SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Strategies & Market TrendsAnthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Bill from Wisconsin5/8/2008 11:30:02 AM
   of 122050
 
IMDS.ob being sued by customer

The guy who made the sale is IMDS's landlord. Just a coincidence IMDS terminated the lease with the guy within a month of the lawsuit!

From yesterday's S-1

sec.gov

"In April 2008, we were served with a lawsuit filed against us in Venice, Italy, by Gio Marco S.p.A. and Gio IDH S.p.A., related Italian companies which, between them, had purchased three CTLM® systems in 2005. One system was purchased directly from us, and the other two were purchased from our former Italian distributor and an affiliate of the distributor.

The plaintiffs allege that they purchased the CTLM® systems for experimental purposes based on alleged oral assurances by our sales representative to the effect that we would promptly receive PMA approval for the CTLM® and that we would give them exclusive distribution rights in Italy. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover a total of €628,595, representing the aggregate purchase price of the systems plus related expenses.""

*****

"
On April 29, 2008, we gave six months prior written notice of termination of our lease of our Plantation, Florida facility. We believe that we will be able to lease an adequate replacement facility on substantially more favorable terms; however, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in this effort.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: StockDung5/8/2008 11:47:32 AM
   of 122050
 
BUYINS.NET NAKED SHORTSELLING SCAM CONTINUES. COMPANY DOES NOT DISCLOSE IN PRESS RELEASE THAT THEY PAID BUYINS.NET FOR THE COVERAGE.

ONE BIG SCAM!!

Buyins.net Initiates Coverage on Cleveland BioLabs With SqueezeTrigger Price of $7.41

May 07, 2008: 09:03 AM EST

Cleveland BioLabs, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBLI) announced today that Buyins.net initiated coverage on the Company after releasing the latest short sale data through May 2008.

The Buyins.net report stated that the total aggregate number of CBLI shares shorted between July 2006 and May 2008 is approximately 2.5 million shares. The report also stated that the CBLI SqueezeTrigger price of $7.41 is the volume weighted average short price of all short selling in CBLI.

Interested parties should visit buyins.net for more information.

About Buyins.net

Buyins.net is a service designed to help shareholders of publicly traded US companies fight naked short selling. Naked short selling is the illegal act of short selling a stock when no affirmative determination has been made to locate shares of the stock to hypothecate in connection with the short sale.

About Cleveland BioLabs, Inc.

Cleveland BioLabs, Inc. is a drug discovery and development company leveraging its proprietary discoveries about programmed cell death to treat cancer and protect normal tissues from exposure to radiation and other stresses. The Company has strategic partnerships with the Cleveland Clinic, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, ChemBridge Corporation and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. To learn more about Cleveland BioLabs, Inc., please visit the company's website at cbiolabs.com.

This press release does not suggest or imply an endorsement by the Company of any recommendation or reference in any publication by unrelated parties.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements reflect management's current expectations, as of the date of this press release, and involve certain risks and uncertainties. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. Some of the factors that could cause future results to materially differ from the recent results or those projected in forward-looking statements include the "Risk Factors" described in the Company's periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact:
Rachel Levine
Director Corporate Development & Communications
Cleveland BioLabs, Inc.
T: (646) 284-9439
E: rlevine@cbiolabs.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: StockDung5/8/2008 12:50:24 PM
   of 122050
 
Memo to Cleveland Cavaliers Fans: Now It Is Time to Boycott Overstock.com
Submitted by Eugmc on May 7, 2008 - 4:30pm.

clevelandleader.com

What do you get when you fool a blind man? Well, Overstock.com likes to reward the most despised NBA player in Cleveland, signing him today to a 4 year contract to help hawk their goods and services. If you are new to the Cleveland sports scene you may have no idea what I am talking about. If you follow Cavaliers basketball there is little doubt that you know that I am speaking about Carlos Boozer, who betrayed Cleveland and the team's then-owner Gordon Gund, who is legally blind, by shaking on a contract. Here is what ESPN wrote in 2004 of the situation:

The Cavaliers had an option year remaining on Boozer's contract at the bargain-basement price of $700,000. But Boozer averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds last season. Acknowledging he was worth way more than that, Cavs general manager Jim Paxson supposedly shook hands with Boozer on a deal in which the team would forgo the option and let Boozer become a restricted free agent. In exchange, Boozer would sign with Cleveland for $41 million over six years.
Shortly afterward, however, the Jazz stepped in with an offer worth $27 million more, one the Cavs couldn't afford to match. Boozer accepted that deal and the debate began: Did Paxson get bamboozled, and if so, was he at fault for taking the player's word? Did Boozer act with malice by breaking his promise? And was there a promise made to begin with?

