News 
Market Data 
Discover
Replies to post #26213 on PharmaCyte Biotech Inc (PMCB)
Defendants were involved in the
drafting, producing, reviewing, and/or disseminating of the false and misleading information
detailed herein, knew or recklessly disregarded that such materially misleading statements were
being issued by the Company, and/or approved or ratified these statements in violation of the
federal securities laws. Individual Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions of
fact consequently had the effect of, both on their own and in the aggregate, artificially inflating
the price of the common stock of Topaz at all times during the Class Period .
CHTL has certainly treated its stock like an endless money supply. For example, regulatory filings show, CHTL issued more than 30 million shares of stock to consultants and contractors – causing its overhead costs to skyrocket -- during the first nine months of 2009 alone. Since then, those filings show, the company has issued millions of additional shares for similar consulting services.
With the stock blowing past $1 near the end of last year, CHTL insiders began to cash in some of their chips. Isidoro Gutierrez, identified in regulatory filings as CHTL’s chief administrative officer and uncle to two of the company’s top executives, sold at the highest prices – fetching up to $1.55 a share – around the time the stock hit its peak.
In early February, however, a mysterious Mexican trust holding 4.8% of CHTL’s stock (just short of the 5% stake required for detailed disclosures) reported the most lucrative sales of all. Between Dec. 17 and Jan. 22, the trust sold more than 2 million shares of CHTL – at prices ranging up to $1.91 a share – and pocketed almost $3 million in proceeds in the process.
Kenneth Waggoner, CHTL’s outside legal counsel, executed some well-timed sales as well. On the same day that CHTL announced that Excel had reduced its original funding commitment, for example, Waggoner sold 15,000 shares of stock at just under $1 a share. Two days after CHTL learned that Excel would be unable to make its first big payment – and three days before the company actually disclosed that news – Waggoner followed up with an even bigger sale by cashing in 40,000 shares as the stock headed below 70 cents a share.
These cases can be viewed at the Orange County Superior Court website, Further, according to China Tel Group Inc.'s SEC filings, China Tel Group Inc., "issued to Trussnet Delaware 90,890,639 shares of the Company's Series A Common Stock in lieu of a $47 million cash payment.". These share were issued to Trussnet USA Inc. even though, according to Ken Waggoner (Trussnet and China Tel Group's general counsel), Trussnet was already out of business at the times the shares were issued.
Further, China Tel Group SEC filing on September 10, 2010, states, "On October 1, 2009, Trussnet Nevada and Trussnet Delaware entered into a First Amendment of the Agreement for Professional Services ("First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement")".
Why would Trussnet USA Inc. Nevada enter into an agreement with a company that, according to Ken Waggoner, had been out of business for a year?
Even more important, where did these 90,890,639 shares go to after they issued to Trussnet USA Inc. (Del.)? This researcher has been unable to find any record that Trussnet USA Inc. has paid any of the judgments against it by various creditors, or has Trussnet paid any of its employees that sued for unpaid wages and obtained judgments, or has it paid any of the dozens of IRS liens against it. In truth, over 38,000,000 of the aforesaid shares were issued to Trussnet after aforesaid employees had obtained judgments, yet not a single one of them have benefitted to date.
As previously disclosed, the Company filed a “shelf” Registration Statement on Form S-3 with the SEC, which was declared effective on April 11, 2014. Under that shelf registration, the Company may, from time to time, sell up to $50,000,000 in securities. On May 20, 2014, the company filed a prospectus supplement, which disclosed that the company engaged Chardan Capital Markets LLC to act as agent in an at-the-market offering of up to 10,000,000 shares of common stock.
1). Kerry S. Propper was the subject of 2003 Federal law suit filed in Conn. by the Small Business Administration one of his co-defendants was Acorn Ct Investments LP, they all ended up paying the SBA $1,764,333 in total see link http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/04D0487P.pdf
2). Kerry S. Propper was/is under Dept of Justice investigation with his father Richard Propper. One of their partners was convicted of defrauding the SBA and sent to Federal prison for 70 months. SBA seeks to recover $96 million from Richard Propper and the rest of the crew in yet another SBA lawsuit, see info below……
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2006, U.S. Files Suit Against John Torkelsen, Richard Propper, Daniel Beharry, & Sovereign Bank Alleging Fraud of $32 Million Against the Small Business Administration
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it has filed a lawsuit accusing John Torkelsen, Richard Propper, Daniel Beharry, and Sovereign Bank of defrauding the Small Business Administration’s Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program of $32 million. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the False Claims Act, which allows the United States to recover up to three times the amount of its losses plus civil penalties.
The government’s complaint alleges that Torkelsen, Propper and Beharry violated the conflict of interest and management fee rules of the SBIC program by engaging in multiple secret transactions that funneled government money into companies controlled by Propper and Beharry or Torkelsen and his family. The SBIC program has rules designed to prevent the unauthorized investment of government funds in companies controlled by those who act as managers of the SBICs. The alleged fraud is believed to be the largest perpetrated upon the program to date.
The SBIC program, administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration, was created in 1958 to fill the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in start-up and growth situations. The government, itself, does not make direct investments or target specific industries. Rather, the SBIC program is a “fund of funds” – meaning that portfolio management and investment decisions are left to qualified private fund managers. Small businesses which qualify for assistance from the program are able to receive equity capital, long-term loans and expert management assistance.
The investigation of the fraud allegations against the defendants was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Philadelphia, Pa.; the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Justice Department’s Civil Division. The United States has settled with, or reached settlement in principle with, a number of other individuals or entities involved in the alleged fraud.
Published January 12, 2007 Kerry S. Propper is an executive at both SPACs.
Richard Propper father), a physician and venture capitalist who had started an array of businesses, including Medibuy.com, a Website for marketing medical supplies. Propper subsequently launched two more bulletin-board-traded SPACs — Chardan North China Acquisition (CNCA) and Chardan South China Acquisition (CSCA). He serves as chairman of the former and chief financial officer of the latter.
Propper is head of Chardan Capital, a San Diego-based venture capital firm. His son Kerry S. Propper, who is an executive at both SPACs, heads the similarly named Chardan Capital Markets, a New York-based broker-dealer and investment bank.
The elder Propper has an eventful investment history. In the early ’90s, he resigned as the managing general partner at Montgomery Medical Ventures, a venture-capital firm controlled by Montgomery Securities, amid reports that he inadvertently disclosed to a family member inside information about a Montgomery-related transaction (SEC investigation). He now says only that the incident “had nothing to do with anything.”
In 1996, meanwhile, he settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that, as a general partner of two Montgomery funds, he failed to disclose holdings and transactions in several public companies. He says it was simply a matter of bookkeeping issues.
If this history has cast a shadow over Origin’s shares, an early recovery is hardly likely in view of new litigation. On Dec. 29, the Justice Department filed a civil suit in federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Propper, his partner Daniel Beharry, their former partner John Torkelsen and Sovereign Bancorp, alleging they’d defrauded the Small Business Administration of $32 million.
That suit is running parallel to a civil action filed by the SBA in early 2005. In that action, the government alleges the same plaintiffs (Kerry S. Propper) funneled SBA money through Acorn Technology Fund, a small-business investment company, to their own companies. Among other things, it contends that Propper loaned money to Acorn to finance Medibuy, that Acorn repaid him with SBA money, and that Propper-related partnerships received more than $800,000 from Acorn. In June, Torkelsen began serving a 70-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to making false statements to the SBA.
