we own 49% of UCAD.
Once distributed, CMKX won't hold any of those shares. The percentage will decrease quite a bit over time.
Prove it dusty. Post the names and numbers of the people you talked to at the TA's.
The SoS will send you a copy of a company's articles of incorp if you ask. It's public record. Usually, they charge a small fee.
You can see the original articles of incorp and bylaws right here (scroll down towards the bottom): http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1092299/0000938492-99-000407-index.html
So the R/S was filed and PR'd after the market closed on Friday.
They may have PR'd it after hours, but the daily list entry for that one shows 13:33 (1:33 pm). So, they definitely filed before the market closed. In many cases, the only advance notice you'll get is on the daily lists.
Geez, this zebra never changes his stripes. Same MO on every stock he goes into. It's amazing he has any followers left.
Sterling has been attending. I don't know if the hours he spends there now are less than before. He has not stayed completely away.
if he's not going in anymore based on a recommendation they should rename it...
If he stops going, then I agree. Someone might have to takeover responsibility for ensuring the room is paid or go to a free version which holds far less.
Yes, if he and his buddies hold the majority of shares.
Urbie has to report any split to Nasdaq. The same 10-day notice applies. Unfortunately, they don't enforce this rule very well thus some companies submit r/s the day before it happens. Say Urbie did the same thing. You would still have a couple hours to try and get out if you're watching the Nasdaq's daily list.
The problem is most here probably wouldn't believe whoever first caught and reported it. Even after others verified the info was coming from a valid source, many would waste the time away attacking them rather than believe Urbie would ever do such a thing.
providing there is a large number of restricted shares that won't recieve the div
The only difference between holders of restricted stock and holders of free-trading stock is the former is required to hold theirs for a period of time before selling. They both have the same rights and are entitled to the same dividends.
skunksyard: The room is named: "Sterling's New Classroom" on Paltalk: http://www.paltalk.com/ . I think Sterling set up the room 2-3 months ago. Participants probably chat on whatever they want w/o a formal agenda.
From what others have said, it appears Melvin spends several hours in there pretty much every day, and Sterling shows up a few hours on some evenings. I don't know if Sterling's attendance hours now are less than before he went to Canada. Maybe a regular chatroom groupie can shed some light on it.
The behavior and atmosphere are controlled by the other admins. From what I've heard, they're very Hitler-like. Those who start raising too many negatives get jumped on, told to shut up, or get booted. It sounds like it's hard to have a well-balanced discussion just like it is on these boards at times.
after creating this fiasco he's been advised to leave these people?
Look at it thru Glenn's eyes because he's the one who made the suggestion. CMKX is just another client to him. Glenn is paid for every hour he works. If CMKX doesn't pay him, he doesn't work. What he's basically saying is why take on all this extra work, hassle, and headache if you aren't getting paid; you don't owe anything to all these other people.
I doubt Sterling created the fiasco, but he has added fuel to the fire. For this, chances are he will be a scapegoat if this doesn't turn out well for everyone. This may just be another case where insiders capitalized on the public's herd-mentality. Before arriving in CMKX, Sterling was trading stocks. His MO was to wait for the price to swing then quietly sell and leave. It would be interesting if someone pinned him down and specifically asked: how many shares have you sold and at what price? He has made some outrageous projections. Surely, he believed his own theories and hasn't sold any stock right?
skunksyard: Check this out: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3861553
According to Willy, there was no mention of charities when people were signing the list. He thinks Sterling raised the needy issue later w/ Urbie.
Yes, there was a rumor about Sterling controlling share distribution. Sterling claims he only added names to the list and hasn't seen the entire thing. It's hard getting a straight answer out of him. One day he talked about how to distribute restricted stock via his mytrack to others, and the next day he said he only controls his own and no one else's. The guy, who posted about the 2500 club which started the rumors, was a Paltalk admin at the time and said he spoke to Sterling or one of the others who went up there before he did so.
well I'm not clear why Glenn asked him to do this...did he have access to inside info? / didn't he.....if he did, why? if he didnt', why can't he go into the room?
Sterling can go in the room, and he has since being back. Glenn suggested he ought to consider leaving the high tension environment and completely ignore everyone and do his own thing. I don't know if he had access to insider info. He believes he has.
any chance he could have bought these from the daily flood of shares?
Urbie initially received 600M shares which were supposedly put into escrow for three years right? If he honored this, then he would need to issue himself more shares before selling right? So, what reason(s) did he use for doing so? -- I don't expect you to know. According to the one PR, Urbie had at least 40 billion shares.
40 billion x .0001 = $4M (issue price???)
40 billion x .0004 = $16M (value today)
I kinda doubt he pulled $4M or whatever out of his own pocket to pay for these. If he does have this type of money, it's odd he hasn't paid off those who put liens on his property in Canada. Does this amount represent his annual salary and bonus? If it does, that's very high and would be a recurring annual dilution on the stock.
The new CEO of RAMO has no tie to those named in the action.
This is true, but he has his own set of problems.
On May 20, 2004, Oretech, Inc. ("Oretech") filed a lawsuit("Complaint") against its former Chief Executive Officer, Stephen D. Cummins, and several other individuals and entities. The Complaint was filed in The Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia and seeks to recover damages and other equitable relief against the defendants, including the return of a substantial number of shares of Oretech common stock, which had been inappropriately issued.