Even Boozer's own sports agency, known to have less morals than used auto salesman, washed their hands of Boozer after the deal. Again, quoting the AP story that ESPN ran:

Among the intriguing pieces of fallout was the decision by SFX, the company that represents Boozer, to disassociate itself from the player, a rare move that spoke to the bad public relations it must have received in the wake of the contract. The agent who worked out the deal, Rob Pelinka, resigned from the company, as well.

The funniest thing in the press release that Overstock.com released today was this delightful snippet:

"Carlos and Cindy share the same values and ideals as Overstock.com."

So what is Overstock.com saying, that they share in fooling blind people? Obviously Overstock.com doesn't know who they are messing with. Rabid Cleveland sports fans are known to hold a grudge. Ask Art Modell, Albert Belle, or Papa John's pizza company. They have all felt Cleveland sports fans ire and probably regret it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: StockDung who wrote (95530)5/8/2008 1:24:43 PM
From: anniebonny
   of 122050
 
Final Judgments by Default Entered Against Alfred Peeper, Oriental New Investments, Ltd., and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. in Market Manipulation Cases

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20560 / May 8, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Absolutefuture.com, et al., (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. No. 01-CV-9058 (DAB))
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wamex Holdings, Inc., et al., (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. No. 01-CV-9056 (DAB))
Final Judgments by Default Entered Against Alfred Peeper, Oriental New Investments, Ltd., and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. in Market Manipulation Cases
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that a federal district court in New York recently entered final judgments by default against three parties, each of which was involved in two related stock manipulation schemes. On April 15, 2008, and March 11, 2008, the court entered the judgments against defendant Alfred Peeper and relief defendants Oriental New Investments, Ltd. (ONI), and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. (OFL) in two civil enforcement actions brought by the Commission. In its complaints, the Commission charged that Peeper, ONI, and OFL were involved in complex schemes to manipulate the common stocks of AbsoluteFuture.com (AFTI) and Wamex Holdings, Inc. (WAMX), respectively. According to the complaints, the manipulation schemes occurred from July 1999 through June 2000 and employed false and misleading press releases and manipulative trading techniques. Among other things, the judgments ordered Peeper, ONI, and OFL to disgorge trading profits totaling $12,869,543 and to pay prejudgment interest totaling $8,017,919.48.

The complaint in SEC v. Wamex Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on October 11, 2001, and named 22 defendants, including Peeper, and four relief defendants, including ONI and OFL. The April 15, 2008 judgment against Peeper permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws - namely, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The court also ordered that Peeper, ONI, and OFL are jointly and severally liable to pay disgorgement totaling $9,096,298, representing their trading profits in the WAMX scheme, plus prejudgment interest of $5,667,130.92, for a total of $14,763,428.92. In addition, Peeper was ordered to a pay civil money penalty of $110,000 and was permanently barred from participating in an offering of penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. Previously, in October 2002, July 2004, and March 2007, the Commission obtained default judgments in the WAMX litigation against 20 of the 21 other defendants and both of the other relief defendants. The litigation is continuing as to the remaining party, defendant Eugene Geiger.

The complaint in SEC v. Absolutefuture.com, et al. also was filed on October 11, 2001, and named 12 defendants, including Peeper, and four relief defendants, including ONI and OFL. The March 11, 2008 judgment against Peeper permanently enjoins him from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The court also ordered that Peeper, ONI, and OFL are jointly and severally liable to pay disgorgement totaling $3,773,245, representing their trading profits in the AFTI scheme, plus prejudgment interest of $2,350,788.56, for a total of $6,124,033.48. In addition, Peeper was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $110,000. Previously, in January 2003, February 2003, and October 2004, the Commission obtained default judgments in the AFTI litigation against 10 of the 11 other defendants and one of the two other relief defendants. The litigation is continuing as to the remaining parties, defendant Eugene Geiger and relief defendant VJV, Inc.

