Primarily big board stocks, long positions. Playing with some penny stocks to keep things fun.
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.
Schwab now listing this at $0 instead of last close. Zero'd balance in account for this position.
Burp - What are your current thoughts on NEP? My thinking was that they were in good condition financially, had a real business and passed through their crucible with the previous halt. This halt seems odd - since NEP claims it is regarding a 2009 $39M issue that was since publicly disclosed (and should have been covered in the previous audit). IR is responsive, but just one liners or "Business as usual" remarks. My fear is that the SEC finds something it does not like and delists them.
XIN - had to stop the bleeding and bank at least some profit. When the selloff ends I jump back in with you.
In response to me inquiry to IR:
I am cautiously optimistic as well. Been in $XIN since $2.40 and this move was unexpected. I was hoping for $2.75...we are at $3.78 as I type this. Also got into $BORN on the dip a couple weeks ago - also a strong mover the last week, with the PR that they locked in a corn purchase.
Well, if there is a paper trail showing IDCN paid for the domain than technically Jeff would be in violation if he did not give it to Ken. Now, that is a HUGE *IF*. Chances are Jeff dropped the $10 out of his own pocket and unless "Indocan" is a registered trademark, Jeff can keep the domain and use it for whatever he wants - including IDCN bashing. Hmmm...indocan.net is available...anyone?
Since the web site belongs to Jeff, "she" is not likely to do anything.
http://whois.domaintools.com/indocan.com
Jeff owns the domain and therefore controls it. It would appear he jumped the gun in either giving the name/password to Teri or updating it for her. In any case, the domain name is still legally registered to Jeff and therefore he controls the TLD DNS records - aka, he controls the web site.
N/M - Appears to be a TDA issue
While I do not understand the business logic in the PR you linked to, I do, none the less, stand corrected.
You do of course realize that if Terri has backed off or it just didnt go through OO will not be releasing a PR, right? It costs money to do so and someone would only spend that money if it could beneficially impact their bottom line. Companies do not release "Oh, never mind" PR's.
I still don't get your aversion to the Oxygen thingie. IDCN investors will buy into pure fiction like KZen and Hockey Stick, but a real product (even if you would not buy it yourself - you know tons of those late night infomercial people would) and you just endlessly chastise the inventor. Oh I get it - the striking it rich fantasy gives a lottery like allure while a real, viable product smacks of a harsh reality that a company must actually generate a revenue stream through work instead of magic.
Maybe the Dream Team can still be together and the new IR will be GaitorBaiter?
Space, the last two links were simply examples of actions were people (or their friends/family) made a profit when they were given advanced insider info and purchased, then sold after the news was made public. It was asked in a previous post if Ken Ash or others he gave info to were the ones making the buys prior to the PR of the court case (100M or so shares that sold). Those links were just examples of what has happened to others in similar (though obviously not exact) circumstances. I believe you have the intelligence to extrapolate my intended meaning without getting hung up on the petty differences. You knew I made no claim that the cases were identical in every manner, as that would be impossible.
In regards to Ken Ash's holding (not sure why you refer to him as the IR since by your own numerous posts he was terminated with prejudice from this position months ago and even if he had not been he is currently the court appointed custodian, we assume) I have no idea if he is under water. My personal OPINION is that he owns no shares other than some he may have purchased at or below 0.0001. He has claimed he basis is 0.0008 in a couple posts but without direct access to all his trading accounts (which I do not want nor would expect) we cannot know this. In his current position he would clearly be considered an insider and would be forced, by law, to divulge his position, buys and sells - though this is pinkie land so I have no expectation that this happens and if it did I can assure you it would not be verified. The SEC just doesn't care that much.
In regards to your last line, Ken's post used the word technically but was not a presentation of technical analysis - at least not any definition of T/A I have ever seen. It was a blatant "buy IDCN Stock" post. Period. Say what you want, but I know you know this. I also know you know that as the custodian he should not be making such remarks.
That volume and stacked bid on L2 speaks loud and clear about how people feel about the recent events... Entirely unimpressed. For all these posts about how wonderful things are, I am not seeing anyone put their money where their mouth is.
While not as long, hoping NEP halt ends soon as well. The lack of substantive information from them is getting old.
And clearly I used - and you even quoted - the word OPINION. Do I need to direct you to the Webster's Dictionary page for that?
In regards to the PACER entry, I cannot comment until I receive some information I requested.
In regards to the BOD, please explain why you feel a company owned by a single person (we think..not quite sure) would go through the costs of paying for board members, the filing fees, etc. to create one. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? We both know it wont, but since you love arguing, I would love to hear why you disagree with me.
