IAHL Corporation (IAHL)

[theindustriesdriver]

Investors please be aware of the rediculousness of the "Albany
Journal Blog" thingy, it is very much misleading. Here are some rebuttals that you would find if you were to dd/read further comments about the malicious article addressing falsely stated claims:
(sure I'd love to get some more shares @.05 but really folks, don't so easily be fooled or otherwise misled.)

THE TRUTH FOLLOWS: (excerpted from investors hub poster "evilman"
addressing said article)
1 comments:
Evilman said...
The editorialized article contains patently false information about the history of IAHL Corporation and the present management. The article's incorrect statements warrant an investigation and a retraction. As the manager of an investor group that purchased IAHL shares on the public markets, the article is quite disturbing with its brazen misrepresentations of the facts which we thoroughly investigated.

1. The article implies that the company converted from a medicine company to an airline company via a share swap. This is incorrect. The company was a hotel management company which was bought by an agreement with Michelle Shearer of Rockford Montgomery Labs. Under the terms, Ms. Shearer had to pay for the preferred shares to take control. While Ms. Shearer represented she owned the shares to the public, the truth was she never paid for them. Subsequently, the persons who held the shares as collateral determined that she misrepresented the potential liabilities to them. They made an inquiry to Ms. Shearer and voiced objections. Ms. Shearer responded by rescinding the merger and cancelling her purchase of the shares of the company. The persons with control had the Hobson's Choice of suing Ms. Shearer to complete the deal or simply taking back the corporate shell and finding a new business. They chose to simply accept the cancellation and move on. There was no share swap as falsely claimed in the editorial.

2. Mr. Peter Van Dyke had no affiliation with Shearer or the company until after Ms. Shearer rescinded her agreement to buy the shell.

3. After Ms. Shearer rescinded the merger, the owners of the preferred stock met with Mr. Van Dyke and agreed to sell him the shares so that he could put his start up airplane company into the shell.

4. The editorial falsely brandishes Mr. Van Dyke as a "penny stock impresario." How this claim came to be seems amazing because, prior to the purchase of the shell AFTER Ms. Shearer rescinded it, Mr. Van Dyke had absolutely no past involvement with any penny stock company. We did myriad investigations of Mr. Van Dyke, and he has never been involved with any pink sheet or OTC company to our knowledge.

5. The article then brandishes the company as, "Priming the Pump." Pumping a pink sheets stock normally involves paying promoters to sell the stock and to publish glorified articles in exchange for shares. IAHL has not engaged in any form of marketing its stock. The transfer agent of the stock is open to the public and will announce the outstanding shares to all. There has been no promotion whatsoever of the stock except a few $300 Marketwire Press Releases to announce the negotiations and definitive agreement-- all of which appear to be materially accurate.

6. Peter Van Dyke is not a member of Investorshub. To our knowledge, he has never posted on a public stock forum. There is no person affiliated with the company known to be posting. The comment "made in heaven" was posted by an anonymous poster, not Mr. Van Dyke. Investorshub contains anonymous posts from anonymous investors. There is no evidence whatsoever that the "made in heaven" opinion came from any company official. However, the Thrush deal does seem to be made in heaven as it would: (a) Provide Thrush a vehicle to obtain Regulation D investors and financing while (b) giving the present shareholders a windfall opportunity with Thrush's business involving verified sales, revenues, and customers. As such, "made in heaven" is a fair comment for an investor to make.

7. The article makes the spurious insinuation that the company is not a "manufacturer of aircraft." However, if the editorialist carefully examined the due diligence that the investors reported while investigated the company, there would have been no need to attack the company's phrasing. The investors have publicly investigated the Integrity airplane and the company has the shells of several airplanes in a warehouse. The company has designed plans to modify the existing plane design to make it more efficient. The company needs funding to complete this operation. The plane has been discussed in testimony before Australian aviation authority board members and links to the testimony have been provided on Investorshub by the investors.

8. The company and the investors are quite aware that the plane is not going to be manufactured in or used in the United States. This has been discussed repeatedly on Investorshub (which, as stated, Mr. Van Dyke is not a member).

8. The article falsely depicts the company as having misrepresented its office location. The company is a Nevada corporation and has a statutory resident agent in Nevada as required by law. Mr. Van Dyke, who resides in Florida, has arranged a part time office in Florida. He never claimed or represented that he has a full time office there.