The Commission alleged in its complaints that Peeper, a financier residing in Spain, participated in the schemes by purchasing large blocks of AFTI and WAMX stock at undisclosed discounts through trades prearranged with co-defendant Edward A. Durante. According to the complaints, relief defendants ONI and OFL, which are Hong Kong corporations with offices in Switzerland and Spain, were unjustly enriched by Peeper's illegal trading of AFTI and WAMX stock in their brokerage accounts, which he controlled. The complaints alleged that the transactions were manipulative in nature because they were misleadingly reported to the market and created a false impression of the trading volume and the demand for AFTI and WAMX shares. Overall, the manipulation schemes increased AFTI's stock price from a low of $0.21 per share in December 1999 to a high of $6.00 per share in March 2000, and increased WAMX's stock price from a low of $1.375 per share in December 1999 to a high of $19.50 per share in February 2000.

For additional information, see Litigation Release Numbers 17177 (October 11, 2001), 17178 (October 11, 2001), 17180 (October 11, 2001), 17602 (July 9, 2002), and 18004 (February 27, 2003).



sec.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 05/08/2008

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: anniebonny who wrote (103677)5/8/2008 1:33:16 PM
From: StockDung
   of 122050
 
Wamex Holdings, Inc was a stock Mark Harris of Ziasun promoted.

Wamex was a total scam which is why Harris was involved.

wwauctions.biz

Mark stutters when he lies. I had a taped of him which I had posted on the Ziasun thread which he did such.

It was real funny

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: anniebonny who wrote (103677)5/8/2008 2:00:15 PM
From: StockDung
   of 122050
 
USXP's Richard Altomare cant catch a break

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 13G Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. ________________)* UNIVERSAL EXPRESS, INC. Name of Issuer) Date October 22, 2001

Signature: /s/ ALFRED PEEPER
-----------------
Name/Title: Alfred Peeper, Authorized Representative ORIENTAL NEW INVESTMENT,
LTD.
==============================================================
Final Judgments by Default Entered Against Alfred Peeper, Oriental New Investments, Ltd., and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. in Market Manipulation Cases

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20560 / May 8, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Absolutefuture.com, et al., (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. No. 01-CV-9058 (DAB))
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wamex Holdings, Inc., et al., (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. No. 01-CV-9056 (DAB))
Final Judgments by Default Entered Against Alfred Peeper, Oriental New Investments, Ltd., and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. in Market Manipulation Cases
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that a federal district court in New York recently entered final judgments by default against three parties, each of which was involved in two related stock manipulation schemes. On April 15, 2008, and March 11, 2008, the court entered the judgments against defendant Alfred Peeper and relief defendants Oriental New Investments, Ltd. (ONI), and Orienstar Finance, Ltd. (OFL) in two civil enforcement actions brought by the Commission. In its complaints, the Commission charged that Peeper, ONI, and OFL were involved in complex schemes to manipulate the common stocks of AbsoluteFuture.com (AFTI) and Wamex Holdings, Inc. (WAMX), respectively. According to the complaints, the manipulation schemes occurred from July 1999 through June 2000 and employed false and misleading press releases and manipulative trading techniques. Among other things, the judgments ordered Peeper, ONI, and OFL to disgorge trading profits totaling $12,869,543 and to pay prejudgment interest totaling $8,017,919.48.

The complaint in SEC v. Wamex Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on October 11, 2001, and named 22 defendants, including Peeper, and four relief defendants, including ONI and OFL. The April 15, 2008 judgment against Peeper permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws - namely, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The court also ordered that Peeper, ONI, and OFL are jointly and severally liable to pay disgorgement totaling $9,096,298, representing their trading profits in the WAMX scheme, plus prejudgment interest of $5,667,130.92, for a total of $14,763,428.92. In addition, Peeper was ordered to a pay civil money penalty of $110,000 and was permanently barred from participating in an offering of penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. Previously, in October 2002, July 2004, and March 2007, the Commission obtained default judgments in the WAMX litigation against 20 of the 21 other defendants and both of the other relief defendants. The litigation is continuing as to the remaining party, defendant Eugene Geiger.

The complaint in SEC v. Absolutefuture.com, et al. also was filed on October 11, 2001, and named 12 defendants, including Peeper, and four relief defendants, including ONI and OFL. The March 11, 2008 judgment against Peeper permanently enjoins him from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The court also ordered that Peeper, ONI, and OFL are jointly and severally liable to pay disgorgement totaling $3,773,245, representing their trading profits in the AFTI scheme, plus prejudgment interest of $2,350,788.56, for a total of $6,124,033.48. In addition, Peeper was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $110,000. Previously, in January 2003, February 2003, and October 2004, the Commission obtained default judgments in the AFTI litigation against 10 of the 11 other defendants and one of the two other relief defendants. The litigation is continuing as to the remaining parties, defendant Eugene Geiger and relief defendant VJV, Inc.

