Its Gregory C. Johnson, not Johnston.
RE: Gregory C. Johnson, a name you should know.
From (COII) COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING sec filing on 7/3/00
Financial Services Group, Inc (S)(W) 2,322,781 2,322,781
freeedgar.com.
From Dean Heller;
Dean Heller
Nevada Secretary of State
Corporate Information
Name: FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Type: Limited Liability Company File Number: LLC17408-1993 State: NEVADA Incorporated On: December 29, 1993
Status: Dissolved Corp Type: Limited Liability Company
Resident Agent: DARREN J. WELSH (Accepted)
Address: 3790 S. PARADISE RD.
SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS NV 89109
Manager or Member: AMERICANA FINANCIAL GROUP
Address: 3790 S. PARADISE RD.
SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS NV 89109
Manager or Member: GREGORY C. JOHNSON
Address: 3790 S. PARADISE RD.
SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS NV 89109
Name: AMERICANA FINANCIAL GROUP, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Type: Limited Liability Company File Number: LLC16570-1993 State: NEVADA Incorporated On: December 16, 1993
Status: Revoked Corp Type: Limited Liability Company
Resident Agent: DARREN J. WELSH (Resigned)
Address: 3790 S. PARADISE RD.
SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS NV 89109
Manager or Member: GREGORY C. JOHNSON
Address: 3230 E. FLAMINGO RD.
SUITE 184
LAS VEGAS NV 89121
From (COII) COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING sec filing on 7/3/00
In connection with our private placement, we reached an understanding with Plaintiff and other individuals to assist in the placement of our common stock and warrants. The Plaintiff, in concert with two other individuals (the "Participants"), successfully raised approximately $10.7 million in the placement. By letter dated February 10, 2000, the Plaintiff informed us that Plaintiff and Participants had reached an agreement to equally share commissions attributable to the $10.7 million. Subsequently, we were notified that, during the time that Plaintiff was engaged to provide services to us, Plaintiff was an employee and/or agent of Financial Services Group, an investment company doing business in Kuwait. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff claims entitlement to 100 percent of the commissions attributable to the $10.7 million. We are awaiting a resolution of the issues between Plaintiff and Financial Services Group.
tenkwizard.com.
From the Security and Exchange Commision.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 16147 / May 14, 1999
S.E.C. v. Anthony J. Marino et al., Civil Action No. 2:99CV
0258G (USDC UT).
On April 20, 1999, the Commission filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court, District of Utah, against Anthony
J. Marino, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard Ames Higgins, Mousa
International, AJM Global, and Consortio Intranacional for
the fraudulent sale of at least $15 million in investment
contract securities to at least 80 investors from all areas
of the United States and several foreign countries. The
complaint alleges that beginning in 1997, Marino, Johnson,
and Higgins used Mousa International, AJM Global, and
Consortio Intranacional to raise over $15 million from the
sale of interests in “investment enhancement programs„ in
which investors’ funds were to be pooled and invested in
“prime bank instruments„ through a “prime bank„ or a “major
world bank in Europe.„ Investors were promised returns of
as high as 800 percent per year and were told that their
investments in these discounted bank instruments were risk-
free in that Lloyds of London would issue an insurance
policy on the programs.
The complaint alleges that the defendants 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, and seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctions, an asset freeze, civil penalties,
accountings, and disgorgement. A temporary restraining
order and asset freeze was entered on April 20, 1999, by the
Honorable J. Thomas Greene, United States District Judge.
