I assumed you had seen the documents from Pacer, thats what i was using the actual complaint from Pacer. I assumed this because you posted at some time in the past when the release was made a refernce to seeing the document from Pacer or that people could look it up on Pacer. The case is outlined in the complaint in the very beginning, in the introduction:
"1. From July through August 2009, Defendants Douglas D. Hague and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving the company's illicit kickbacks of Clean Coal stock to induce purchases and phony documents to mask those kickbacks.
2. As part of the scheme, Hague and a consultant for Clean Coal, Charles J. Douglas, agreed Douglas would pay illegal kickbacks to a purported trustee of a pension fund so the trustee would purchase 15,018 restricted shares of the company's stock from
Douglas. Hague, who was Clean Coal's president and CEO, directed the delivery of the stock certificates to the pension fund.
3. Unbeknownst to the Defendants, the corrupt pension fund trustee was a creation of the FBI. The pension fund trustee's purported friend who helped arrange the Case 0:12-cv-61076-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2012 Page 1 of 11
deals was an undercover FBI agent, and the middleman was a witness cooperating with the FBI.
4. To conceal the kickbacks, the Defendants, Douglas, and the cC?operating witness agreed Douglas would enter into a sham consulting agreement with a purported consulting company the FBI had created to receive the kickbacks.
5. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, the Defendants violated Section 17(a)(I) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(l), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a). Unless restrained and enjoined, they are reasonably likely to continue to violate the federal securities laws.
6. The Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter: (a) a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining the Defendants from violating the federal securities laws; (b) an order directing the Defendants to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest; (c) an order directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties; (d) an order barring Hague from participating in any offering of a penny stock; and (e) an order barring Hague 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."
**************
"Defendants Douglas D. Hague and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc."
There is that incorrectly attribuited 'and' again, then
"Hague, who was Clean Coal's president and CEO, directed the delivery of the stock certificates to the pension fund."
see where it says "was", meaning this is not actions that took place recently and all took place in the past.
Further down in the complaint, it describes the actions that took place in detail, and in every case its Hague did this or that in directing the events:
"IV. THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME
14. In early July 2009, Hague, Douglas and the cooperating witness began discussing a scheme involving Clean Coal stock. Shortly afterwards, on July 10, 2009, Hague and Douglas met in Broward County, Florida with the cooperating witness and an
FBI agent posing as the friend of a corrupt employee pension fund trustee, to finalize the scheme.
15. As part of the scheme, Hague, Douglas, the cooperating witness and the FBI agent agreed the pension fund would purchase $20,000 worth of Clean Coal stock in exchange for a 30 percent kickback to the pension fund trustee. In addition, they agreed
the cooperating witness, as a middleman, would receive restricted shares of the company's stock for introducing the parties. Subsequently, Hague and Douglas agreed with the FBI agent that, instead of providing the cooperating witness with restricted
stock, the FBI agent would compensate the cooperating witness.
16. During the meeting, Hague stated he and Douglas were interested in the transaction as long as they could use an individual's restricted stock, rather than the company's.
17. Hague stated he would "feel a lot more comfortable in a transaction with private shares" and noted "the last thing I want to be doing is trying to explain ... these large consulting agreements."
18. To effectuate the scheme, Hague agreed the pension fund would purchase Clean Coal stock directly from Douglas, rather than the company. Douglas told the others at the meeting, including Hague, " ... that way we keep the company clean . . . I don't want anything in there that looks like a kickback or a payoff or whatever you want to call it . . ."
19. Hague and the others agreed Douglas would use his shares for the transaction, and then he would loan the proceeds to the company through a debenture. Douglas said he would get his stock back once the debenture matured. Douglas stated that what he did personally would not come under the scrutiny of the Commission.
20. To conceal the kickback, Hague, the FBI agent, the cooperating witness and Douglas agreed Douglas would pay the money to a bogus consulting company. The FBI agent explained the sham consulting company would prepare an invoice to create a
"paper trail," and that a phony consulting agreement would be prepared. The cooperating witness repeatedly told Hague and Douglas the bogus consulting company would not be performing actual consulting servIces, and that the consulting agreement was just "insulation. "
21. During the course of their conversations and meeting, the cooperating witness and the FBI agent told Hague and Douglas the pension fund trustee was a fiduciary for the pension fund and that he had a fiduciary duty and responsibilities to beneficiaries of that fund.
A. The First Restricted Stock Transaction and Kickback
22. As Hague and the others had agreed, Douglas and the pension fund entered into a stock purchase agreement whereby the pension fund agreed to purchase 8,000 restricted shares of Clean Coal stock from Douglas for $20,000.
23. The FBI then wired $20,000 to Douglas's bank account on July 14. Two days later, Douglas sent a $6,000 kickback in the form of a cashier's check to the bogus consulting company. 24. On August 11, Clean Coal sent the pension fund a stock certificate for the
agreed-upon 8,000 shares of restricted Clean Coal stock. Hague, as Clean Coal's president, signed the certificate.
25. Hague directed an individual at Clean Coal to send the certificate to thepension fund by overnight delivery, using the address in the stock purchase agreement.
B. The Second Restricted Stock Transaction and Kickback
26. Approximately two weeks after completing the transaction, Hague,Douglas, the FBI agent and the cooperating witness agreed to do another deal in whichthe purported pension fund would buy Clean Coal stock in return for a kickback.
27. Douglas and the pension fund entered into a second stock purchase agreement, dated July 30, 2009, pursuant to which the pension fund agreed to purchase 7,018 restricted shares of Douglas's stock for $20,000.
28. On August 5, the FBI agent emailed Hague and Douglas the signed stock purchase agreement and an invoice, dated August 4, from the bogus consulting company, in the amount of $6,000. The FBI agent also emailed Hague and Douglas the instructions for sending the $6,000 kickback to the fake consulting company.
29. On August 5, the FBI wired $20,000 to Douglas's bank account. Two days later, Hague emailed the FBI agent that Douglas was traveling and would send theinvoice payment the next morning. Douglas then sent a $6,000 kickback in the form of a
cashier's check to the bogus consulting company.
30. On August 11, Clean Coal sent the pension fund a stock certificate for the agreed-upon 7,018 shares of restricted Clean Coal stock. Again, Hague, as Clean Coal's president, signed the stock certificate.
31. Hague directed an individual at Clean Coal to send the certificate to the pension fund by overnight delivery, using the address in the stock purchase agreement.
32. In the following months, Hague and Douglas communicated with the cooperating witness about possible additional transactions. In January 2010, the three met to discuss another possible fraudulent scheme involving Clean Coal stock. Ultimately, however, there were no additional transactions.
*********************
See how everything was done at Hagues direction, its always Hague did this or that on directing the actions, its never "the company" did this or that.
No, this is not about the company, its about hague and its pretty plain to see in the actual complaint. The company was included as a defendant by mistake and thst being worked on to correct that mistake.
Aside from the legal'ese wording in the rest of the complaint, this is the case, and it clearly shows that nothing was done without Hague directing it. "The company" just did not jump up and do anything without Hague directing it.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