The Commission alleged in its complaints that Peeper, a financier residing in Spain, participated in the schemes by purchasing large blocks of AFTI and WAMX stock at undisclosed discounts through trades prearranged with co-defendant Edward A. Durante. According to the complaints, relief defendants ONI and OFL, which are Hong Kong corporations with offices in Switzerland and Spain, were unjustly enriched by Peeper's illegal trading of AFTI and WAMX stock in their brokerage accounts, which he controlled. The complaints alleged that the transactions were manipulative in nature because they were misleadingly reported to the market and created a false impression of the trading volume and the demand for AFTI and WAMX shares. Overall, the manipulation schemes increased AFTI's stock price from a low of $0.21 per share in December 1999 to a high of $6.00 per share in March 2000, and increased WAMX's stock price from a low of $1.375 per share in December 1999 to a high of $19.50 per share in February 2000.

For additional information, see Litigation Release Numbers 17177 (October 11, 2001), 17178 (October 11, 2001), 17180 (October 11, 2001), 17602 (July 9, 2002), and 18004 (February 27, 2003).

sec.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 05/08/2008

marketwatch.com

SEC Filings for Universal Express Inc
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 13G
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. ________________)*

UNIVERSAL EXPRESS, INC.
(Name of Issuer)

COMMON
(Title of Class of Securities)

91349P 10 3
(CUSIP Number)

DENNIS BROVARONE, 18 Mountain Laurel Dr., Littleton, CO 80127,
telephone 303 466 4092

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Authorized to
Receive Notices and Communications)

August 21, 2001
(Date of Event Which Required Filing of This Statement)
*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person's initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of securities, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter disclosures provided in a prior cover page.

The information required on the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the Act (however, see the Notes).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUSIP NO. 91349P 10 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Names of reporting persons....................|Oriental New Investment, Ltd.
S.S. or I.R.S. Identification Nos. of above |
persons.......................................|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Check the appropriate box of a member of a |
group |(a)
(see instructions) |(b) X
--------------------------=-----------------------------------------------------
(3) SEC use only..................................|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Citizenship or place of organization..........|Hong Kong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of shares beneficially owned by each |
reporting person with: |
(5) Sole voting power........................|16,313,118
|-----------------------------
(6) Shared voting power......................|
|-----------------------------
(7) Sole dispositive power...................|16,313,118
|-----------------------------
(8) Shared dispositive power.................|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Aggregate amount beneficially owned by each |
reporting person. |16,313,118
|-----------------------------
(10) Check if the aggregate amount in Row (9) |
excludes certain shares (see instructions). |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Percent of class represented by amount in Row|
(9). ........................................|11.25%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Type of reporting person (see instructions)..|CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) Check the appropraite box to designate the rule pursuant to which this
Schedule is filed:
| | Rule 13d-1(b)
|X| Rule 13d-1(c)
| | Rule 13d-1(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 1. Security and Issuer.

Item 1(a) Name of Issuer: Universal Express, Inc.
Title of Equity Securities: Common Stock $.005 par value

Item 1(b) Address of Issuer's
Principal Executive Offices: 1230 Avenue of the Americas Suite 771 - Rockefeller Center New York, NY 10020

Item 2.

Item 2(a) Name of Person Filing: Oriental New Investment, Ltd.,

Item 2(b) Address: Route des Acacias 54,
1227 Carouge, Switzerland

Item 2(c) Citizenship: a Hong Kong Corporation

Item 3. Not Applicable

Item 4. Ownership

Provide the following information regarding the aggregate number and percentage of the class of securities of the issuer identified in Item 1.

Amount Beneficially Owned: 16,313,118

Percent of class: 11.25%

Number of shares as to which such person has:

Sole power to vote or to direct the vote: 16,313,118

Shared power to vote or to direct the vote: 0

Sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of: 16,313,118

Shared power to dispose or to direct the disposition of : 0



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 5.

Ownership of 5 Percent or Less of a Class.

Not Applicable

Item 6. Ownership of More than 5 Percent on Behalf of Another Person

Not Applicable

Item 7. Identification and Classification of the Subsidiary Which Acquired the Security Being Reported on By the Parent Holding Company or Control Person.

Not Applicable

Item 8. Identification and Classification of Members of the Group

Not Applicable

Item 9. Notice of Dissolution of Group

Not Applicable

Item 10. Certifications

By signing below I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the securities referred to above were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect.

Signature

After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.

