VideoLan and Seaveiw. They can pick them.
Form 144 Search Results
Insider Name Event Date Subject Company
TUSCANO INVESTMENTS LTD 5/30/2000 SEAVIEW UNDERWATER RESEARCH IN...
TUSCANO INVESTMENTS LTD 4/9/2001 SEAVIEW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY
TUSCANO INVESTMENTS LTD 12/19/2000 VIDEOLAN TECHNOLOGIES INC
Kensington Wells, Inc.
In a separate complaint, NASD Regulation charged 12 former brokers of the now defunct Long Island brokerage firm Kensington Wells, Inc. with a wide range of sales practice abuses. The complaint alleges that the 12 brokers, who were based at Kensington Wells’ Mineola, NY headquarters, participated in or facilitated a boiler room operation through a series of fraudulent sales practices and other misconduct from April 1994 through October 1996.
Named in the complaint are: Joel Grant, Steven Orandello, James McInerney, Steven Stecklow, Victor Difrisco, Steven Jaross, Edwin Lawrence, Kevin Loomis, Edward Stock, Craig Redding, Gary Redding, and Michael Newman.
According to the complaint, the sales practice violations occurred in connection with Kensington Wells’ underwriting of the IPOs of Xechem International, Inc.; Universal Automotive Inc.; and VideoLan Technologies, Inc. The brokers are alleged to have engaged in unauthorized trading; baseless or improper price predictions; making improper comparisons to other stocks; tying the purchase of IPOs to a commitment to buy stock in the aftermarket; guaranteeing customers against loss; promising to make up losses with new trades; and refusing to execute or aggressively discouraging orders to sell stocks, immediately before and after the IPOs.
At least 60 investors were victimized through fraudulent practices, the complaint said.
Both complaints demand that the respondents forfeit the profits that were illegally obtained and make restitution to defrauded investors. The complaint does not allege any wrongdoing on the part of the issuers.
The issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents the initiation of a formal proceeding by the NASD in which findings as to the allegations in the complaint have not been made and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Because this complaint is unadjudicated, you may wish to contact the respondents before drawing any conclusion regarding the allegations in the complaint.
Under NASD rules, the individuals and the firms named in the complaint can file a response and request a hearing before an NASD Regulation disciplinary panel. Possible sanctions include a fine, suspension, bar, or expulsion from the NASD.
NASD Regulation oversees all U.S. stockbrokers and brokerage firms. NASD Regulation, and The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., are subsidiaries of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD®), the largest securities-industry self-regulatory organization in the United States.
For more information on NASD Regulation, visit its Web Site (www.nasdr.com).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION-------------------------------------------------------
BRENT BERTI and STEVEN SHAW,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,Plaintiffs,- v. -VIDEOLAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
JOHN HAINES, PETER BECK, STEVEN
ROTHENBERG, VERNON JACKSON and
TED RALSTON,Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------
Civil Action No. [97-CV-00296]CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTJURY TRIAL DEMANDEDMAY 9, 1997SUMMARY OF ACTION
1. This is a securities class action on behalf of public investors who purchased the common stock or warrants (collectively, the "Securities") of Videolan during the period from November 7, 1995 through May 28, 1996 (the "Class Period"). This case involves false representations made by the Defendants to the investing public that Videolan had entered into an agreement with the Samsung Corporation of Korea ("Samsung") under which Samsung committed to purchase from Videolan between $50,000,000 and $70,000,000 worth of Videolan's VL 2000 product (the "Samsung Agreement"), when, in fact, the Samsung Agreement did not obligate Samsung to purchase anything from Videolan. Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the Samsung Agreement created the illusion that Videolan was on the brink of reaping substantial revenues and earnings from the VL 2000. The misrepresentations caused the price of Videolan's stock to increase dramatically, and the price remained artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, thereby causing damage to those who bought the Securities during the Class Period (the "Class Members").
AI
