is still alive and kicking.....Happy 2018!!
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.
yes, no huge surprise there, WDC still undervalued IMO, going to 50.......
WDC: Barclays Ups to Buy; Flash Threat Less Dire Than Believed
May 25, 2016, 11:42 A.M. ET
By Tiernan Ray
Shares of storage vendor Western Digital (WDC) are up $2.17, or 5%, at $44.445, after Barclays’s Mark Moskowitz raised his rating on the stock this morning to Overweight from Equal Weight, writing that the shares have “adequately de-risked for three reasons,” namely the understanding of flash technology replacing disks, clarity about Western’s own production of flash, and investor comfort with Western’s stepped-up spending.
Moskowitz, raising his price target to $60 from $57, writes the stock, along with that of Seagate Technology (STX), is “washed out,” and given his target on Western is 42% from the current price, it’s a good time to buy because “It is our view that the incremental buyer historically needs to see 25% or more upside potential to build an Overweight position in an HDD stock.” (He has an equal-weight rating on Seagate, and a $25 price target.)
Moskowitz notes that disk drives will not be completely replaced by flash:
We do not expect HDDs to be completely displaced by SSDs over the next decade, but the rate of displacement in PC HDDs will make it hard for HDD vendors to grow. We expect HDDs serving PCs to exhibit increasing rate of displacement by SSDs, but there could be a slower displacement rate in the enterprise data center (due to higher price per gigabyte) – which is where the sturdier HDD profit pool resides. As it relates to relative pricing, enterprise HDD $/GB is $0.04, versus $0.40- 0.45 for SSD. With this gap in mind, we estimate SSDs to support approximately 60- 65% of PC units in 7-10 years, versus our estimate of 36% in C2017, and according to Gartner, 22% in C2015. Meanwhile, we estimate SSD units to support only 30-35% of units supporting servers and storage systems in the data center, versus our estimate of 22% in C2017, and according to Gartner, 17% in C2015. In our view, this overall framework implies HDDs still have an important long-term role in storage.
Moskowitz illustrates those trends of disk replacement with some graphs; here’s one (click on the image to see it larger):
(chart omitted)
Barclays Models flash versus hard-drive trends, May 25th, 2016.
On the other hand, Moskowitz also thinks that SanDisk, the flash company Western bought this year, is “on track” with its move to the next level of technology in NAND chips, something that’s been a perennial worry about the company:
Our research indicates that SanDisk is on track with its 3D NAND transition and should have a broad portfolio of consumer SSDs shipping by late C2016 and enterprise SSDs in 1H C2017. In such a case, SanDisk would be able to keep pace with the lead pack for flash solutions based on 3D NAND. Reason being, the technology is complex, and with manufacturing yields currently below optimal levels (>80%) across the industry, bits shipped on 3D NAND are not likely to reach critical mass (> 50%) for another 12-18 months. All of this means SanDisk has ample time to catch up. In our view, a successful SanDisk transition to 3D NAND sets the foundation for WD to deliver revenue growth at- or above-peer, which we think WD’s stock is not factoring.
Moskowitz also notes that a recent “reset” of industry expectations by Western was not as bad as feared:
The Mar-Q earnings season was a difficult one. We had braced for tough sledding after cutting most of our sector forecasts on March 18. The silver lining was that with HDDs the reset outlook was not as bad as feared. The projected quarterly TAM of approximately 95M units for the Jun-Q is not as severe as some investors or industry participants had anticipated. The run rate is not great, though, given the HDD industry had been built to serve north of 160M units per quarter just a few years ago. In any event, we think that if the Jun-Q can establish a bottom in quarterly shipments, then investor sentiment can start to improve. We think the reasonable duopoly is relatively intact, which attracted investors to the HDD stocks in 2012 to early 2015. Cyclical (weak PC and enterprise systems demand) and structural (SSD displacement risk) have since been discounted into the stock valuations, helping de-risk the stocks.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2016/05/25/western-barclays-ups-to-buy-flash-threat-less-dire-than-believed/
lack of interest on stock message boards for PTOI: check
(documentation also following the familiar *pattern* and dropping off: check )
hope you got some back in the 30s!!!
