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.

   PastimesDiscuss ATEL - ACCESSTEL INC


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: SEC-ond-chance who wrote (116)11/6/2002 3:56:12 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
In the Matter of MAX C. TANNER, ESQ. Respondent.

United States of America
before the
Securities and Exchange Commission
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 46775 / November 5, 2002
Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-10928

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

In the Matter of

MAX C. TANNER, ESQ.

Respondent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND IMPOSING TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO RULE 102(e)(3) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE

I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest to issue an order temporarily suspending Max C. Tanner, Esq. ("Tanner") pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.1

II.
The Commission makes the following findings:

A. Tanner is an attorney residing at all relevant times in Las Vegas. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada. In September 1996, Tanner incorporated Maid Aide, Inc. ("MDAN") and was MDAN's original director and principal shareholder.

B. On January 14, 2002, the Commission brought an action in federal district court against Tanner and others alleging that Tanner violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with trading the stock of MDAN. SEC v. Tanner, et al., 02 Civ. 0306 (S.D.N.Y.) (WHP). On August 12, 2002, the Court entered a default judgment and order that, among other things, permanently enjoins Tanner from violating the federal securities laws.

C. The Commission's Complaint alleges, in part, that Tanner participated in a scheme to manipulate the public trading market for the stock of MDAN, a public shell company. To facilitate the scheme, Tanner and others gained control of MDAN and set up two boiler room operations. He further directed unlicensed brokers at these boiler rooms to sell unregistered stock at artificially inflated prices, using high-pressure sales tactics, in exchange for undisclosed kickbacks. Through this scheme, Tanner and the other defendants defrauded investors out of more than $3.7 million.

D. On November 19, 2001, Tanner was convicted in a related criminal case of 37 counts of securities fraud relating to MDAN, including mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering. U.S v. Tanner, CR-S-00-193-KJD.

III.
Based upon the foregoing, the Commission finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has permanently enjoined Tanner from violating the federal securities laws within the meaning of Rule 102(e)(3)(i)(A) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. In view of this finding, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that Tanner be temporarily suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tanner be, and hereby is, temporarily suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tanner may within thirty days after service of this Order file a petition with the Commission to lift the temporary suspension. If the Commission within thirty days after service of the Order receives no petition, the suspension shall become permanent pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(ii).

If a petition is received within thirty days after service of this Order, the Commission shall, within 30 days after the filing of the petition, either lift the temporary suspension, or set the matter down for hearing at a time and place to be designated by the Commission, or both. If a hearing is ordered, following the hearing, the Commission may lift the suspension, censure the petitioner, or disqualify the petitioner from appearing or practicing before the Commission for a period of time, or permanently, pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(iii).

This Order shall be served upon Tanner personally or by certified mail at his last known address.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

Endnote
1 Rule 102(e)(3)(i) provides, in pertinent part, that:

The Commission, with due regard to the public interest and without preliminary hearing, may, by order, temporarily suspend from appearing or practicing before it any attorney . . . who has been by name:. . . (A) Permanently enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction, by reason of his or her misconduct in an action brought by the Commission, from violating . . . any provision of the Federal securities laws or of the rules and regulations thereunder.



sec.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 11/06/2002

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: SEC-ond-chance who wrote (116)11/8/2002 6:19:41 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
SEC bans Las Vegas lawyer Tanner, a dubious P.I. client

2002-11-08 11:25 PT - Street Wire.

by Brent Mudry

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has banned Las Vegas lawyer Max C. Tanner, a client of controversial Vancouver brokerage Pacific International Securities convicted for securities fraud. In an administrative proceeding order signed Tuesday by SEC secretary Jonathan Katz, Mr. Tanner has been temporarily suspended from appearing or practicing before the commission as a lawyer. In an earlier related penalty, the SEC gave Mr. Tanner a lifetime ban from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

Mr. Tanner was banned for his key role in the Maid Aide case, a 1998-1999 penny stock rig job which featured two boiler rooms, unregistered shares, offshore accounts and greased brokers. The Maid Aide stock manipulation also featured Pacific International Securities, a Howe Street brokerage currently under prosecution by the B.C. Securities Commission, as a stock and money laundering conduit for numerous offshore dealings.