The primary defendant in the case was Stephen D. Cummins, who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Oretech from April 1, 2003, until November 25,2003. Mr. Cummins also served on Oretech's Board of Directors from April 1,2003, until January 26, 2004. Among the wrongdoings of Stephen Cummins alleged in the Complaint were breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion and conspiracy. The facts on which the lawsuit was based are set forth below.
Prior to March 31, 2003, Oretech was named "The Tantivy Group, Inc." and had been involved in various information technology and "dot.com" related businesses. Stephen Cummins was a member of The Tantivy Group, Inc.'s Board ofDirectors on March 31, 2003. Stephen Cummins was also the President of PTI Ventures, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Ventures") and Chief Executive Officer of PTI Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation("Enterprises"), and had served in such capacities since June, 2001.
On March 31, 2003, The Tantivy Group, Inc. entered into an agreement("March 31 Agreement") with Enterprises, pursuant to which The Tantivy Group,Inc. acquired Enterprises in a stock for stock acquisition. The result of thetransaction was that the shareholders of Enterprises became the controlling shareholders of The Tantivy Group, Inc. Upon consummation of this March 31 Agreement, The Tantivy Group, Inc. changed its name to "Oretech, Inc."Enterprises also changed its name to "Oretech Corporation."
Stephen Cummins signed the March 31 Agreement as the Chief Executive Officer and President of The Tantivy Group, Inc.
The March 31 Agreement provided that The Tantivy Group, Inc. wouldissue 20,907,000 newly issued shares of common stock to the Enterprises shareholders in exchange for all of their shares of Enterprises common stock.
At some point in time, in between the execution of the March 31 Agreement and the resulting issuance of 20,907,000 shares of Oretech common stock to the Enterprises shareholders in April 2003, Stephen Cummins inappropriately issued an additional 5,750,000 shares of Oretech common stock to himself, his wife, his former wife, his son, his daughter, his parents and to various other friends and acquaintances. These other persons besides Stephen Cummins are referred to herein as the "secondary defendants." The inappropriate issuance of these 5,750,000 was not known by or approved by Oretech or its shareholders and was an act committed by Stephen Cummins solely for his benefit and the benefit of the secondary defendants, whom the Complaint alleges have been unjustly enriched.
In October and November of 2003, the Oretech Board of Directors became aware of the unauthorized issuance of the subject 5,750,000 shares. The Boardalso began questioning many of the decisions being made, and actions being taken, by Stephen Cummins, most of which were in furtherance of his personal interests and opposed to the interests of Oretech and its shareholders.
Despite numerous demands for Stephen Cummins to return the 5,750,000 shares of common stock, he refused to do so. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
On May 21, 2004, Stephen Cummins acknowledged that he had been served with the Complaint and agreed to promptly return all of the Oretech shares issued to him personally and to coordinate the return of all the other shares issued to the secondary defendants. In return for his agreement to return theshares, Oretech postponed a hearing for equitable relief.
Since the Complaint was filed, Stephen Cummins has returned 458,000 shares and the secondary defendants have returned 1,575,000 shares of commonstock to Oretech. Oretech has now taken measures to obtain a default judgment against Stephen Cummins, as he has failed to answer the Complaint and has failed to live up to his written agreement to return all of his wrongfully issuedshares to Oretech.
Oretech has placed an administrative hold on all of the shares held by Mr. Cummins and TIC Trust pending resolution of the litigation.
The shares that have been surrendered for cancellation, as well as the other shares Oretech will recover as a result of the Complaint will becancelled, thereby substantially reducing the number of shares of common stock issued and outstanding.
Ref: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040709/orte.ob8-k.html
this one first..doesn't he have to do this to maintain control? (I'm thinking this 100 billion plus whatever other folks in his inner circle own?)
There's no requirement for him to maintain control. Most smallcaps like to do so because then they don't have to get approval from outside shareholders when they want to do things like raise the a/s, change the company's name, etc.
A CEO is just an employee and is not supposed to issue himself shares at will because he wants to maintain personal control. It has to be tied to a legit reason such as: Is his salary being paid in shares? Does his employment contract entitle him to free bonus shares or to purchase shares to maintain control? Is he purchasing these as part of an employee stock option plan? Did he give the company a loan in exchange for these? There has to be something there.
do we know that all these shares are for *gifts*?
No, but they are being called gifts. Those who worked the races probably view it as compensation for their time.
what was the criteria for the *invite*?
Good question for Sterling to answer. I don't know. Supposedly, he was sharing some of his speculation and opinions with them. Could be they invited him up as a reward for the strong support given in the forums and chat. Wouldn't be the first time a smallcap did this.
to my point....rename the room
Sterling didn't take Glenn's advice on this. I think he's addicted to the limelight.
Not necessarily. It may have been said out of ignorance.
Hmmm, guess John Ed Dhonau isn't finished selling. Let's see if the MMs bring UCAD's price back over $6 again for him.
Yeah, otcpro is getting paid quite well. What's 50K when trying to sell off 960K (50K of which went to otcpro).