I guess it is possible one or more parties provided "guidance" for the widget and pump playbook *pattern*, while the other dealt in the nuances of penny stocks, shells, and such......
35 and change, still adding a little here and there.....expect 50 by EOY, IMO.......
well yeah, it's Huffman, well known for scheming penny tickers from the inside, and honored member of a OTC Markets ban:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/research/prohibited-attorney
bought WDC in the 38s today, just a taste for now.......keeping an eye on STX too.....
picked up some WDC at 38 and change today.....
didn't they violate the judgment against them by failing to file an 8k announcing the breakdown of the processors?
JBII is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities act of 1934
(a) to employ any scheme or artifact, to defraud
(b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact
yes, they did, and would love to see how that can be disputed.....maybe evil short sellers were involved, or the usual BS to *deflect* from the facts of yet another real *documented* violation vs fantasy lala-land......
also, any reasonable person can see that the ECO non-deal was in conflict with the spirit of:
(b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact
maybe this technique can help:
fn+f5 will toggle video output between internal, external, or both on your machine
fn+f6 will turn the display blank, tried that? but it also says any key should restore it, but worth a try
https://www.manualowl.com/m/Acer%20Computers/Aspire-5536/Manual/114414
page 6, hotkeys
edit: you also have a HDD indicator LED, when you boot is it active??
sometimes you won't (especially on an older machine) unless you tell your laptop to switch over video signals, using the proper key sequence....depending on model, it may be a special function key, such as fn+f3, or fn+f4, sometimes other combinations, so there are many permutations possible....then there are windows functions themselves to switch, such as WindowsKey+P, but of course you have to be booted into Windows for that to work!! (and older windows versions may not support this, shrug)
if you suspect you are booted into Windows, press WindowsKey+P once, wait 10 secs, and press P, wait, press P, repeat, since you can't see anything to click on....try it on the machine you are using here, so see what I mean, and if you lose video, repeat until it comes back)
my best guess if booted is WindowsKey+P P P P <enter> (the number of P presses needed will vary if you are already in a mode that turns off video)
best to google your user manual, so you know for sure and can eliminate this unknown, but even then it may not switch over video unless booted past the BIOS with certain drivers loaded, (a catch-22), but again, depending on model.....
what is the make and model # for this machine??? What is the OS version??
unplug power, remove the battery and then hold the power button for 60 seconds. (this will not fix a hardware issue, but things like stuck in hibernation, etc)
PS: also try slowly opening/closing the laptop several times while watching the screen carefully, to check for an intermittent flex connection in the hinge, or a bad screen on/off switch....if you are lucky, certain positions may work...
YMMV
Return of Swamp Thing: CCR Born On The Bayou
if you use advanced functions, such as compilers, good luck spending untold hours getting them to work on Win10......
man, "it sucks" when the *dolts* are correct!!!
"it sucks" © Juicy-J, 2013
Sat, May 09, 2015 12:00 – Livewire Ergogenics, Inc. (LVVV: OTC Pink Current) – Tier Change – The symbol, LVVV, no longer is classified as OTC Pink Limited. As of Sat, May 09, 2015, LVVV resides in the OTC Pink Current tier. You may find a complete list of tier changes at otcmarkets.com
http://www.clairepeetz.net/otc_archive1/livewire-ergogenics-inc-lvvv-otc-pink-current-tier-change/
i only *presume* to speak for myself ..
there are hundreds upon hundreds of actual P2O investors who have never sold one share
since entering in 2008/2009/2010
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2016/comp23479-fortitude.pdf
12. Parilla, age 51, is the chief executive officer and sole employee of Fortitude. He
resides in Erie, Pennsylvania.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil Action No.
Plaintiff,
Judge
v.
FORTITUDE GROUP, INC.
and THOMAS J. PARILLA,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Between February 2014 and May 2014, Fortitude Group Inc. (“Fortitude” or the
“Company”) and its chief executive officer, Thomas J. Parilla, made materially false and
misleading statements about the Company in various press releases disseminated publicly on
www.otcmarkets.com, which falsely characterized Fortitude’s purported efforts to enter into the
burgeoning legal marijuana business space.