Mr. Tanner's latest SEC punishment comes just ahead of his criminal sentencing Friday in United States District Court for the District of Nevada, in Las Vegas. A previous scheduled sentencing was abruptly cancelled, with SEC staff lawyers flying in from Washington, when it was bumped by another matter in front of the Nevada judge.

In the related criminal case, Mr. Tanner was convicted Nov. 19, 2001, of 37 counts of securities fraud, including mail, wire and tax fraud, and money laundering. Mr. Tanner's money laundering conviction relates to his offshore Pacific International dealings.

The Maid Aide case has been probed by the SEC, the BCSC, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and NASD Regulation Inc., the regulatory arm of the National Association of Securities Dealers.

Pacific International, Mr. Tanner's Canadian brokerage conduit, is currently in the early stages of a landmark hearing by the BCSC, which claims it attracted and serviced far more than its Howe Street share of crooks, securities violators and other riff-raff. Mr. Tanner did not make the BCSC's initial Pacific International dubious client list, outlined in its notice of hearing. The list features Sholam Weiss, recently extradited to Orlando, Fla., after fleeing an 845-year fraud sentence, and numerous notable figures with lesser claims to fame.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Mr. Jens Tingleff who wrote (61)12/17/2002 4:54:33 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
.BROOKLYN JURY CONVICTS SECURITIES LAW RECIDIVIST

The Commission announced today that on Dec. 13, 2002, a federal jury in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
found Dr. Jui-Teng Lin guilty on charges of securities fraud and money
laundering. According to the evidence at trial, Dr. Lin reaped
approximately $1,500,000 in ill-gotten gains from manipulating the
common stock of Surgilight, Inc., a publicly traded company
headquartered in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Lin artificially inflated the
market price of Surgilight stock tenfold (from approximately $2.50 to
over $25 per share) through a series of false and misleading press
releases detailing the company's purported ability to cure age-induced
vision deterioration known as "Presbyopia." Dr. Lin simultaneously
dumped a substantial amount of Surgilight stock on an unsuspecting
public through two nominee accounts and then wired the proceeds
overseas.

At the time of his indictment, the Commission filed a civil action
against Dr. Lin and others in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. The Commission's complaint alleges that Dr.
Lin violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act), Sections 10(b), 13(d), and 16(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1,
13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 thereunder. Dr. Lin's wife and Surgilight are
charged with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. Aaron Tsai is charged with violations of Sections 5(a) and
5(c) of the Securities Act and aiding and abetting Dr. Lin and Ms. Lin's
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5
thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of
ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties from all
defendants and an officer and director bar against Dr. Lin.

The Lins settled a prior civil action brought by the Commission
involving another laser eye surgery company in September 1998 [see SEC
v. Jui-Teng Lin and Yuchin Lin, Litigation Release No. 15870 (Sept. 3,
1998)]. In that civil action, the Lins consented, without admitting or
denying the allegations of the complaint, to the entry of a final
judgment enjoining them from future violations of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as various
other provisions of the securities laws. For further information, see
Litigation Release No. 17469 (April 11, 2002).

For tips on how to avoid Internet "pump-and-dump" stock manipulation
schemes, visit sec.gov. For more
information about Internet fraud, visit
sec.gov. To report
suspicious activity involving possible Internet fraud, visit
sec.gov. [U.S. v. Jui-Teng Lin, CR-02-0432
(DGT) EDNY] (LR-17899)

sec.gov

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Mr. Jens Tingleff who wrote (61)12/19/2002 9:17:19 AM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
Score One SCRO SREA this appears to be connected?

HK nabs 19 for alleged bribery in IPO scam
December 19, 2002
HONG KONG
HONG Kong's anti-graft body on Tuesday arrested 19 people for alleged bribery scams related to the listing of three small manufacturers on the stock exchange.