Date October 22, 2001

Signature: /s/ ALFRED PEEPER
-----------------
Name/Title: Alfred Peeper, Authorized Representative ORIENTAL NEW INVESTMENT,
LTD.



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: anniebonny who wrote (103677)5/8/2008 2:14:52 PM
From: StockDung
   of 122050
 
Besides USXP Peepers also a fan of Starnet

Rounding out the list of key respondents that the U.S. regulator has not been able to locate for service is Alfred Peeper, a citizen of the Netherlands believed to be living somewhere in Spain. Mr. Peeper allegedly controlled, at least nominally, many of the offshore entities that unloaded unregistered Starnet shares, including Le Fond Mondial.

It remains to be seen whether the SEC will eventually succeed in serving the three severed respondents and possibly fill in some of the gaps regarding the offshore entities and the share-dumping scheme, not to mention provide an opportunity for Mr. Dohlen, Mr. Giles and Mr. Peeper to respond to the allegations.

majorwager.com

World Gaming predecessor Starnet players sanctioned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Gaming predecessor Starnet players sanctioned

2005-07-21 20:53 ET - Street Wire

Also Street Wire (U-*SEC) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

by Lee M. Webb

World Gaming PLC predecessor Vancouver-based Starnet Communications International Inc. players, including three Canadians, have been dealt some hefty sanctions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In addition to various cease and desist orders and bans, the July 18 initial decision of Administrative Law Judge James T. Kelly orders the disgorgement of millions of dollars made by dumping unregistered Starnet shares into the U.S. market.

Former Starnet chief financial officer and chairman of the board of directors John Carley, who lived in Delta, B.C., before relocating to Antigua, is ordered to cease and desist from violations of U.S. securities regulations and to disgorge $4.18-million. (All amounts are in U.S. dollars.)

Starnet's former secretary, treasurer, director and in-house counsel Christopher Zacharias, a former Port Moody, B.C., resident now living in Costa Rica, is subject to a similar cease and desist order and an order to disgorge $1.45-million.

Vancouver resident Roy Gould, vice-president of United Capital Securities and a key figure in other Howe Street promotions linked to Starnet's former chief executive officer Mark Dohlen, is also subject to a cease and desist order and is barred from any association with any U.S. broker or dealer.

Mr. Gould was further ordered to disgorge more than $13.8-million and tagged with a $500,000 civil penalty.

Because of a demonstrated inability to pay based on sworn personal financial records that show a net worth of less than $2-million and an annual income "in the low-to-mid six figures," as well as the lack of any evidence of assets hidden abroad, Mr. Gould's civil penalty was waived and the disgorgement amount was reduced to $1-million.

U.S. brokers Eugene Geiger and Thomas Kaufmann, who handled the offending Starnet trading through brokerage Spencer Edwards Inc., also drew cease and desist orders and were barred from associating with any broker or dealer.

Mr. Geiger and Mr. Kaufmann were each ordered to disgorge $885,738. In addition, Mr. Geiger drew a civil penalty of $400,000 and Mr. Kaufmann was slapped with a $300,000 civil penalty.

Spencer Edwards was censured, ordered to disgorge $759,204 and tagged with a $200,000 civil penalty.

Because of its demonstrated inability to pay and because Judge Kelly reasoned that if the SEC was not going to openly shutter Spencer Edwards, then he was not going to drive it out of business through the back door, the $200,000 civil penalty against the evidently near-penniless brokerage firm was waived and the disgorgement was reduced to a modest $25,000.

Edward Price, a 45-per-cent owner of Spencer Edwards and supervisor of Mr. Geiger and Mr. Kaufmann, was not booted out of the industry entirely, but he is barred from associating with any broker or dealer in a supervisory capacity.

Mr. Price was also ordered to pay a civil penalty of $150,000.

In an earlier ruling against another respondent in the case, Le Fond Mondial D'Investissement S.A., Judge Kelly issued a default judgment ordering the British Virgin Islands company headquartered in Spain to disgorge more than $10.4-million in ill-gotten gains made by dumping unregistered Starnet shares into the U.S. market.

While Judge Kelly's Nov. 23, 2004, $10.4-million judgment against Le Fond Mondial and the July 18 disgorgement orders and penalties totaling more than $23.5-million before being reduced to approximately $9.27-million are certainly significant, the SEC cannot claim complete success in the proceeding.

Quite apart from the $14-million reduction in the disgorgement orders and penalties against the respondents and the open question of just how much of ordered payments the U.S. regulator will ever collect, the SEC failed to prove some significant allegations and drew some rather sharp criticisms from Judge Kelly.