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/print_filings.jsp?url=%2Fredirect.asp%3Ffilename%3D0001277505%252D04....
The date of record was 20 Aug. If the stock was issued/settled by the DOR, the shares are part of the 483 billion o/s already. If not, no problem -- Urbie can raise the a/s anytime. Nevada has no limitation on how high a company wants to make its a/s. Have you checked the SoS to see whether it has been increased again?
Pedro: I don't know if Uribe plans to distribute right to each person or pick Sterling or a couple others to do it instead. I was trying to say all this stock isn't going to just the needy. Probably most on the list are not truly needy.
Cybermark was located in Canada and incorporated in Delaware. After Urbie purchased Cybermark, he changed the company's name and reincorporated it in Nevada. You look in CMKX' old SEC filings for info. I haven't checked to see whether the previous owner set up another company.
skunksyard ...
1) Good question. Perhaps an accountant here can answer this one cause I don't know.
2) If any outsiders have access to the entire "gift" list, they are staying very quiet. I think it was Coreton who said he saw 40-50 names. At what point in time this was who knows. Sterling claims he hasn't seen the entire list.
3) CIM is a private company. Shares in a private company are pretty worthless unless you get a cash dividend, they are bought back from you, or the stock trades someday so you can sell it. When I checked w/ the SoS on 5 Aug, the a/s was only 25 million shares. Someone should probably check to see if it was raised to account for all the extra shares. Last I heard, these free CMKX and CIM shares have not been distributed yet.
4) Yes, it is indeed dilution, but the dilution actually occurs at the time Urbie issues the shares to himself. It's not normally felt in the market until they hit into the float and start trading. If the info was widely distributed, it could start affecting trading now. Not everyone reads these boards or goes to Sterling's chatroom. Those who do still have no clue on the total being distributed. So many are focused on the "gift" recipients and few seem to care on finding out why Urbie is issuing himself all these shares in the first place or who has been doing all this selling.
5) Probably because they knew the non-recipients would be angry. If they could have kept it secret, I bet they would have even thru today.
6) There's nothing wrong w/ a shareholder visiting a company he owns stock in. The timing of this visit makes it look very suspicious though. Sterling supposedly tried to keep this secret because others who found out were trying to also go, and they weren't invited. He thought it would be a nightmare if he announced it and everyone tried to do the same.
1) Probably the only way you'll find out for sure is to get a bunch of investors to pool their shares together in a voting block and demand the company open up its books. Nevada requires something like holders representing 10% of the o/s. Since CMKX avoids answering people who ask what the amount is, you can probably just pick any o/s number you want for this purpose.
2) I think the decision was made before the Denver race.
3) Sterling will have to answer what he did there. Interacting w/ such a large number of people is a huge headache -- it's very time consuming, you get attacked, you get threatened, etc. My understanding is Glenn suggested to Sterling that he take himself out of the high tension environment he was in and just ignore everyone in the chat and the forums.
You shouldn't be posting insider info on this board. hehehe
ergo: Why pay $2M for only a mill when the entire assets are worth a total of $1.75M? When ATEG disposed of NCM, they only received $40,000 and wrote off the rest.
In fiscal 2001, the Company disposed of New Concept Mining, Inc. ("NCM"), a former subsidiary, including the note receivable balance of $1,676,000 (see Note 9).
NOTE 9 - DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
--------------------------------
On March 8, 2001, the Company entered into a stock purchase agreement with Overseas Investment, an unrelated company, to sell its entire common stock interest in NCM for $40,000. The Company received $25,000 and will receive the balance of $15,000 in December 2003. As the net book value of the NCM assets was $1,748,164 and the liabilities of NCM assumed by the buyer were estimated at approximately $732,500, the loss on disposal was $975,642, which is included in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended July 31, 2001. Operating losses of NCM for the years ended July 31, 2002 and 2001 have been reclassified for presentation purposes. Revenues of NCM for the years ended July 31, 2002 and 2001 were $0 and $0, respectively.
Ref: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/878547/000101968702002104/atg_10k-073102.txt
I think Overseas Investment might be this company here which is run by the Prez of NCM:
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2029819
https://secure.sos.state.ms.us/busserv/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?222196
Pedro: IMO none of the three scenarios you posted are correct. Urbie wanted to show his appreciation to shareholders who attended or worked at the races by giving them some free shares. They created a list for shareholders to sign up. Urbie said if they knew of any needy people they could add their names too. The list is not of all needy people. WillyWizard is on the list. Do you consider him needy? The share recipients can do whatever they want with the stock -- keep it, give it away, destroy it, or whatever. There is no obligation for them to give it to folks who you or I would consider really needy.
As for how the distribution will work, I suggest you contact Glenn or Urbie. Urbie can distribute his own holdings to whomever and however he wants, but frankly it appears he may be self-dealing here. IMO that should be more of a concern.
Area 51 -- the Air Force does. Nellis Air Force Base is located in Rachel, Nevada too.
* New Concept Mining Inc
Alamo, NV (zip: 89001)
Company lists gold-mining claims available for sale in Alaska, California, Washington, and Oregon, and also provides an overview on prospecting for gold.
