That "sale" was bogus...as is this company. PERIOD.
There have never had ANY operations, or would have had to file with MSHA, which they have never done. Why, because they have nothing but dirt at SV, and have done no exploration on any of their properties.
Okie is trailer trash, who knows nothing of the mining industry.
A. HCCA Improperly Recognized and Valued Mining Assets
i. Skull Valley, Arizona
32. On or about August 24, 1995, HCCA issued 100 million shares of stock to acquire a company whose only significant asset was a sublease.
33. HCCA claimed in its filings that the sublease, dated May 11, 1992, provided ownership to 500,000 tons of ore inventory located in Skull Valley, Arizona.
34. The underlying lease provided that the lease could not be sold or assigned or exploration and mining operations initiated without the approval of the State of Arizona. HCCA took no steps at the time to secure such approval. Pietrzak and Furlong, among others at HCCA, each received copies of the lease.
35. HCCA recorded this asset on its books and valued the ore at $200 million.
36. This valuation was a departure from generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").
37. Since HCCA failed to establish the fair value of any ore, or ownership of the ore, on the subleased land, there was no basis under GAAP to assign any value to such an asset in the books and records of the company.
38. HCCA never owned the ore and, accordingly, never should have recorded the ore as an asset.
39. The ore that HCCA valued at $200 million consisted of the tailings from a prior mining operation on the leased property.
40. Tailings are the materials that remain after the valuable minerals have been extracted from a mineral deposit.
41. HCCA's only interest in the tailings derived from the mineral lease, which merely gave HCCA the right to extract minerals, if any, from the ore. Arizona, as lessor, retained ownership of the ore.
42. Moreover, HCCA had no basis to value its interest in the mineral lease at $200 million.
43. HCCA never obtained an objectively determinable fair value for the ore.
44. On or about May 14, 1997, when the company's auditor was conducting his audit, he asked Furlong to engage an engineer or geologist to determine the value of the ore. Furlong refused and told the auditor to rely on an assay report.
45. On June 25, 1997, defendant Jordan, without a reasonable basis therefore, sent a report to the auditor stating that the value of the ore was approximately $4 billion.
46. Reliance on an assay report was improper because such reports only describe the mineral components of a substance, and do not describe the economic viability of extracting such minerals.
47. HCCA lacked any system to evaluate whether the value initially assigned to this ore asset, or its subsequent carrying value, conformed with GAAP.
48. For example, HCCA failed to obtain an appraisal or evaluation by a geologist to determine if it initially reported the asset at its fair value.
49. HCCA also failed to conduct any subsequent tests to determine whether the value of the ore had become impaired.
50. Pietrzak and Furlong shared responsibility to keep HCCA's books, records and accounts, and establish and maintain its internal accounting controls.
51. Pietrzak and Furlong each participated in recording this transaction by discussing and deciding how and when to book this asset. There was no basis to record or maintain this asset on HCCA's books.
52. This asset appeared in HCCA's March 1997, June 1997, September 1997, March 1998, June 1998, September 1998, March 1999, June 1999 and September 1999 reports on Form 10-QSB, the amendments to the March and June 1997 Forms 10-QSB, December 1997 Form 10-KSB, December 1998 Form 10-KSB and the December 1999 amendment thereto, and the August 1997 and December 1999 amendments to the Form 10-SB."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