Moreover, the SEC was reportedly unable to serve three key respondents with its Sept. 1, 2004, order instituting proceedings (OIP) and had to obtain an order severing them from the case on Jan. 3.

The SEC has still not been able to serve Starnet's former chief executive officer, Vancouver promoter Mark Dohlen. Mr. Dohlen allegedly pocketed millions of dollars through his participation in the scheme to unload unregistered stock.

Indeed, while Celestine Asset Management, a company controlled by Mr. Gould, reportedly unloaded more than $25-million worth of Starnet shares, the SEC reduced its demand for disgorgement by more than $7-million because some of that money was disbursed to other parties and Judge Kelly reduced it by a further $5.25-million because of documented evidence of further third party disbursements.

Among other things, the judge determined that $2-million from the Celestine transactions had been paid to Mr. Dohlen and a further $1.58-million had been disbursed to "Dohlen and the Coziers" for an account at Mr. Gould's United Capital.

Starnet's former president, Vancouverite Paul A. Giles, who was believed to be living somewhere in Florida at the time the SEC instituted proceedings, has also yet to be served. Mr. Giles also allegedly profited from the sale of unregistered Starnet shares.

Rounding out the list of key respondents that the U.S. regulator has not been able to locate for service is Alfred Peeper, a citizen of the Netherlands believed to be living somewhere in Spain. Mr. Peeper allegedly controlled, at least nominally, many of the offshore entities that unloaded unregistered Starnet shares, including Le Fond Mondial.

It remains to be seen whether the SEC will eventually succeed in serving the three severed respondents and possibly fill in some of the gaps regarding the offshore entities and the share-dumping scheme, not to mention provide an opportunity for Mr. Dohlen, Mr. Giles and Mr. Peeper to respond to the allegations.

"Many of the relevant transactions were conducted through corporations, partnerships and trusts in the South Pacific, the Caribbean, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hong Kong and elsewhere," Judge Kelly noted in the preface to his findings of fact. "Many of the officers, directors, shareholders and beneficial owners of these entities remain unknown.

"Three of the eleven respondents were not served with the OIP and did not testify at the hearing.

"The result is an evidentiary record with sketchy and inconsistent details.

"The parties attempt to fill these gaps, sometimes with assumptions and sometimes with reasonable inferences from known facts."

Stockwatch will review Judge Kelly's 84-page decision in more detail in a future article. Notwithstanding the sketchy and inconsistent evidentiary record, the July 18 decision offers some intriguing insights into the setup of the Vancouver-spawned promotion, including the early distribution of millions of cheap shares to offshore entities, and the operation of the complex and illegal share-dumping scheme.

Stockwatch will also recap some of Starnet's history including the headline-grabbing and price-collapsing Aug. 20, 1999, predawn raid on the company's Vancouver office and the homes of several of its officers and directors by 100 law enforcement officials, the quick head office relocation to Antigua and the subsequent reorganization as World Gaming.

World Gaming obtained a listing on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange on May 17. AIM-listed companies are arguably burdened with far less oversight than the lightly regulated but heavily prosecuted OTC Bulletin Board.

World Gaming shares also continue to change hands on the OTC-BB where the recent SEC decision has apparently had no effect on the company's stock price. Indeed, perhaps based partly on speculation about a pending acquisition, the volume and price have jumped over the past three days.

With 423,183 shares changing hands on the OTC-BB, World Gaming added 12 cents to bring its three-day gain to 30 cents and closed at $1.62 on July 21.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: magicrecall who wrote (88243)5/8/2008 3:40:32 PM
From: StockDung
   of 122050
 
Bud BURRELL, Altomare's LITIGATION consultant.

Naked short sellers don't bother borrowing shares. As a result, more shares of a company's stock can trade than actually exist. In effect, the naked short sellers are counterfeiting shares, says Bud BURRELL, Altomare's LITIGATION consultant. The overload puts downward pressure on the stock price, sometimes turning into a rout. Universal is just one of many companies victimized by naked short sellers and the SEC has done nothing about it, BURRELL says.

"It's the biggest financial scandal of my lifetime," he says. "I think his [Altomare's] problem with them is that he's embarrassed them over the short-selling issue."

