Analysts are required to disclose if they receive compensation from an issuer. I can't imagine a tout sheet erroneously disclosing compensation that isn't.
Revenue recognition is a matter of accounting theory. If QualityStocks or any other tout sheet isn't doing a deal with VTSI directly, they haven't an obligation to disclose. Therefore, if a third party was using borrowed shares, it would escape disclosure.
While everyone has their "dilution" hat on, I'd like to know how VTSI issued 2,000,000 new freely trading shares while RoseBowl is still waiting for that to which has been legally agreed.
I am a believer in the "smell test". The very idea of an unintentional, accidental and unnecessary disclosure always smells. I'm sure VTSI Investor Relations has their arms all around this thing and will give shareholders the unabridged version of events upon their call. We'd all like to know if VTSI is filing suit against this tout sheet or whether it was settled out of court and will be reflected in the next 10Q.
When I have some time, I will cross-ref the officers and boards of QualityStock published clients with those of VTSI to see if somebody's mother and first cousin are the same.
Do you want to weigh in on this RoseBowl?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