2. Following Colorado’s legalization of the sale of recreational marijuana in January
2014, Fortitude and Parilla issued several press releases falsely portraying the company as
having successful marijuana-related partnerships and operations, including claims that it would
be issuing a Discover-branded debit card and distributing e-cigarettes to marijuana dispensaries.
In reality, at no time did Fortitude formally operate in the marijuana space or have the requisite
licensure, funding, or other corporate infrastructure to run a successful marijuana-related
business.
1:16-cv-50
Susan Paradise Baxter
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 13
-2-
3. Additionally, Fortitude and Parilla made material misrepresentations in a
Company financial report regarding revenue earned from the purported marijuana business. In
reality, Fortitude never realized the marijuana based revenue it claimed to have received.
4. By knowingly or recklessly engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint,
Defendants Fortitude and Parilla violated, and unless enjoined will continue to violate, Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Defendant Parilla also aided and abetted
Fortitude’s violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)
and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to
continue to violate the federal securities laws.
5. The Commission therefore respectfully requests the Court enter an order:
(i) permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from violating the federal securities laws;
(ii) directing Defendants to pay civil money penalties; (iii) imposing a penny stock bar against
Parilla; and (iv) imposing an officer and director bar against Parilla.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Section 21(d) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), to enjoin such acts, transactions, practices, and courses of business, and
to obtain civil penalties, an officer and director bar, a penny stock bar, and such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d), 21(e), and
27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa.
8. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78aa. Among other things, Fortitude’s principal place of business and Parilla’s
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 13
-3-
residence are located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Further, certain of the acts and
transactions constituting the violations alleged herein occurred within the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
9. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly
and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means or instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce, and of the mails.
DEFENDANTS
10. Fortitude is a Florida corporation headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania. Fortitude
describes itself as “a diversified company with investments in multiple sectors of the economy.”
Until May 23, 2014, its common stock was quoted on the OTC Pink marketplace (symbol
FRTD), when the Commission issued an order temporarily suspending trading in its securities.
Fortitude stock currently trades on the “grey market.”
11. Fortitude’s stock is a “penny stock” as defined by the Exchange Act. At all times
relevant to this action, the stock’s shares traded at less than one dollar per share. During the
same time period, Fortitude’s stock did not meet any of the exceptions to penny stock
classification pursuant to Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) and Rule 3a51-1,
15 U.S.C. § 78(c)(a)(51) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.3a51-1. For example the Company’s stock: (a) did
not trade on a national securities exchange; (b) was not an “NMS stock,” as defined in
17 C.F.R. § 42.600(b)(47); (c) did not have tangible assets (i.e., total assets less intangible assets
and liabilities) in excess of $5,000,000; and (d) did not have average revenue of approximately
$6,000,000 for the last three years. See Exchange Act, Rule 3a51-1(g).
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 13
-4-
12. Parilla, age 51, is the chief executive officer and sole employee of Fortitude. He
resides in Erie, Pennsylvania.
FACTS
A. The Fraudulent Misstatements in Fortitude’s Press Releases
13. Fortitude and Parilla engaged in a fraudulent promotional campaign between
February 2014 and May 2014, disseminating materially false and misleading press releases that
portrayed Fortitude as a player in the legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana business
sector.
14. In the press releases, which Parilla approved and disseminated, Fortitude
announced its entrance into the marijuana industry and made dubious multi-million dollar annual
revenue projections relating to its purported marijuana business.
15. Fortitude and Parilla never retracted any of the press releases or otherwise inform
investors and potential investors of the false statements contained therein.
16. As Fortitude’s CEO and sole employee, Parilla knew that these releases were
false at the time they were issued.
1. Fictitious Subsidiaries
17. In a February 21, 2014 press release, Parilla announced that “after extensive
research [Fortitude had] decided to set up a Medical Marijuana company within [its] Medical
Subsidiary.” The Company further announced “the formation of three new majority owned
subsidiaries[:] Fortitude Healthcare, Fortitude RE, and Fortitude Technology…with
Management Teams [consisting] of seasoned professionals.”
18. In fact, the Company had not formed these subsidiaries at the time of the
February 21, 2014 press release or anytime thereafter.