New Concept Mining Inc (775) 729-2511
Ref: http://alamo-nevada.yellowpagesnationwide.com/business/219/5478/Mining-Companies.html
-----
Name: NEW CONCEPT MINING INC.
Type: Corporation File Number: C12993-1994 State: NEVADA Incorporated On: August 22, 1994
Status: Current list of officers on file Corp Type: Regular
Resident Agent: INCORP SERVICES, INC. (Accepted)
Address: 6075 SOUTH EASTERN AVE
SUITE 1
LAS VEGAS NV 89119-3146
President: SARDI CARRANO
Address: 6075 S EASTERN AVE STE 1
LAS VEGAS NV 89119-3146
Secretary: VINCENT CARRANO
Address: 6075 S EASTERN AVE STE 1
LAS VEGAS NV 89119-3146
Treasurer: VINCENT CARRANO
Address: 6075 S EASTERN AVE STE 1
LAS VEGAS NV 89119-3146
Other Sardi NV companies:
VENTURE PARTNERS (revoked)
SAND SPRINGS WATER CO. L.L.C. (revoked)
SINO-AMERICAN TUNGSTEN COMPANY, LLC (revoked)
AMBROSIA CAFFE, INC. (default)
Other Sardo NV companies:
G.E.M. HOLDING, INC. (default)
Other Vincint NV companies:
BLUE SKIES UNLIMITED LLC
Ref: http://sos.state.nv.us/corpsrch.asp
----
From 1996 - 2001, New Concept Mining, Inc was a susidiary of American Technologies Group, Inc. (OTC BB:ATEG). Some old PRs on it are located here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?qt=%22New+Concept+Mining%2C+inc%22&tb=art&qf=all
Royal Gold, Inc. entered into exploration and lease purchase option agreements with New Concept Mining, Inc. and Nevada Manhattan Mining, Inc. on properties in the Manhattan district. According to the company, the New Concept property contains proven and probable reserves of 1.54 million tons grading 4.46 grams per ton of gold and a total resource of 4.8 million tons at an average grade of 6.5 grams per ton of gold, mostly from underground resources. South of Manhattan, in the Rye Patch district, Tombstone Explorations acquired the Midway property from Kennecott Explorations. Kennecott completed 132 reverse-circulation and 4 diamond drill holes on the property and identified a preliminary resource of 8,400 kilograms of gold.
Ref: http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/983298.pdf
-----
American Technologies Group
53. In February 1998, Red Hot profiled American Technologies Group ("ATEG"), a NASDAQ bulletin board company engaged in the development of patented technologies. In early February 1998, Franklin and another individual told ATEG's former President, CEO and major shareholder that Red Hot wrote reports that were published on the Internet and that Red Hot would profile ATEG for 100,000 shares of ATEG stock. ATEG's former President agreed to put up his own stock as compensation for the Red Hot profile after receiving approval from ATEG's then current management. The shares were transferred to an escrow account for the benefit of Red Hot.
54. The former President subsequently called defendant Wolanyk to inform him that the financial arrangements required for him to start the ATEG report had been made. In early 1998, Wolanyk interviewed ATEG's President and an individual who handled investor relations at ATEG. The Red Hot profile on ATEG was published on February 13, 1998, within a couple of weeks of the interview. Defendant Net Income paid Wolanyk $2,500 in January 1998, and approximately $3,400 in February 1998, for his work and expenses in connection with the Red Hot website.
55. In November and December 1997, defendant Vector Keel purchased 70,000 shares of ATEG in the market for approximately $145,000. Red Hot issued the profile on ATEG on Friday, February 13, 1998. The price of the stock closed on that day at $2 15/16 with heavy volume of 664,700. The following trading day, February 17, 1998, ATEG hit $3 3/32 on heavy volume of 559,600. The Vector Keel account began selling ATEG stock, per Raabe's trading instructions, after Red Hot's profile had been issued and made $5,816 in profits.
56. The Red Hot profile on ATEG stated, "At prices up to $5.00 per share, ATEG represents a strong speculative buy." The disclaimer at the end of the Red Hot profile falsely stated, in part, "Redhotstocks owners, employees, associates, affiliates, agents and their friends and families may have a financial position in profiled companies."
57. The statements in the profile were materially false or misleading because they contained an unreasonable price prediction and because they failed to disclose that defendants Franklin and Raabe owned, beneficially owned or controlled shares of ATEG and Red Hot expected to be compensated for profiling ATEG under an arrangement discussed with Franklin and Wolanyk and the amount of the compensation to be received. Finally, the statements in the profile, and the recommendation for the purchase of stock, were materially false and misleading because defendants Franklin and Raabe, through defendant Vector Keel's account acquired ATEG stock with the intent to sell the stock in coordination with the tout, while Red Hot recommended that investors purchase the stock.
Ref: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17311.htm
-----
In fiscal 2001, the Company disposed of New Concept Mining, Inc. ("NCM"), a former subsidiary, including the note receivable balance of $1,676,000 (see Note 9).
