Hi counselor,
I figured maybe you could help to clear up some confusion as a poster here had some questions about the status of usat ongoing investigation "BUY" the SEC, and what the status of raleigh baughman's litigation is with that agency. I do know one of the answers regarding usat as some current information is available, and I have included it below, but I am not sure about the status of the baughman SEC litigation.
The original SEC statement regarding the trading halt
<<<The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of USA Talks because of questions that have been
raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, the status and extent of USA Talks? business operations.>>>
usat SEC status as taken from their 10Q filed on 8/16/99
<<<<During the six months ended June 30, 1999, we completed $6.9 million in private debt and equity financing as compared to $9 million for the year ended December 31, 1998. Approximately $15 million in additional funds is
needed for our planned capital investments and budgeted operating expenses for the five months from August, 1999 to December 31, 1999. We anticipate that the required funds will be obtained through the sale of additional equity securities, debt financing and/or equipment lease arrangements. However, our ability to raise capital has been adversely affected by the trading suspension invoked by the SEC from January 29, 1999 through February 12, 1999, and its aftermath, and may be affected by certain pending class actions. The on-going SEC investigation may further hinder us from attracting new equity investors and lenders, and there is no assurance that capital can be raised through further equity sales, new credit facilities or other financing on terms that will be acceptable.>>>>>
Worthy of note is that the above states "The on-going SEC investigation".
The only information I have about the baughman investigation and that status is below. baughman's comments prior to this investigation are worthy of note, and I have included them. A poster named Andrew had some reservations and stated them below .
Message 397280
>>>>>I agree with "Sydney". Let's consolidate into one thread. I'm beginning to think Mr. RB may be a shill, which makes me nervous about my investment. If FTEL is so great, why all the need for hype?<<<<<<
Below baughman answers that poster named Andrew, and even gives him a phone number to call. Take a look.
Message 397352
>>>>>>Andrew,
There's a big difference between hype and informed thought. Hype=BS,
what I have contributed is based on fact, and/or informed conclusions based on the knowledge of the industry.
When you have spent an entire year researching a company from head to toe, then you will enjoy the right to call me anything you wish. I am not paid by FTEL or any other company, to promote their stock, period.
I say, if you feel uneasy in owning Franklin, then you must not have taken the time to have researched your investment, because if you had, then you would know, that what I have written isn't hype at all, but the result of a lot of intense diligence.
Try 1.800.BITEME, or 1.800.372.6556, it's your choice.
RB>>>>>>>>
below is the SEC litigation release link and content
sec.gov
>>>>Roland R. Baughman ("Baughman") of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. In February 1996, the complaint alleges, Johnson paid Baughman with cheap IMP shares to promote IMP?s stock on the internet. From his home computer, Baughman began agressively touting IMP on the Prodigy Services Money Talk bulletin board in February 1996, but he did not disclose that he was being paid for his touts or that he himself was selling shares while recommending that others buy them.<<<<<
Do you believe that counselor that the SEC charged him in that litigation with exactly the same thing that the poster named Andrew had insinuated, why he even was kind enough to give Andrew that phone number to call, after explaining to Andrew that he had spent an entire year researching a company and that he was not paid by "ANY COMPANY" to promote their stock. he even added the "PERIOD" to emphasize his point. Its a good thing he wasn't an attorney as they are held to higher standards and it could have been a problem with an Attorney Grievance Committee, don't you agree ? |