9. The article falsely claims that Mr. Van Dyke does not return calls made to the telephone number listed on the most recent press releases. This simply is not true. Mr. Van Dyke repeatedly returns calls to investors. The moderators of the Investorshub board, including Angelhillcorp (a respected investor who does due diligence and investigations of these companies) and Major Damage have both stated they spoke with Mr. Van Dyke. Both of these investors have no affiliation with the company whatsoever except they bought the stock on the open market. Angelhillcorp ([e-mail]) will be happy to verify this information telephonically. Many other investors have stated they spoke with Mr. Van Dyke as well. While the editorialist implies something is wrong with the fact that Mr. Van Dyke does not answer the telephone listed on the press release, it must be kept in mind that federal law, particularly Regulation FD, prohibits Mr. Van Dyke from providing information to any person that is not disclosed publicly. Furthermore, hundreds of investors call the numbers on the releases and companies must screen the calls. When Mr. Van Dyke returns calls, he is limited in what he can say. He cannot provide information other than what is already released publicly.

10. The article claims that "reliable sources" have no knowledge of Mr. Van Dyke or the Integrity Aircraft. The integrity project is an old one. It has been discussed in filings dating back to 2003. See, e.g., http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/trs/aviation/sub175.pdf . As such, the "reliable sources" who never heard of the Integrity may not be as reliable as the editorialist suggest. On the contrary, the editorialist did not and cannot say that the "reliable sources" actually investigated the existence of the Integrity or Mr. Van Dyke's affiliation with it.

11. The editorialist complains that the telephone number in the prior press releases of IAHL is disconnected. The contact information in a press release is for reporters and persons of interest to contact the author on the day of its submission. It is not, and never purported to be, the permanent number of the company. The telephone number for Integrity is 239-277-3883. This is what is and has been listed on the Pink Sheet's website (pinksheets.com) for the company. Pink Sheets is the company that handles trade quotations for the small cap stocks such as IAHL. That is where an investor would visit to learn how to contact the company. Perhaps the editorialist may wish to do the same.

12. The editorialist complains that the company's holding patent rights by assignment is not the same as the FAA having approved the plane. Nobody said it was a distinction without a difference. On the contrary, the patent is what holds value whether IAHL manufacturs the plane or another company chooses to. Furthermore, as repeatedly stated, the investors are quite aware that the plane has no intention of being flown in the United States. It is an "island hopper," and the market was neven intended to be the United States. That is not to say that the company will never have the plane certified there, but it demonstrates the editorialists zeal for attempting to bring IAHL into a dark light.

13. The editorialist claims that the company's medicine product was a "failed headache remedy." Again, there is no evidence that the product failed. What failed was Rockford Montgomery Labs' fulfillment of the terms of the acquisition of the shell, and it is in no way a reflection on the present management of the shell. Quite frankly, the investors, the company, and the preferred share holders were victims of Ms. Shearer's misrepresentations in regard he intent to purchase the company and merge Rockford Montgomery into it. On the one hand, investors were disappointed. However, it was probably a blessing in disguise since RML had incurred -- prior to merger or any announcement of merger -- liabilities from advertising.

14. The editorialist infers that the statement that Thrush Aircraft is the leader in the industry is somehow a misrepresentation. While Air Tractor may sell more planes, and have more employees, Thrush presently has 79 employees. The "leader" claim is based on more than just sales and size. It also includes factors such as reputation, quality, etc. Thrush is certainly a leader in the industry, having planes sold in 80 countries.

15. The editorialist concludes that the company is engaged in a "pump and dump." A "pump and dump" involves a company issuing hyped press releases while simultaneously diluting its common shares through nominee Regulation D investors without the knowledge of the common shareholders. In an incredible move by management, the transfer agent routinely gives share structure information to anyone who asks for it. If there's a pump, there's no dump to accompany it as the editorialist ignorantly suggests. It's quite unfortunate to brand a company that simply issued a couple press releases, engaged in no stock promotion, no SPAM, no fax blasting, no paid promotion, and no telephone boiler rooms as a "pump and dump." In fact, it's most likely libelous.

The editorialist seems to forget that the people who frequent investorshub are experience investors who chose to invest in high risk stock. The company's history, spanning many years from the viewpoint of the investors, is available for review.

A red flag is raised not when investors talk about a stock on a bulletin board and the company only issues press releases. On the contrary, the warning is when uneducated consumers and investors are duped into buying high risk stocks through SPAM, paid newsletter promotion, and shady telephone solicitors. Your editorialist should educate herself on the difference.

February 11, 2008 7:48 PM
Post a Comment

Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive
▼ 2008 (1)
▼ February (1)
Claims and Counterclaims: The Peter Van Dyke Saga
About Me
The Albany Journal
View my complete profile