HEARD OFF THE STREET
BUSINESS
THIS CASE MAY PROVE SEC'S CALL FOR PSYCHOLOGIST IS JUSTIFIED
LEN BOSELOVIC
965 words
19 July 2004
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
SOONER
B-1
English
Copyright (c) 2004 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, overworked and under fire, wants to hire a psychologist to counsel its embattled employees and keep a lid on burnout and stress. But why pay someone when Richard Altomare will do the job for free?

Altomare is chairman, president and chief executive officer of Universal Express, a penny stock concern with the balance sheet to prove it. New York City-based Universal, which provides services to independently owned postal stores, has rung up losses of $46 million over the years, including a $6.1 million deficit for the nine months ended March 31.

Despite his responsibilities for staunching the red ink, Altomare volunteered to be the SEC's shrink in a July 9 press release. He may have some problems getting an interview, at least a job interview. But there are some questions the SEC would like to ask him about earlier press releases.

The SEC accuses Universal of illegally issuing millions of shares of stock to associates who unloaded the shares after its stock price rose on the heels of what regulators maintain were four false press releases issued by the company. Among other sanctions, the SEC is seeking disgorged profits and civil fines, and barring Altomare from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

Altomare, who is Universal's only officer and director, could not be reached for comment. In court papers and press releases, he tells a different story, accusing the SEC of trying to suppress his First Amendment rights on the issue of naked short selling.

First, some background. Short sellers bet a stock's price is headed south. Usually, short sellers borrow shares and sell them at today's prices. When the stock drops, they repay the loan by purchasing the shares at the lower price, pocketing the difference as profit.

Naked short sellers don't bother borrowing shares. As a result, more shares of a company's stock can trade than actually exist. In effect, the naked short sellers are counterfeiting shares, says Bud BURRELL, Altomare's LITIGATION consultant. The overload puts downward pressure on the stock price, sometimes turning into a rout. Universal is just one of many companies victimized by naked short sellers and the SEC has done nothing about it, BURRELL says.

"It's the biggest financial scandal of my lifetime," he says. "I think his [Altomare's] problem with them is that he's embarrassed them over the short-selling issue."

A few weeks before the SEC sued him, Altomare struck in federal court in Miami. His lawsuit, which at one point identifies SEC Chairman William Donaldson as "Wayne," accuses the agency of harassing Universal because of his outspoken criticism of its failure to police naked short sellers.

"The SEC actually threatened people who were offering funding to the company," BURRELL says, adding that the SEC's allegations are unsubstantiated.

According to the SEC, Universal issued more than 500 million shares since April 2001 by selling them at a discount to a small group of buyers who regulators refer to as "the resellers." The group quickly sold the discounted shares for a risk-free profit and used the proceeds to purchase more discounted shares.

The resellers were particularly active each time press releases announced the company had obtained funding commitments that totalled $885 million, commitments the SEC says weren't made. One potential lender told Universal to set the record straight, which the company never did, according to the SEC.

The last of the announcements involved Universal's offer last fall to purchase an air charter company called North American Airlines. The deal required Universal to make a $1 million deposit. The money was provided by one of the resellers, race car driver Mark Neuhaus. In return, Universal gave Neuhaus 20 million of its shares as well as 20 million restricted shares. Universal announced the pending acquisition in an Oct. 12 press release.

The next day, Universal's shares traded as high as 13.1 cents, more than double their previous close. According to the SEC, Neuhaus sold more than 1 million shares that day and continued selling an average of 1 million shares daily for several weeks. He recouped his $1 million payment by Oct. 22 and pocketed another $1 million by Nov. 6, the SEC says.

In addition to lying about financing, falsifying records and deceiving auditors, the SEC says, Altomare diverted about $1 million the resellers paid for their discounted shares to family members and personal accounts.

Universal made only a passing reference to its SEC problems in a quarterly report filed in May. It said it was selling Subcontracting Concepts, a company it purchased in January, back to its former owners because of "concern and apprehension" voiced by Subcontracting's insurers, financial institutions and clients over the SEC's complaint.

The quarterly report details Universal's $14.7 million in assets, including $7.9 million in goodwill -- an accounting definition for intangible, hard-to-measure assets that can end up worthless -- as well as a $906,000 advance to Altomare's wife and a $793,831 balance on a company loan to Altomare.

Meanwhile, Universal's multiplying shares -- the company disclosed it issued 189.8 million more shares in the nine months ended March 31 -- trade for a fraction north of a penny. Whether naked short sellers, a SEC conspiracy or chronic losses and a debilitated balance sheet are to blame for Universal's depressed stock is a matter for the judiciary to resolve. By the time they sort through the mess, judges may need a psychologist of their own.