Those arrested included the chairmen of the three companies, a certified public accountant, a financial consultant, a senior manager of an accounting firm and 13 others from the companies, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) said in a statement.

The chairmen of Gold Wo International Holdings Ltd, Yue Fung International Group Holding Ltd and Fu Cheong International Holdings Ltd were among those detained, the South China Morning Post and Ming Pao Daily reported yesterday, without quoting anyone. A senior manager from Ernst & Young LLP was also among the detainees, Ming Pao Daily said.

Ernst & Young's Hong Kong spokeswoman Annesa Leung said the firm has no comment on the case.

Shares of the three companies were suspended on Monday.

Gold Wo manufactures plastic household products, and Yue Fung is in electronic products such as calculators and digital cameras. Fu Cheong makes circuit boards.

A financial consultant accepted 'substantial' bribes from a number of company chairmen and conspired with a certified public accountant and the companies to overstate profits to meet a listing criterion requiring minimum net income of HK$50 million (S$11.2 million) for the three years preceding the listing, the ICAC said.

The companies were also alleged to have used bogus business transactions supported by false letters of credit and false sales invoices to inflate sales, ICAC said. - Bloomberg

google.com

ione.com.hk

news.google.com

targetnewspapers.com

icac.org.hk

216.239.51.100

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Mr. Jens Tingleff who wrote (61)2/3/2003 6:41:33 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
STUART BOCKLER'S ATTORNEY:JOHN L. MILLING, ESQ.,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
Release No. 8189 / February 3, 2003
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-11027

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

In the Matter of

JOHN L. MILLING, ESQ.,

Respondent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER



I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate that cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against John L Milling, Esq., ("Milling") pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act").

II.

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Milling has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceeding brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings, Milling consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order ("Order"), as set forth below.

III.

On the basis of this Order and Milling's Offer, the Commission finds1 that:

A. RESPONDENT

Milling, age 69, is a resident of Tenafly, New Jersey, has been licensed to practice as an attorney in New York since 1957, and in New Jersey since 1960, and has a specialized practice in securities law. During the period relevant to this proceeding, Milling was legal counsel to LinkNet, Inc. ("LinkNet") and LinkNet de America Latina, Ltd. ("Latina"). Milling's services included opining on the securities registration requirements of securities offerings by LinkNet and Latina.

B. FACTS

1. LinkNet is a Utah corporation located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Latina is a Nevada corporation located at the same office as LinkNet in Salt Lake City, Utah.

2. From at least 1999 through 2000, LinkNet conducted an offering of its securities to persons located throughout the United States, selling those securities through a division of LinkNet created, staffed and operated for that purpose. In a report on Form D filed by LinkNet with the Commission, LinkNet stated it raised $9,659,663 from 1246 investors through the offering.

3. During 2000, Latina conducted an offering of its securities to persons located throughout the United States, selling its securities through a division of Latina created, staffed and operated for that purpose. In a report on Form D filed by Latina with the Commission, Latina stated it raised $7,252,248.50 from 655 investors through the offering.

4. Milling prepared drafts of the Forms D referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

5. In conducting their offerings, neither LinkNet nor Latina complied with requirements of Rule 506 of Regulation D, or any other provisions that exempt or except securities offerings from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws.

6. In June 2000, upon learning the staff of the Commission was investigating LinkNet and Latina for possible violations of the federal securities laws, and upon receiving information concerning possible violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the offerings of LinkNet and Latina stock, Milling recommended that LinkNet and Latina conduct a joint rescission offer to the purchasers of securities in those offerings.

7. However, Milling advised LinkNet and Latina that the rescission offer not be registered with the Commission in order to expedite the rescission offer.

8. Milling drafted the rescission offer which was reviewed and edited by persons associated with LinkNet and Latina, including Allen Johnson, the president of LinkNet and chairman of the board of Latina. Johnson signed the rescission offer on behalf of both companies.

9. The joint rescission offer was conducted in the Fall of 2000 by LinkNet and Latina without having been registered with the Commission.

10. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that Milling caused violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions agreed to in Milling's Offer.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act, that Milling shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

Footnotes
1 The findings herein are not binding on anyone other than Milling.



sec.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 02/03/2003

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Mr. Jens Tingleff who wrote (61)2/3/2003 6:46:38 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
LinkNet:U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 17939 / January 16, 2003
S.E.C. v. Dale Carone, et al., Docket No. CV 03 374NM (FMOx) (USDC C.D. Cal.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged LinkNet, Inc., LinkNet de America Latina, Ltd., Allen R. Johnson, Joseph W. Isaac and Dale R. Carone with the fraudulent offer and sale of unregistered securities of LinkNet and Latina. The complaint alleges the defendants conducted these offerings from August 1999 through October 2000 and raised approximately $17 million from investors by selling the stock through a boiler room established by Johnson, Isaac and Carone in Encino, California.

The complaint alleges that in making the offering the defendants failed to disclose the fact that at least $5.1 million, or thirty percent, of the offering proceeds were paid as commissions to the boiler room operations. It is also alleges that the defendants made false representations that: (1) a public offering of LinkNet stock was imminent; LinkNet's stock would shortly be listed on NASDAQ; investors could realize phenomenal returns on their investment in a short time; and LinkNet and Latina had contracts for the sale of long distance service in the United States and Mexico which would generate millions of dollars in revenue to the companies. The complaint also alleges that, while the offerings were ongoing, Isaac, Carone and Johnson also sold their personal shares of LinkNet and Latina stock through the Encino boiler room and by other means.

All of the defendants are charged with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Johnson, Isaac and Carone are also charged with violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks a final judgment: (i) enjoining the defendants from future violations of the above-cited provisions, (ii) requiring an accounting and disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains, plus prejudgment interest; (iii) assessing civil penalties; (iv) barring Johnson from acting as an officer or director of any public company registered with the Commission; and (v) barring Johnson, Isaac and Carone from any future participation in an offering of penny stock.



sec.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 01/17/2003

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: StockDung who wrote (121)2/3/2003 7:02:02 PM
From: SEC-ond-chance
   of 130
 
Milling was the attorney involved with Accesstel. Accesstel was a huge FRAUD on investors which still has not been prosecuted .

ragingbull.lycos.com

ragingbull.lycos.com

Message 15671996

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: SEC-ond-chance who wrote (116)2/6/2003 10:33:21 PM
From: StockDung
   of 130
 
any news on the Shopps.comLifters?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: StockDung who started this subject4/14/2003 5:29:10 PM
From: mmmary
1 Recommendation   of 130
 
fRANCOIS GOELO SUED BY SEC FOR SECURITIES FRAUD. FURTHER VINDICATION FOR THETRUTHSEEKER AND THE "ZSUN 8"!!!

SEC SUES EIGHT INDIVIDUALS AND FOUR ENTITIES IN STOCK MANIPULATION

The Commission announced today that it filed a civil action against
eight individuals and four entities for their conduct between April 1999
and July 2000 relating to the price manipulation, unregistered sales,
unreported stock ownership, and touting of securities issued by
BluePoint Linux Software Corporation (BluePoint), a publicly traded
company located in Evansville, Indiana.

The Commission's complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, alleges that Aaron Tsai (Tsai) formed
a shell company called MAS Acquisition XI Corporation in 1996 and made
false filings with the Commission to conceal his true ownership and
control of MAS shares and to make it appear that the shares could be
later sold without a registration statement in effect. According to the
Complaint, on February 17, 2000, MAS acquired a Chinese Linux company
and changed its name to BluePoint. On the same day, Michael Markow
(Markow) and his company Global Guarantee Corporation, Francois Goelo
(Goelo), Yongzhi Yang and his company, K&J Consulting, Ltd., and Ke Luo
and his company, M&M Management, Ltd. (collectively, the Promoter
Defendants) bought 3.75 million shares from Tsai for $250,000, or a
little more than $0.06 per share. The Commission alleges that the
Promoter Defendants acquired over 90% of BluePoint publicly traded
shares without reporting their ownership in any Commission filing.

