United American Corp. (UAMA)

[65actual]

SEC action against UAMA supported by case law!

Inelco and Teliphone REVOKED by SEC! Stockholders totally screwed! Is UAMA Next?

1) US Pink-listed companies must file public disclosure documents.

2) Those Pink filing documents subject to SEC oversight especially when FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION reported.

3) See following identical case:

Almost identical violations! Benoit Laliberte claims he had no prior criminal convictions within the past 10 years in the latest 2018-19 UAMA Quarterly Reports and Pink Disclosures. The evidence is clear he was found guilty on 44 of 48 counts of stock fraud, market manipulation and deceiving investors, with latest conviction in April 2009, clearly within the 10 year time period. UAMA Pink OTC market same as below and multiple violations so no accident.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22442 / August 10, 2012

SEC v. Ronald D. Brooks, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-2716 (N.D. Tx. Aug. 9, 2012)

SEC Charges Former Public Company CEO with Fraud

On August 9, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging that Ronald D. Brooks committed securities fraud while serving as CEO and chairman of Standard Oil Company USA, Inc., a purported energy company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Brooks signed and certified Standard Oil’s initial disclosure statement filed with the Pink OTC Markets and made available to investors through that market’s website. Brooks represented in the disclosure statement that he had no prior criminal convictions. In fact, however, Brooks has three prior felony convictions, two for securities violations. The SEC therefore alleges that Brooks defrauded Standard Oil’s investors. The complaint charges Brooks with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks a permanent injunction, a civil monetary penalty, an officer-and-director bar, and a penny-stock bar.

Similar action against UAMA?

a) permanent injunction, and
b) a civil monetary penalty, and
c) officer-and-director bar, and
d) a penny-stock bar.

That would effectively protect the public market and investors by preventing Mr. Laliberte from acting in any capacity for a publicly-listed company. Action is long overdue in bringing Mr. Laliberte to justice for his well documented and evidenced fraudulent misrepresentation.

In case of Mr. Laliberte the quantity and seriousness of past convictions could result in the filing of criminal charges which could result in jail time for Mr. Laliberte. According to other posts on this board (Bilal Khabab) Mr. Laliberte never paid his fine to Quebec, has been an undischarged (and undisclosed) personal bankrupt for over ten (10) years and failed to properly disclose $47M bankruptcy of Navigata-Westel and receivership of Investel Capital Corp. Expect the SEC to take all of this into consideration when they get around to appropriate prosecution.

All of this will be devastating to UAMA and shareholders. Like INELCO and TELIPHONE both revoked by SEC? Same management team, same result?

caveat emptor - CAVEAT EMPTOR