Len Boselovic can be reached at lboselovic@post-gazette.com or 412- 263-1941.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: anniebonny5/8/2008 6:16:46 PM
   of 122050
 
SEC Action Halts $72 Million International Internet Fraud Scheme
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2008-83
Washington, D.C., May 8, 2008 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency court order freezing the assets of the alleged perpetrator of an Internet fraud scheme that reaped approximately $72 million from more than 3,000 investors in all 50 states and at least 30 foreign countries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Materials
Litigation Release No. 20563

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SEC alleges that from December 2005 until at least November 2007, Gregory N. McKnight of Swartz Creek, Mich., and his company, Legisi Holdings LLC, sold unregistered securities through a Web site by representing that he would invest the offering proceeds in foreign currencies, commodity futures, stocks, and real estate. He promised to pay interest as high as 15 percent per month out of the profits from his investments. Throughout the offering period, McKnight represented to investors that his investments were profitable and were generating the promised returns. But McKnight invested approximately $33 million, less than half the money he raised, on behalf of investors. Those investments suffered substantial losses. Furthermore, nearly $30 million of the investors' funds were allegedly dissipated through an unlawful Ponzi scheme and unauthorized personal expenditures by McKnight. The SEC froze millions of dollars of remaining assets controlled by McKnight and Legisi Holdings on behalf of the injured investors.

"This emergency action demonstrates that the Commission can and will move quickly to secure and preserve assets for the benefit of all investors, both in the United States and internationally," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

"As alleged in our complaint, McKnight lured investors from around the globe into investing by claiming on his Web site that the Legisi program was legitimate and unlike other 'scams' and 'high yield investment programs' that you see on the Internet. In fact, McKnight's Legisi program was just that, a scam from beginning to end," said Merri Jo Gillette, Regional Director of the SEC's Chicago Regional Office.

On May 5, 2008, the Honorable Judge Paul V. Gadola of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an Asset Freeze Order against all assets of McKnight and Legisi Holdings, LLC, as primary defendants, and against all assets of McKnight's affiliates, Legisi Marketing, Inc., Lido Consulting, LLC, Healthy Body Nutraceuticals, and Lindenwood Enterprises, LLC, which were named as relief defendants based on their alleged receipt of investor funds. In addition, Judge Gadola issued an order appointing a receiver over all assets of McKnight, Legisi Holdings, and the affiliates.

The court issued the freeze and receivership orders under seal while the assets were being secured, and the seal has now been lifted.

The SEC alleges that the defendants used approximately $27.5 million of the offering proceeds to make payments of purported profits to prior investors in a Ponzi scheme, and McKnight used $2.2 million of investor funds to pay for his personal expenses and to make payments to his relatives.

The SEC action also seeks recovery of the assets McKnight allegedly transferred to his relatives, including his daughter Jennifer McKnight, his niece Danielle Burton, and Danielle Burton's mother Theresa Burton, all of whom were named as relief defendants based on their receipt of investor funds.

The SEC's complaint charges the defendants with an unregistered securities offering and securities fraud in violation of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief already obtained, the SEC's complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil penalties against McKnight and Legisi Holdings, as well as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from the relief defendants. A hearing on the SEC's request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for May 19, 2008 at 2 p.m.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of Michigan's Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in this investigation.

# # #

For more information, contact:

Tim Warren
Associate Regional Director, SEC's Chicago Regional Office
(312) 353-7394

Kathryn Pyszka
Assistant Regional Director, SEC's Chicago Regional Office
(312) 353-7416



sec.gov

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell5/8/2008 10:10:44 PM
   of 122050
 
More Overstock entertainment...

Overstock.com hopes for $10 mln '08 profit
Thu May 8, 2008 7:40pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO, May 8 (Reuters) - Overstock.com (OSTK.O: Quote, Profile, Research) Chief Executive Patrick Byrne said in an interview on Thursday that he hoped the online retailer would realize a net profit of $10 million in 2008.

"If we have a good year, I think we can make one percent," told Reuters, estimating total sales of a billion dollars. "That's different from saying I'm promising to make $10 million this year. But it's definitely possible."

Although the company has become a popular destination for a variety of household and other goods at discount prices, it has lost $240 million since Byrne launched the company in 1999, he said.

Byrne also said that he envisioned retiring perhaps in three or four years to pursue other interests. "I don't see myself here in half a decade," he said in an interview in San Francisco. (Reporting by Adam Tanner; Editing by Carol Bishopric)

reuters.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10