I just mailed my money order yesterday, so no I have not seen the court order.
That said, the court order has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opinion that there will not be a BoD. My opinion is based on 18 years of owning corporate entities incorporated in various states and negotiating the tax issues, legal umbrellas, etc. associated with such. The vast majority of very small businesses (say 20 people or less) do not have a Board of Directors per se. Sure, legally they have a CEO, a President, and a Secretary - but in many states the SoS allows a single person to hold all of these positions. A Board meeting is nothing more than a conversation with yourself that you write down as Corporate Minutes - and the vast majority of small companies fail to even write it down. Anyone who has ever run a business knows these things as they are common place.
My point was that people (both lover and haters) have mentioned the election of a BoD a few times. Whoever ends up running this thing will have to make that decision. Due to costs, overhead, logistics and lack of a strong motivation to do so, I believe that is a board exists it will be the new "owner" (the owners are actually the shareholders, obviously) and no one else, or perhaps a wife or friend. Those movie clips with 20 people sitting around a long table - NEVER going to happen.
Just because some chose to ignore a question or point does mean it goes away.
The simple fact is that the former IRO, now Custodian, Kenneth R. Ash has been friends and business partners with the (former) CEO Jeffrey R. Bruhjell for well over a decade. This is easily confirmed by anyone willing to do a Google search on the two names. Taking trips to Europe together ( http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Indocan+Directors+and+Stock+Charter+Group+Swing+Through+London.-a0170036702 ), Ken acting as IR for several different companies, etc. etc.
It is safe to say that these two guys were close and knew each other well.
So after a few years of press releases that Jeff "supposedly" gave to Ken to get out on the street..which got weirder and weirder and more and more unlikely even to outsiders - you would think that a guy who has been an very close insider for 10+ years would start to ask "What is going on?" We all know Hockey Stick never happened - never invested, never broke ground, nothing. Jeff stated this on the IDCN website. Yet Ken posted that notorious post about Hockey Stick gold was being mined, processes, sold, etc. and that he knew it for a fact. The you have the South African PR's, the $12M in financing that I found was cut and pasted, word for word, from another company's PR, etc.
A post like the Hockey Stick one and others exist for a single reason: To promote purchasing shares in the company. That is the job of an IR, granted. When that IR is also a large share holder and professional stock promoter than there are laws and fiduciary responsibilities the validate the accuracy of these public statements.
Thank about it. Think of a person who has been your friend or co-worker for 10+ years. You know exactly when you can call B.S. on something they are saying. You get to know each other and you know when something isnt right.
If Ken knew it was not true, he is guilty (yet again) of fraud. He should face the same legal penalties/jail time and JRB should.
If Ken simply believed a guy who he has been friends with and business partners with for over a decade, than he is the most gullible moron in the business. In this case I cannot believe anyone would want this guy as the captain of the ship.
In either case, the only reason anyone would support Ken is because they believe he can "pump" IDCN up a few ticks so they can profit. Note that I clearly and intentionally did not say that they believe Ken can make IDCN worth a few more ticks, just that he may be able to generate the baseless hype to get it there. Nothing more. This is no different than small time gamblers who are "in on the fix" at the horse race. Of course they talk great about the main mafia guy who set up the fix - doesn't mean he was innocent or worthy of praise.
There simply is not a third option. Period.
The SEC would consider Ken in his position or even in his past IR position, to be an insider. If you do not think so you may want to re-read SEC Rule 10b-5. So trades he makes or trades others make at his recommendation prior to the disclosure of recent events would be illegal.
In regards to my post, JRB got a slap on the wrist for selling his stock as investment contracts in PA (http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=B-716399-C:*SEC&symbol=*SEC&news_region=C ) "Insiders" cannot actively promote the purchase of their stock - they can talk how great the company is all day long, but cannot specifically push their shares. Your post to Cassandra ( http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73630913) is stating that Ken is providing technical analysis only - which if you read is post is far from true. In fact, other than using the word "technically" there isnt a bit of TA in that post.
Some interesting reading - not IDCN, but an example of what can happen when insider trading (I dont know, like a custodian who buys or recommends buys who has knowledge of material events a couple weeks before they are public: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-41.htm or http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-44.htm )
KA's shares would not be deducted. He as an individual can buy and sell at will, but must report doing so as was previously posted, and must report the number of shares he owns. Now, I have no doubt that these rules will be ignored, but they do exist. His personal holdings of fully registered shares are in the float.
If he issues himself restricted shares they are not in the float until registered. Even if he still owns them I believe they are still considered part of the float after registered.
The float and how many shares were actually sold by JRB will be critical, though how many shares do you think he still has in his possession?