NOTE 9 - DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
--------------------------------
On March 8, 2001, the Company entered into a stock purchase agreement with Overseas Investment, an unrelated company, to sell its entire common stock interest in NCM for $40,000. The Company received $25,000 and will receive the balance of $15,000 in December 2003. As the net book value of the NCM assets was $1,748,164 and the liabilities of NCM assumed by the buyer were estimated at approximately $732,500, the loss on disposal was $975,642, which is included in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended July 31, 2001. Operating losses of NCM for the years ended July 31, 2002 and 2001 have been reclassified for presentation purposes. Revenues of NCM for the years ended July 31, 2002 and 2001 were $0 and $0, respectively.
Ref: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/878547/000101968702002104/atg_10k-073102.txt
-----
Perhaps this is the Overseas Investment mentioned in the filing???? If so, Sardi paid pennies on the dollar for getting the assets back on his other company.
Corporation OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BANKING ALLIANCE, INC.
Number: C2029819 Date Filed: 4/2/1998 Status: active
Jurisdiction: MISSISSIPPI
Mailing Address
PO BOX 32369
LONG BEACH, CA 90832
Agent for Service of Process
SARDI CARRONA
ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90813
Ref: http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2029819
-----
Name Name Type
OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BANKING ALLIANCE, INC. Legal
Business Corporation - Domestic - Information
Business ID: 637905
Status: Good Standing
Creation Date: 1/13/1997
State of Incorporation: MS
Principal Office Address: ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER STE 800
LONG BEACH CA 90831
Principal Mailing Address: No Address
Listing Address: No Address
Last Annual Report Filed Date: 3/29/2004
Last Annual Report Filed: 2004
Annual Report Month: January
Registered Agent
Agent Name: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
Office Address: 506 S PRESIDENT ST
JACKSON MS 39201
Mailing Address:
Officers & Directors
Name Title(s)
DR.JUR. BENGT I STENBOCK
2200-A DOUGLAS BLVD., #130
ROSEVILLE CA 95661
Incorporator
Fernando Sandigo
Hotel Estrella
Managua CA 90831
President
Georg Winkler
One World Trade Center suite 800
Long Beach CA 90831
Vice President, Director
Jaime Vega
World Trade Center 800
Long Beach CA 90831
Treasurer, Director
Sardi V Carrano
One World Trade Center suite 800
Long Beach CA 90831
Secretary, Director
Ref: https://secure.sos.state.ms.us/busserv/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?222196
-----
Sea Way Trading, Trade, Copy Machines, (562) 983-8107, (562) 983-8124, One World Trade Center, Suite 800, Long Beach, CA, 90831-0800, Sardi Carrano , Vincent Carrano
Ref: http://www.wtcanet.org/completemembers.cfm
-----
American Blend Cigarettes (Full Flavor or Lights) from Europe. Brand VeVe in King size, crush proof, packs (10 packs to a carton, 50 cartons to a master) 5 containers a month available immediately; We have an agreement directly from the manufacturer to market these cigarettes worldwide. Private label requested considered on a case by case basis.
Contact:
Sardi Carrano at Sea Way Trading, Inc.
One World Trade Center suite 800 Long Beach, California
90831 United States
Phone (562)983-8106
Fax (562)983-8124
Email seaway@scklb.net
URL www.vevegroup.com
Sea Way Trading, Inc. Homepage
Ref: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=7af46j%24n46%241%40nnrp03.pri...
-----
Q:WHAT KIND OF RETURN POLICY DOES GEMS BY GIGI OFFER?
A: A 30-day return policy. Our objective is to maintain a 100% customer satisfaction. You may return any unworn and unaltered piece within 30 days of purchase. Rings and necklaces are not returnable after sizing or shortening. To process a return you must email us (returns@gemsbygigi.com) with subject title RETURN, or call [(562)983-8107] to get a return authorization number. Please return item by UPS, U.S. Mail or FedEX with a copy of your receipt. For your protection insure the item for its full value. Never use the word Gems or Jewelry on the shipping invoice. Our experts will inspect your return and can always exchange, replace, or reimburse your credit card. All special order merchandise is considered a FINAL SALE. Please make sure to clearly label, on the outside of the box, your return authorization number.
Use Address:
SEAWAY TRADING, INC.
ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER STE 800
LONG BEACH, CA 90831
Ref: http://www.gemsbygigi.com/online-store/scstore/faq.html
* Ramoil Management Ltd
Ref: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3860138
-----
Ramoil Management Ltd
State location: FL / State of Inc.: DE
Business Address
2424 N FEDERAL HIGHWAY
SUITE 350
BOCA RATON FL 33431
5613385611
Ref: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=ramoil&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&...
-----
SEC Charges 44 Defendants in Four Stock Manipulations That Caused Over $30 Million in Investor Losses
http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/fortyfourdefendents.htm
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2001-110.txt
SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. RAMOIL MANAGEMENT LTD., ET AL., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Civil Action No. 01 CV 9057 (October 11, 2001).
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17179.htm
-----
The new CEO of Ramoil, Mr. Stephen D. Cummins,...