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 13
-5-
2. Phony Prepaid Discover Cards
19. On February 24, 2014, Fortitude issued another press release claiming that it
would acquire the Internet web addresses “420banc.com” and “420cashcard.com,” which would
be used to allow legal marijuana merchants to process marijuana purchases made with pre-paid
debit cards. In the press release, Parilla stated “[Fortitude’s] retail products allow for buyers to
purchase cannabis while being able to use the same card at traditional merchants via the
Discover card network.” Fortitude further announced that it expected to derive an annual profit
of approximately $155 per retail card user and that it intended to launch the card on March 17,
2014.
20. On March 24, 2014, the Company announced in a press release its “successful
launch of 420cashcard.com,” a “420 Cash Prepaid Discover© Card.” This card was purportedly
issued by Discover Financial Services a/k/a DFS Services LLC (“Discover”), the credit and debit
card company. Cardholders could earn points to redeem on products supplied by cannabis
vendors.
21. In fact, no Fortitude pre-paid debit card for marijuana transactions has ever
existed, and Discover has never had an agreement, affiliation, or association with Fortitude.
3. The Bogus VaporVites Product
22. Fortitude also made false and misleading statements in three press releases
regarding a purported marijuana vaporizer called “VaporVites.”
23. First, on April 2, 2014, Fortitude announced an agreement for the Company to
distribute “VaporVites,” which it described as an e-cigarette that could be used with a wide array
of dry herbs. Fortitude claimed it would initially process orders for dispensaries in Colorado
with the expansion of an additional 70 dispensaries within the next quarter. The press release
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 13
-6-
quoted Parilla stating that the distribution of the “VaporVites e-cig product line…will
immediately produce revenue for the company….”
24. Second, on April 8, 2014, Fortitude announced it had received a 5,000 unit order
for VaporVites from a Colorado dispensary with four stores. The press release did not identify
the dispensary, but explained that it would cost Fortitude $29 to manufacture each VaporVite
unit, which the Company would sell to dispensaries for $89 each. Parilla is quoted in the press
release stating the Company “was pleased to begin selling the VaporVites product while
reflecting this product revenue on [its] income statement” and that the “distribution of the
VaporVites e-cig product line has immediately produced revenue for the company at minimal
hard cost or capital outlay.” Parilla is further quoted as stating that Fortitude “should derive
roughly $15 million in 2014 from the VaporVites initiative.”
25. Third, on April 21, 2014, Fortitude announced in a press release that it had
received $50,000 as the initial deposit toward the 5,000 unit VaporVites order.
26. Fourth, on May 16, 2014, Fortitude disseminated another press release
announcing the company had, among other things, received over 15,000 individual orders for the
VaporVites system, that the orders would be fulfilled the following month, and that it had
received the initial deposit for the 15,000 orders.
27. None of the above-listed statements from the April 2, 8, 21, and May 16 press
releases were true. In reality, Fortitude never received any revenue-producing orders for
VaporVites from a Colorado dispensary or anywhere else. In fact, Fortitude never received any
funds from any sale of the VaporVites product. Moreover, Fortitude never entered into a
VaporVites deal with any legal marijuana dispensary.
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 13
-7-
4. More Phony Prepaid Debit Cards
28. On April 21, 2014, Fortitude announced the complimentary issuance to
shareholders of Affinity Elite Cards, prepaid debit cards preloaded with $25 each, and that the
Company purportedly “received a private label card order for over 100,000 Affinity [Elite]
Cards.”
29. In a May 14, 2014 press release, Parilla continued to tout Fortitude’s purported
well-being and the Company’s continuing growth and claimed that cash-flow grew “at a better
than expected rate.”
30. In a May 22, 2014 press release, Fortitude announced that the Affinity Elite
Cards had completed production and would ship the first week of June.
31. In reality, however, the Affinity Elite Cards were never launched nor issued, and
no such cards were printed or issued to shareholders as Fortitude claimed in its press release.
B. Fortitude’s Misstatements in Its Financial Disclosures
32. Fortitude’s financial report for the first quarter of 2014 contained material
misrepresentations regarding the revenue Fortitude recognized for the three months ended March
31, 2014.