FYI, It is highly unlikely that you will see any BoD with IDCN - ever. In NV, WY, DE and a handful of other states a single person can fill all required positions.
Also, I assume everyone realizes, whatever business IDCN ever claimed to have (though we know it was all fiction) has no bearing on future business. If this ends up in Ken's hands he may pursue that business verticals - and he may choose to make kids clothing - or do nothing at all and just fabricate PR's.
Only thing that seems fairly certain is that it is a different company now.
Space - you know very well that a CEO/custodian/officer cannot actively promote the purchase of shares, particularly when he is in possession of material non disclosed information. This is what JRB got the slap on the wrist for and what a good number of folks have served time for. Dont play ignorant, it doesn't suit you.
"I didn't know" is not now nor ever an acceptable defense in an American court.
You may be right. If JRB is gone and it is still IDCN, or if it is Oxygen Orchard it is a change...and in pinky land anything can come of change. For those holders of the bags I hope it does pop.
Im still intrigued that the T/A (according to Space's post that he spoke to him) was aware of Knoll. This would seem to indicate that the shell was in fact sold to Knoll (an agent). If that were the case, there would be no need nor would it be possible to appoint Ken Ash as the custodian. This one gets weirder all the time. Its like that horrible TV series that you cant stand but have watched so much of you have to stick around to see that episode where everything is revealed.
Than perhaps you can answer a burning question we have had...since in many cases it was Ken's advice that turned us in the bag holders.
I have asked this before so I will just ask a simple, single example here:
Ken Ash, the new custodian of IDCN, posted several times that Hockey Stick was in fact being actively mined, ore was being processed and he had first hand knowledge that it was absolutely being sold/revenue generated. The particular posts have been referenced here more times than I can count.
I called 3 different organizations in the area that would know, none had ever heard of JRB or IDCN. Months later JRB posted that Hockey Stick never even happened - they looked at it and took a pass.
Since Ken is such a stand up guy, please help me understand the blatant conflict here. There are many similar examples, but this the the easiest.
Yes, actually. To some it is very significant how JRB responds, but the reason is not immediately apparent. If JRB feels he has been robbed, and is highly ticked, he may choose to release evidence proving he was not the only one involved. This could lesson future potential penalties and make nice with the SEC. Some of us are very interested in that information becoming public.
While I doubt it would happen, I would hope so as well. I know there are a couple that really believed every word that KA told them and lost well into six figured. Now, why they had that kind of cash in a pink sheet, I have no idea, but doesn't change the facts.
Frankie,
Would you agree with this...
A "hired talking head" that has been the sole "hired talking head" for not only this company but for at least 4 others that can easily be found via Google with the same CEO involved for well over a decade; would you say that "hired talking head" should have a very good idea of exactly what was going on with the company? Now take the fact that this "hired talking head" was also a friend of the CEO, again check Google, taking trips to Europe together, etc.
So when that "hired talking head" innocently passed along those dozen or so stories about things like gold being actively mined, processed shipped and sold from Hockey Stick (which the CEO later admitted on the official web site was a project they never even got involved in, more or less when through the year long process of mining gold from), the LOI that was signed by a company that has never even heard of JRB, the $12M financing that was later proven to be cut and pasted word for word from another company's press release, etc. etc., dont you think there may be some willful culpability involved on that "hired talking head's" part?
If we can agree on that, than I shouldn't need to point out that culpability is legal liability just as much as the original perpetrator.
On the other hand, if that "hired talking head" was truly innocent and never picked up on the blatant fraud from his good friend of over a decade, than can it not honestly and sincerely be said that he must be one of the dumbest individuals on the planet? Any this is who people are happy to have running the show?
Either way, he is either a repeat offender fraudster (original one documented) or a moron. Either way - CONGRATS FOLKS!
I think I need to find some nitro pills...I actually agree 1000% with Frankie.
And you have seen all of the articles and minutes for the last decade and know this to be a fact? Funny how when it suited his needs he never disputed it.
*IF* The court order is upheld, and *IF* those 2.5B shares are still in JRB's posession. If he has already sold them in the market, in a private transaction, etc. then good luck ever seeing them cancelled. If he does have them though and they do in fact get cancelled than that would be the first positive thing I have ever seen from IDCN.
Peter...come now...you know if you get one person who buys 1M shares at 0.0001 and sells at .0002, making a HUGE $100 profit, everyone will be jumping up and down screaming that this thing made 100% profit! Its the greatest stock in the world!
Never went to PACER because it is an old school county district court that does not digitize. Plain and simple. Had a case like this been in a federal court there would be a half dozen posted filings even if it was dropped.