The Commission further alleges that the Promoter Defendants along with
the participation of Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc. (Sierra) and its
two employees, Richard Geiger and Jeffrey Richardson, (collectively, the
Broker-dealer Defendants) worked in concert to create artificial trading
activity and to manipulate the share price of BluePoint from $6 to a
high price of $21 on the first day that BluePoint shares were traded on
March 6, 2001. The Promoter Defendants and Broker-dealer Defendants
dominated and control the BluePoint market that day. At all relevant
times, Tsai, the Promoter Defendants, Sierra and Richardson sold or
offered to sell shares in BluePoint without a registration statement in
effect, and Tsai and the Promoter Defendants never reported their sales
of BluePoint securities and the change in their ownership.

The Commission also alleges that Jerome Armstrong engaged in illegal
touting of BluePoint on March 6 and after because he promoted BluePoint
on the Raging Bull internet site, which carried hundreds of posts about
BluePoint without disclosing the compensation he received from Markow
and Goelo in return for his posts.

The Commission has charged: (1) Tsai, the Promoter Defendants, Sierra,
and Richardson with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities
Act of 1933 (Securities Act); (2) the Promoter Defendants and Broker-
dealer Defendants with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder; or in the alternative, Markow and Global
Guarantee Corporation with aiding and abetting the other Promoter
Defendants' violations of these provisions; (3) Sierra with violating
Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and Richard Geiger and Jeffrey
Richardson with aiding and abetting that violation; (4) Armstrong with
violating Section 17(b) of the Securities Act; (5) the Promoter
Defendants with violating Sections 13(d)(1), 13(d)(2), and 16(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1(a), 13d-2(a), and 16a-3 thereunder, and
Tsai with violating Sections 13(d)(1) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 13d-1(a) and 16a-3 thereunder. The Commission is seeking
permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment
interest, and civil penalties from all defendants.

[SEC V. Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc., Richard Geiger, Jeffrey A.
Richardson, Aaron Tsai, Michael E. Markow, Global Guarantee Corporation,
Francois Goelo, Yongzhi Yang, K&J Consulting, Ltd., Ke Luo, M&M
Management, Ltd., Jerome B. Armstrong, USDC, Southern District of Ohio,
Civil Action No. CV03-326] (LR-18088)...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: StockDung who wrote (122)6/21/2003 11:52:36 PM
From: SEC-ond-chance
   of 130
 
LinkNet Files for Bankruptcy to Help Fight SEC Charges
BY STEVEN OBERBECK
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

03-08-2002

LinkNet Inc., a Salt Lake City-based company accused in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit in California of defrauding investors of $17 million, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The long-distance telephone service company's managing director, Allen Johnson of Farmington, said the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Utah filing in part was related to the expense of defending the company against the SEC's allegations.
"We've spent a lot of money -- $200,000 -- on legal fees, and then we have some other litigation we are pursuing," Johnson said.
The SEC in January accused LinkNet Inc. and LinkNet de America Latina Ltd., along with principals Johnson, Dale Carone of Tarzana, Calif., and Joseph Isaac of Stephenson Ranch, Calif., of defrauding more than 1,900 investors.
The SEC contends the defendants from August 1999 until October 2000 sold unregistered securities in the two companies through a boiler-room operation. It maintains the defendants lied to investors, telling them a public offering of LinkNet stock was imminent and that the two companies had contracts that would generate millions in revenue.
They failed to disclose that at least 30 percent of the money investors put up was paid as commissions to those working in the boiler room, the SEC alleged.
Ken Israel of the SEC's Salt Lake City office said he does not expect the Chapter 11 filing to affect the federal court action in California.
In its Chapter 11 filing, LinkNet claims it owes approximately $4 million to its 20 largest unsecured creditors, including $1.1 million owed to LinkNet de America Latina Ltd. Under a Chapter 11, a company is given an opportunity to remain in business while it reorganizes its finances.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10