33. In this report, which Parilla published on otcmarkets.com on May 26, 2014,
Fortitude stated that its financial statements were “prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in the United States of America.” The notes to the financial
statements for that period specify that Fortitude recognized revenue “in accordance with SEC
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, ‘Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements.’” The notes
further explained that Fortitude “recognize[d] revenue when the significant risks and rewards of
ownership have been transferred to the customer pursuant to applicable law and a regulation
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 13
-8-
including factors such as when there is evidence of a sale arrangement, delivery has occurred, or
service has been rendered….”
34. Parilla signed and certified the quarterly financial report, which stated that, based
on his knowledge, “this disclosure statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made…untrue.”
35. For the first quarter of 2014, Fortitude recognized total revenue of $412,162, a
400-fold increase in revenue from the prior year. Fortitude attributed the revenue to sales of
ThePUMPTracker.com, a financial internet property which Fortitude claimed to have purchased
in the first quarter of 2014, along with deposits for Affinity Elite Cards and VaporVites.
The breakdown of purported revenue is as follows:
Revenue Three Months
Ended March
31, 2014
Year Ended
December
31, 2013
Sales -
ThePUMPTracker.com $162,162 -
Affinity Elite Card $100,000 -
VaporVites Deposits $150,000 -
Total Revenues $412,162 -
36. Fortitude’s revenue figures for this quarter are inflated, false, and not in
accordance with U.S. GAAP or SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 101 because Fortitude did not
earn all of the $412,162 it recognized as revenue in this quarter.
37. Fortitude’s revenue figures for ThePUMPTracker.com were false and
misleading. Fortitude announced the purchase of ThePUMPTracker.com in a May 1, 2014 press
release. The Company announced the transfer of the domain would occur in the following two
to four weeks. In reality, no ThePUMPTracker.com assets were transferred to Fortitude.
Nevertheless, Fortitude recorded revenue from ThePUMPTracker.com for the first quarter of
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 13
-9-
2014, a period of time during which it did not own this property and did not receive any related
revenues.
38. Fortitude’s revenue figures for the Affinity Elite Card were false and misleading
because: (a) the Affinity Elite Card was never launched and cards were never printed; (b) the
purported orders of Affinity Elite Cards were never fulfilled.
39. Fortitude’s revenue figures for the VaporVites Deposits were also false and
misleading because no sales of VaporVites ever took place.
40. Moreover, even if Fortitude had received deposits for the Affinity Elite Cards
and VaporVites, deposits cannot be recorded as revenue pursuant to U.S. GAAP because no
products were delivered in exchange for the deposits.
C. The Market Impact of the Misstatements
41. The false and misleading press releases had a material impact on Fortitude’s
stock price and trading volume between February 21, 2014 and May 22, 2014. The week before
Fortitude announced its purported entrance into the marijuana business, Fortitude’s share price
fluctuated between an intraday low of $0.0001 and an intraday high of $0.0002, with an average
daily trading volume of 73,762,900 shares.
42. On February 21, 2014, Fortitude’s stock price rose to $0.01 per share – a 4900%
increase, with volume increasing three-fold from the prior day to over 132 million shares. The
Company’s share price continued to increase, reaching an intraday high of $0.08 on April 4,
2014. Between April 4, 2014 and May 16, 2014, Fortitude’s share price declined from $0.06 per
share to $0.01 per share. Per-share price again increased to $0.03 and volume peaked at over
204 million shares on May 19, 2014.
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 9 of 13
-10-
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and and Rule 10b-5(b) Thereunder
(Against Fortitude and Parilla)
43. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 42 of this
Complaint.
44. Between February 2014 and May 2014, Fortitude and Parilla, knowingly or
recklessly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or indirectly, by use of
any means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, made untrue statements of
material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
45. By reason of the foregoing, Fortitude and Parilla violated, and, unless enjoined,
are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).
SECOND CLAIM
Aiding and Abetting Liability Under Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act
(Against Parilla)
46. The Commission realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 42 of this
Complaint.
47. Between February 2014 and May 2014, Fortitude knowingly or recklessly, in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails made untrue statements of material facts
and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and by reason of the foregoing,
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 10 of 13
-11-
violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.10b-5(b).