Since there is a lot of talk here about PACER, and since I admit I brought a lot of it to this forum, I feel I need to share my results in investigating this case. I am not commenting on the outcome or the custodian or future in this post - just the facts.
The PR lists WY state case number as 178-874. WY uses a format like this: XX-X-XXX. When you go to the WY case search tool https://ecf.wyd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl and type in 178-874 it automatically changes it to 17-8-874 and then reports "Cannot find case 17-8-874" So I tried a search by the names, "Ash","Bruhjell" and "Indocan". ASH brings up a bunch of cases, nothing related to Ken or IDCN though. The other two bring up nothing. I then ran full case indexes from 1/1/2000 through today - nothing. I then returned to the national search...nothing for Indocan. "Kenneth R. Ash" has a NJ based bankruptcy in 1999/2000 (Ch 13/7)and AGAIN this month, a 2011 BK in Arizona, a 98 one in Florida, a 2000 one in KS, and a 1993 one in Jefferson City. Since I do not know our KA's social, I cannot confirm that ANY of these even have anything to do with him and have no reason to believe that they are in fact the Ken Ash we know. Bruhjell brings up several, but no Jeff's or Angela's.
OK...skip PACER. Let's go to the source... The Wyoming Court System's own separate database using their E-Filing system:
https://efiling.courts.state.wy.us/public/caseSearch.do
I search for that case number under case searches, nothing. I then go to participant searches and search for Bruhjell, Indocan and Ash separately. Shockingly, no hits on any of those.
So taking the last step, I called the Clerk of the Courts for the First Judicial District Court of the State of WY for the County of Laramie. Here is the contact info:
309 W 20th Street
Suite 3205
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Phone: 307-633-4270
Fax: 307-633-4277
I was able to speak with a woman who pulled up the docket. She explained that this was a county District court and they do not participate in the state or federal electronic filing systems. This explains why it was not online, though it would seem that IDCN has some room to appeal if they so choose.
That said, the case number is real, the plaintiff is a single shareholder (who I will not name, but is not Ken) and the defendants were in fact IDCN, Bruhjell and Harrison. Beyond that they are not permitted to tell me what the judgment is or confirm anything over the phone. They will mail me a copy of the full records for $5, which I am ordering. If interested, they require a money order, the docket number and the date - which they have as March 7, 2012.
I have to be honest here, I was willing to bet that the entire PR was a fraud. My reason is that an action against a publicly traded company it typically in a US District Court, not a local county...a bit odd there. At least the case happened. I will know in a couple weeks if the PR is entirely accurate.
So there you have it. Want the full case? Send in your $5.
I would also like to formally apologize to Space, as I was absolutely sure that this would be in PACER. While I still do not know how it ended up in the particular court it did - that doesnt change the fact that it did happen.
Space - I sent you a PM, but in regards to PACER the information is supposed to be updated in near real time and is supposed to contain everything - including this type of case - as long as it is in a court system. Anything that is settled out of court, through an organization like the SEC or through arbitration (non court ordered), or outside the U.S. would not be in there. So no, I have no idea. I am checking and will see if it pops up. If this was an actual case filed with the WY State Judicial Department, heard by a judge and ruled upon there should be no less than three items in PACER. There are none. I have no explanation, but fully ready to apologize if it turns out to be less accurate than I believed.
I have to go with Peter on this one...
If an investor made a decision to purchase say 0.1% of the outstanding shares and due to dilution he was only given 0.005% ownership, this is fraud. That, however, would be between the investor and the company.
If KA made comments that "he has been told that JRB signed a LOI" he still can wiggle out saying he was told that. It becomes a matter of trying to prove he wasnt just passing on what he was told. An entire argument could be made that he passed on a ton of things that were simply not reasonable or likely and passed them on anyhow. Means he was either involved, or ignorant. And yet you are happy to have him as the new Captain. Huh.
However, if an investor purchased a % of the company (what you do when you buy shares) with the information that there is no dilution and KA states that he has first hand knowledge (in the form of a signed contract) and there was in fact dilution than KA would be culpable if he did not take action.
Nothing will happen though...we know this...so moot point.
Space, I am trying to stay out of this until all of the facts come out, but help me understand how Teri can even be in negotiations to purchase the shell if either (A) The shell has been transferred to an agent, in which case Ken (or anyone else) would not be the custodian, so this would not likely be the case or (B) Teri has been dealing with Ken or JRB. The two are mutually exclusive and unless I am totally missing something, there is no third alternative. So either Teri has been dealing with Ken/JRB or we are not to take the court PR at face value (highly unlikely).