PTI VENTURES, LLC (GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY) Officers
12101 COUNTY LINE RD UNIT 2
MIDLAND, GA 31820
Control # Status Filing Date Last AR Paid Jurisdiction
0205736
ACTIVE/NONCOMPLIANCE
01/30/2002
GEORGIA
Registered Agent Agent Address Agent County
DAVID BALSER
303 PEACHTREE ST, STE 5300
ATLANTA, GA 30308
FULTON
Ref: http://167.193.196.7/cgi-bin/corp.asp?CorporationName=PTI+Ventures&B1=Find+Business+Entity+%3E%3...
-----
CONTROL NUMBER
DATE INC/AUTH/FILED
JURISDICTION
PRINT DATE
FORM NUMBER : 0202986
: 01/18/2002
: NEVADA
: 08/21/2004
: 220
BUSINESS INFORMATION PRINTOUT
This information is provided without certification from the business registration database maintained by the Secretary of State as of the print date on the following entity.
PTI ENTERPRISES, INC.
A FOREIGN PROFIT COMPANY
ADDRESS:
12010-2 COUNTY LINE RD.
MIDLAND , GA 31820
CEO:
STEPHEN D. CUMMINS CFO:
SEC:
REGISTERED AGENT & OFFICE:
DAVID L. BALSER
303 PEACHTREE ST., STE. 5300
ATLANTA , GA 30308
Date of last annual registration
Status
Status Date :
: ACTIVE/NONCOMPLIANCE
: 06/14/2003
Ref: http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/corp/corpsearch?corpid=0202986
-----
Name: PTI ENTERPRISES, INC.
Type: Corporation File Number: C15257-2001 State: NEVADA Incorporated On: June 08, 2001
Status: Revoked Corp Type: Regular
Resident Agent: STATE AGENT & TRANSFER SYNDICATE (Accepted)
Address: 202 N CURRY ST #100
CARSON CITY NV 89703-4121
President: STEPHEN D CUMMINS
Address: 202 N CURRY ST STE 100
CARSON CITY NV 89703-
Secretary: DAVID BALSER
Address: 202 N CURRY ST STE 100
CARSON CITY NV 89703-
Treasurer: TATE SMITH
Address: 202 N CURRY ST STE 100
CARSON CITY NV 89703-
Ref: http://sos.state.nv.us/default.asp
-----
On May 20, 2004, Oretech, Inc. ("Oretech") filed a lawsuit("Complaint") against its former Chief Executive Officer, Stephen D. Cummins, and several other individuals and entities. The Complaint was filed in The Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia and seeks to recover damages and other equitable relief against the defendants, including the return of a substantial number of shares of Oretech common stock, which had been inappropriately issued.
The primary defendant in the case was Stephen D. Cummins, who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Oretech from April 1, 2003, until November 25,2003. Mr. Cummins also served on Oretech's Board of Directors from April 1,2003, until January 26, 2004. Among the wrongdoings of Stephen Cummins alleged in the Complaint were breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion and conspiracy. The facts on which the lawsuit was based are set forth below.
Prior to March 31, 2003, Oretech was named "The Tantivy Group, Inc." and had been involved in various information technology and "dot.com" related businesses. Stephen Cummins was a member of The Tantivy Group, Inc.'s Board ofDirectors on March 31, 2003. Stephen Cummins was also the President of PTI Ventures, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Ventures") and Chief Executive Officer of PTI Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation("Enterprises"), and had served in such capacities since June, 2001.
On March 31, 2003, The Tantivy Group, Inc. entered into an agreement("March 31 Agreement") with Enterprises, pursuant to which The Tantivy Group,Inc. acquired Enterprises in a stock for stock acquisition. The result of thetransaction was that the shareholders of Enterprises became the controlling shareholders of The Tantivy Group, Inc. Upon consummation of this March 31 Agreement, The Tantivy Group, Inc. changed its name to "Oretech, Inc."Enterprises also changed its name to "Oretech Corporation."
Stephen Cummins signed the March 31 Agreement as the Chief Executive Officer and President of The Tantivy Group, Inc.
The March 31 Agreement provided that The Tantivy Group, Inc. wouldissue 20,907,000 newly issued shares of common stock to the Enterprises shareholders in exchange for all of their shares of Enterprises common stock.
At some point in time, in between the execution of the March 31 Agreement and the resulting issuance of 20,907,000 shares of Oretech common stock to the Enterprises shareholders in April 2003, Stephen Cummins inappropriately issued an additional 5,750,000 shares of Oretech common stock to himself, his wife, his former wife, his son, his daughter, his parents and to various other friends and acquaintances. These other persons besides Stephen Cummins are referred to herein as the "secondary defendants." The inappropriate issuance of these 5,750,000 was not known by or approved by Oretech or its shareholders and was an act committed by Stephen Cummins solely for his benefit and the benefit of the secondary defendants, whom the Complaint alleges have been unjustly enriched.
In October and November of 2003, the Oretech Board of Directors became aware of the unauthorized issuance of the subject 5,750,000 shares. The Boardalso began questioning many of the decisions being made, and actions being taken, by Stephen Cummins, most of which were in furtherance of his personal interests and opposed to the interests of Oretech and its shareholders.
Despite numerous demands for Stephen Cummins to return the 5,750,000 shares of common stock, he refused to do so. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
On May 21, 2004, Stephen Cummins acknowledged that he had been served with the Complaint and agreed to promptly return all of the Oretech shares issued to him personally and to coordinate the return of all the other shares issued to the secondary defendants. In return for his agreement to return theshares, Oretech postponed a hearing for equitable relief.
