Securities and Exchange Commission Inquiry and Investigation
On July 30, 2004, we received a request for voluntary production of documents and information pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission informal inquiry. The documents requested include those related to our stock issuances, major corporate transactions, including the Azra shopping center, the Queens mineral property and the licensing agreements with RV Systems, agreements with consultants and related parties, as well as those relating to potential joint venture partners and customers. We fully cooperated with the Commission in response to its request for information.
On February 10, 2006, we received another request for voluntary production of documents and information pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") informal inquiry, and on April 24, 2006, we received a subpoena from the SEC issued in an investigation initiated by the SEC with respect to the matters covered by the inquiry and a broad range of other matters. Our President voluntarily testified and all requested documents were submitted.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation Case
On November 23, 2004, the Company filed a Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Clark, State of Nevada, sitting in Las Vegas, Nevada, styled "Whistler Investments, Inc., et al. v. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, et al.", Case No. A495703. The defendants include The Depository Trust Company and the National Securities Clearing Corporation. The action alleges 22 state law claims, including intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud, racketeering, negligence, conversion, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantages and conspiracy. A motion to dismiss has been filed by defendants. Our case is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. Our Opening Brief has been filed. Briefing is still in progress. A decision is expected in 15-20 months.
Other Matters
On June 3, 2008, we were notified of a case filed on June 2, 2008, by Peter Strojnik, Attorney at Law, in the Federal Court for the District of Arizona (Peter Strojnik, P.C. v. The Energy Bull et al., 2:08-cv-1017 ROS). The complaint seeks damages against The Energy Bull and unknown defendants based on transmission of unsolicited facsimiles illegally promoting the stock of the Company to the plaintiff and members of the class that the plaintiff purports to represent. The Company is not a defendant in this case and disclaims, and has continually disclaimed on its web site and in its communications with the investing public, all responsibility for authorizing in any manner unsolicited facsimiles issued by The Raging Bull or other parties that seek to promote the Company’s stock.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
