LE, you want games? You might be interested in 2 cases that the SEC's Division of Enforcement handled involving Infocall in 1997 and 1998.
Here are the SEC files online:
* sec.gov -- a federal judge found that Alex Shindman and Rimson & Co., described by the judge as a "boiler room" operation (a brokerage pushing high risk securities), did numerous illegal things involving various penny stock companies, including INFE. Here are some quotes from that document:
"Shindman stated that: INFE would start to trade publicly in one week; INFE would be listed on the Nasdaq; INFE would open for trading at between $6 - $8 per share; institutional investors would buy the stock and add to the price appreciation; and INFE already had earnings. (Tr. 1596-97, 1599.) Shindman omitted to state that: INFE was a speculative stock in which an investor could lose all his money; and INFE could be traded in only a limited number of states. (Tr. 1600-01, 735; Div. Ex. 367.) Huykman told Shindman that he wanted stocks with safety and growth and only little speculation and risk. (Tr. 1600.) Huykman never received an INFE prospectus. (Tr. 1597, 1607.) Huykman received only page four of the INFE subscription agreement. (Tr. 1597-99; Div. Ex. 305.)"
"Shindman also solicited Coniglio to purchase shares of INFE. Shindman falsely told Coniglio that: INFE was going to be listed on the Nasdaq; Shindman could control the price of INFE stock; and the price of INFE stock would increase to $15 - $20 per share. (Tr. 1689-90.) When Coniglio asked Shindman to send him an INFE prospectus or a similar document, Shindman refused and told Coniglio that such a document would only disclose negative information. (Tr. 1690.) Although Coniglio refused to purchase the INFE stock, Shindman purchased 1,000 shares of INFE at $5 per share on Coniglio's behalf without Coniglio's authorization. (Tr. 1691-92, 1699-1700, 1705; Div. Exs. 347, 349.) After the unauthorized purchase of INFE by Shindman, Shindman sent Coniglio only the fourth (signature) page of the INFE subscription agreement. (Tr. 1693-95; Div. Exs. 348, 349.)"
The judge ruled against the respondents (Shindman et al) on multiple counts and fined them, saying:
"As detailed in the findings of fact, he violated the statutes and rules by: making baseless price predictions; falsely representing that these securities would commence trading on the NASD's OTCBB within specified periods of time; falsely stating that INFE and other securities would trade on Nasdaq; making exaggerated and false statements concerning INFE's business, assets, and earnings; disseminating false or misleading written materials concerning the securities, and falsely representing to customers that copies of the prospectus were unavailable; and making other materially false or misleading statements or omissions in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of these securities."
* sec.gov -- Infocall paid a stock promoter, Starwood Media, publishers of the "Wall Street Reporter" and owners of Stock-Line.com, more than $10,000 to promote the stock without the promoter disclosing they were being paid to hype INFE.
Makes you wonder about the company and the people involved with it! |