Since the Complaint was filed, Stephen Cummins has returned 458,000 shares and the secondary defendants have returned 1,575,000 shares of commonstock to Oretech. Oretech has now taken measures to obtain a default judgment against Stephen Cummins, as he has failed to answer the Complaint and has failed to live up to his written agreement to return all of his wrongfully issuedshares to Oretech.
Oretech has placed an administrative hold on all of the shares held by Mr. Cummins and TIC Trust pending resolution of the litigation.
The shares that have been surrendered for cancellation, as well as the other shares Oretech will recover as a result of the Complaint will becancelled, thereby substantially reducing the number of shares of common stock issued and outstanding.
Ref: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040709/orte.ob8-k.html
Hoople: It's more like everyone here not just "most people". We've all screwed up, and it's far more than one time. No one is born knowing this stuff. Even those who take courses still go thru the newbie phase.
When a person makes a mistake, it's very easy to feel he is the only one to ever have done so. That's just not true. We all are human. Humans make plenty of mistakes. Even very seasoned traders do it too.
Gater: Yes, I did. You can see this for yourself by bringing up the entire current list here: http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dividend.asp . Warning, this page is extremely long so you might want to stop the page loading about halfway or so. Then just do a search for + signs in the dividend field. That's what I did after a guy there briefly explained its meaning to me.
There's always the possibility the dividend could get changed or even cancelled before people get it. The + sign in the current dividend entry was not placed there to indicate this.
Gater: Green Baron is incorrect there. The + is just a flag to mark a dividend as being different in some way from the norm, and you should look in the notes for further explanation. The + is used for situations such as those who: cancel dividends, issue restricted stock, issue warrants, issue a combination of stock, warrants, and/or cash, issue stock in another company, perform a r/s immediately followed by a f/s, etc.
If the dividend was not firm or determined yet, they would have added a comment in the notes field with something worded like this: Dividend Amount TBA.
Hoople: Hey man, chill. Take some time off and just relax. Everyone starts off with zero knowledge and very green. It takes time to learn. The panic feeling you had is very, very common. Markets bring out two very strong emotions in people: greed and fear. If you learn to control these two emotions, you'll have a clearer head and make better investing decisions.
* McWhortle
McWhortle is a non-existent company. The SEC, FTC, NASD, and NASAA created a website http://www.mcwhortle.com/ on their fake company to help educate investors about potential online fraud. When the site was launched, there was a big increase in scams preying on people's fears of anthrax and other bio-hazards. A lot of investors were tricked into thinking McWhortle was real. If you follow the links: Invest Now -> click here you can read a little about the feds motive for doing this.
Janice and some others did something very similar for an April Fools Day joke a year or so earlier. The SEC and Businesswire didn't think their joke was very funny, yet the feds turned around and used their idea.
Anyway, Glenn is NOT involved with this one.
Normally stocks give free-trading share dividends or do stock-splits. On ex-div date, the price is readjusted to account for the extra shares in the float. This is restricted stock in another company so the price was not adjusted.
Using today's price to calculate rate of return for selling stock 1+ years into the future is just wishful thinking. Not many stocks' prices stay that static.
Actually, you could have sold starting the 18th and still receive the UCAD dividend. As was pointed out here, three day settlement applies. You would still possess those shares on the record date (20th) assuming they don't move it.
Hoople: All the smallcaps I've followed that used a financer had their stock price drop. Some financers are notorious for shorting to secure profits before the holding period is up. For those, the price declines very rapidly.
To be honest, I haven't researched all the different financers (and there's a lot of them) to see whether any had their stocks stay stable or go up. Looking at Freestar Technology's chart, which is a stock I have not followed, it appears to be an exception to the ones I have. Chart: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FSRC.OB&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Their financer came onboard in Dec 2002. The price at the end of Dec 2002 was around .09. Today it's at .08. If you only use those two points in time, you could say yeah that stock's price was pretty stable. Looking at the chart, you'll see it actually had some big ups and downs. In May 2003 to Sep 2003 and in March 2004 to Jul 2004, the price had steep declines. I didn't look into the first decline, but during the second one Glenn (who represents the financer) was selling off a bunch of shares into the float. Whether he'll let the stock recover a bit or continue to pound it down we'll have to wait and see. If he does the latter, then I'll have to withdrawl this one as an exception example. Glenn of course will follow his client's wishes.
IMO how UCAD's price will react is going to be determined by 1) terms of the agreement; 2) whether there is an anti-trading and/or anti-shorting clause; 3) financer's compliance with the agreement; 4) rate at which the financer releases shares into the float after the holding period is up; and 5) whether the company's fundamentals support the larger o/s.
-------
I must say that Churak's observation that UCAD's sole source of revenue is the issueing of shares is disturbing.
Yes, a lot of these junior mining companies, including CMKX, do the same thing.
Most of my faith in CMKX revolves around its association with Glenn, who has stated that his involvement is limited to a specific function. The generalization of his involvement by CMKX is actually a source of concern. Why Glenn isn't coming forth to clarify just what his function is is confusing to me too.