48. From at least as early as February 2014 through May 2014, Defendant Parilla
knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Fortitude’s violations of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b), and is
deemed to be in violation of these provisions to the same extent as Fortitude.
49. By reason of the foregoing, Parilla aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, is
reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find the Defendants
committed the violations alleged, and:
I.
Permanent Injunction
Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, and
each of them, from violating the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.
II.
Penalties
Issue an Order directing Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section
21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3).
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 11 of 13
-12-
III.
Penny Stock Bar
Issue an Order, pursuant to Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6),
barring Parilla from participating in any future offering of a penny stock.
IV.
Officer and Director Bar
Issue an Order, pursuant to Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2),
barring Parilla from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities
registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or that is required to file reports pursuant
to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
V.
Further Relief
Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
VI.
Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this
action and over the Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and
decrees that may hereby be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the
Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 12 of 13
-13-
Respectfully submitted,
By:
s/ James M. Carlson
James M. Carlson
Senior Trial Counsel
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6328
E-mail: CarlsonJa@sec.gov
Lead Attorney
Attorney To Be Noticed
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 982-6300
Facsimile: (305) 536-4154
Dated: February 29, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-00050-SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 13 of 13
Number 1 and Benford's Law - Numberphile
whoa, I hope they checked dental records and that kind of stuff!!!...never know....
yep, release the *dogs* of snore.....
seems like the only so-called CEs detrimental to the stock have been Cooperate Executives.....who would have thunk it???
glad I sold long ago like Juicy did, and at a profit to boot!!!!!.....
PS: the good news is there are only millions and not billions of shares of this junk stock in existence, thank goodness for small *gifts*!!!
might be a nasty close today.......hope it gets well *documented* for a change, by someone who can spot patterns, I can't seem to find one that fits yet......
broke 2 cents, the new *gift*.....if I recall there were promises that the float should start being bought up at this range, since there is a SS to *envy*!!!!!!
not that I know of, but I see Stormin' Norman Birmingham (who had historical ties here) got some SEC attention in other schemes:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2016/lr23468.htm
On February 16, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged PV Enterprises, Inc. ("PVEC") and Panagiotis Villiotis ("Villiotis") with violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission also charged Virtual Sourcing, Inc. ("Virtual"), Norman Birmingham ("Birmingham"), Mario Faraone ("Faraone") and Sweet Challenge LLC ("Sweet Challenge") with violations of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws.
resets are possible!!!....a share price to be *envied*......
ahh, the cert pull, a classic penny stock death-rattle last resort.....
has a cert pull ever proved anything, anywhere?? (assuming one was ever done, despite all the clamoring)....
PS: reminds me of the ibox on a satire board
Parody subject matter includes legendary penny stock scams, with their billions of shares, mythical shorts, pumper-clowns, failed cert-pulls and thousands of rabid stuckholders still waiting for "NEXT WEEK" to arrive.
yeah, and that's the short list!!!!!
MIRI:
MIRI’s mission is to ensure that the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence has a positive impact. We aim to make advanced intelligent machines behave as we intend even in the absence of immediate human supervision.
The Machine Intelligence Research Institute is a research nonprofit studying the mathematical underpinnings of intelligent behavior. Our mission is to develop formal tools for the clean design and analysis of general-purpose AI systems, with the intent of making such systems safer and more reliable when they are developed.
https://intelligence.org/
hmm, wonder if the converse is also true, if a 8-K was *required* when the prox initially froze up, got damaged, and became nonoperational......oh yeah, they waited like 6 months!!!....here's to what's filed next.....or not.....
ditto
well, yeah....as if the change of the Co name/ticker was for no reason.....like for example, JB being associated with this pile of crap in namesake after taking the money and running.......oh, I forgot, it was changed to better describe PTOI (P2O) non-business, vs the non-business of JBII (JBI)....lol....sure it was....
BTW, being the egomaniac he is, do you think the name would have changed if things had been a roaring success???...which begs the question, since he of all people knew this was a load of BS, was the name change always planned once things inevitably imploded???.....take a wild guess on that one!!!