Glenn works for Urbie not for individual shareholders. Urbie is the one who decides what tasks/jobs Glenn does. If you want clarification on his role, I suggest asking Urbie or Melvin.
There are so many factors to sort through in trying to decipher if the players are making deals that benefit them and will leave us in the desiccated dust, if there's even hope of another spike, etc. So, I was just wondering, as per my last post, whether deals of this nature always end in a sort of ruin.
Officers should make decisions for what is best for the company. It's great if it benefits shareholders too, but that's not always the case.
Stock movement boils down simply to supply and demand. When there's more demand than supply, the price will go up. When there's more supply than demand, the price will go down. When the two are equal, it trades sideways. As the float grows, it takes more and more pressure to move the price. IMO dilution, particularly heavy dilution, is an enemy to long-term shareholders.
Hoople: Not sure what you're asking.
According to Quintek's PR, the financer has selected 23 US microcaps for similar deals. Someone here pointed out Galaxy had filed an 8K on their deal. I looked up three others, and they hadn't submitted any filings for theirs yet. I suspect all these have fairly similar terms. As the companies submit SEC filings, we'll have a better idea on this.
Well, first Langley Park has to get listed. If they don't, the deal will probably get cancelled. In this case, they'll be out at least the finders fee. In Galaxy's deal, the finder gets 15% of Langley's shares plus 15% of Galaxy's shares earmarked for the deal. If it does go thru, it'll depend on the agreement's terms as to how long the financer has to hold and whether it has an anti-shorting clause or not.
I'm not familiar with the UK's markets. I haven't found yet if they have online filings like Canada and the US does. Checking those might give a clue on what shape this financer is in to be able to take on 23 smallcaps.
If you go back thru UCAD's 8Ks and PRs, you'll see they issued a bunch of shares in other deals. The one year holding period for those will be up before the 7.5M ones. IMO those will contribute to a price decline.
I think the deal terms will probably be similar to what they did w/ Galaxy Minerals: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102217/000113543204000151/0001135432-04-000151-index.htm
* Langley Park Investment Trust PLC
I believe you have the wrong company's website in your first link there. UCAD's PR says: "The investment company is a newly formed London-based entity that will apply for its shares to be admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange as an investment trust." The link to the company you posted is not newly formed. It started way back in 1977. From 1987 - 1998, they did have Langley Group in their name but are now called Langley Holdings PLC.
UK's government database doesn't show any currently registered company by the name of "Langley Group" or "Langley Investment Group". Galaxy Minerals also has a similar deal. In their 8K, they identified the financer as Langley Park Investments PLC. Ref: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3847691 This one was incorporated about six month ago and fits the "newly formed" phrase much better. They changed their name this past Monday to Langley Park Investment Trust PLC. This fits the comment about them applying for listing on the LSE (perhaps on its AIM) as an investment trust.
Quinek, which also has a similar deal, mentioned the financer has selected 23 US microcaps for the same type of deal. Ref: http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/040805/61955.html Wonder if CMKX will also be one of these companies?
Name & Registered Office :
LANGLEY PARK INVESTMENT TRUST PLC
30 FARRINGDON STREET
LONDON
EC4A 4HJ
Status :Active
Company No. :05032867
Date of Incorporation : 03/02/2004
Country of Origin : United Kingdom
Company Type: Public Limited Company
Nature Of Business (SIC(92)):
None registered
Accounting Reference Date : 31/12
Last Accounts Made Up To :
Next Accounts Due : 31/07/2005
Last Return Made Up To :
Next Return Due : 03/03/2005
Previous Names
Date of Change : Previous Name :
16/08/2004 LANGLEY PARK INVESTMENTS PLC
Branch Details
There are no branches associated with this company.
Oversea Company Information
There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.
Ref: http://ws6info.companieshouse.gov.uk/info/info.cgi?cname=LANGLEY%20PARK%20INVESTMENT%20TRUST%20PLC&a....
The initials plc after a British company name indicate that it is a public limited company whose shares may be offered for sale to the public. The designation plc or PLC (either form is acceptable) was introduced by the Companies Act 1980.
When forming (or creating) a PLC there must be at least £50,000 worth of share capital of which at least 25% must have been paid for. While it is not compulsory for a PLC to "float" its shares (some PLCs retain ownership of all their shares, maintaining the PLC designation for the extra financial status) many do and their shares are usually traded on either the London Stock Exchange or the Alternative Investments Market (AIM). Public limited companies are able to obtain more capital than other firms due to the share sales and also banks are more likely to give out loans to them as they have better credit.
Ref: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Public_limited_company
Diamondhead: Frankly, it didn't sound very organized to me. Urbie came up with this idea after several races had already gone by. When the list got started, there didn't appear to be a method of ensuring the word got out to everyone eligible. I don't know who maintains this list. If Sterling doesn't get Urbie to reconsider, then I suggest you or anyone else who is eligible and wants a cut to contact Sterling and tell him you were left off of it.
The list consists of people who attended or worked any race not just Denver. Sterling admitted to adding some folks he considered "needy" on it. Not sure if anyone else did the same thing.