On April 29, 1999, Judge Greene entered a preliminary
injunction and continued the asset freeze against all the
defendants but Higgins, for whom the TRO and asset freeze
was extended to May 10, 1999.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ASSET FREEZE ENTERED AGAINST ANTHONY
MARINO, GREGORY JOHNSON, RICHARD HIGGINS, MOUSA INTERNATIONAL, AJM GLOBAL
AND CONSORTIO INTRANACIONAL
On April 20, the Commission obtained an order freezing the assets
and temporarily restraining Anthony J. Marino, Gregory C. Johnson,
Richard Ames Higgins, Mousa International, AJM Global and Consortio
Intranacional from making fraudulent sales of unregistered interests
in "prime bank" trading programs. It was alleged that the
defendants made over $15 million in such sales by representing that
investors in the program were guaranteed returns of 20% per month;
the trading program had been approved by the Federal Reserve Board;
and investments in the program were insured against loss through a
policy issued by Lloyds of London. The Order was entered April 20
by the Honorable J. Thomas Greene, United States District Judge for
the District of Utah and included a clause requiring the defendants
to repatriate any assets which had been transferred out of the
United States.
The complaint alleged that since at least January of 1998, the
defendants had engaged in fraudulent sales of interests in a "prime
bank" scheme in which they guaranteed a high return to be generated
by repeated purchases and sales of financial instruments issued by
the world's "prime banks." Among other misrepresentations, the
defendants asserted the investors' principal was insured against
loss through Lloyds of London and that the Federal Reserve Bank had
approved the investment scheme. Further, the Commission alleges
that Anthony J. Marino did not disclose to investors that he had
been convicted of securities fraud by the State of Nevada and
ordered to cease and desist from fraudulently soliciting investments
in securities by the State of New Mexico. The Commission alleged
that through their false and misleading statements, the defendants
violated the antifraud provisions, Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission also alleged that the
securities sold by the Defendants were investment contracts which
should have been registered pursuant to Sections 5(a) and (c) of the
Securities Act of 1933. [SEC v. Anthony J. Marino et al., Docket
No. 99-CV-0259G, USDC Utah] (LR-16118)
jefren.com
From Bloomberg;
Computerized Thermal Raises Money at Discounted Price
Layton, Utah, June 29 (Bloomberg) -- Computerized Thermal Imaging Inc., which makes what it describes as a ``revolutionary breast cancer detection system,'' sold 11.1 million shares of its stock at a 72 percent discount to its market price, according to a filing it made with regulators last week.
The company sold the stock in a private placement that raised a net $39.5 million, increasing its shares outstanding by about 16 percent. It was completed on Feb. 29, when the shares closed at 9 7/8. Computerized Thermal sold 11.1 million shares at $2.81 a piece and 11.1 million warrants, priced at $1, giving investors the right to buy half a share at $5 a piece.
``This is the price where funds were available for the company,'' said Kevin Packard, Computerized Thermal's chief financial officer. ``It would have been nice for us to go out at 7 or 8 bucks,'' he said. ``That's not what happened.''
Raising capital from investors at such a large discount to the price of shares trading in the secondary market is a red flag, said John Coffee, professor of securities law at Columbia Law School. ``The market price is well above what more informed parties think it should be.''
Computerized Thermal needs the money to fund money-losing operations. The developer of technology intended to help doctors determine if a breast lesion is benign or malignant has racked up losses of $31 million since it was founded in 1987. Its outside auditor warned in 1999's annual report of ``substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern.''
The company's shares fell 32 percent, or 3 1/2, to 7 11/32 in trading of 4.9 million shares. The company, which has 30 employees, has a market capitalization of $590 million.
The Layton, Utah-based company also raised $5 million in a sale of shares to Informix Inc, which received a $4.5 million contract to provide the database used in Computerized Thermal's system in December. Informix paid $9.80 a share, a 25 percent discount to that day's closing price of 13 1/16.
Annual Meeting
The company's shares are popular with retail investors. More than 25,000 messages have been posted about it on Ragingbull.com, an Internet chat site, in the past year. More than 200 investors attended Wednesday's annual meeting in San Francisco, with dozens sporting badges displaying their Ragingbull monikers - names such as ``kstill'' and ''cultivator.''
Wild cheering broke out when David Johnston, founder, chairman and chief executive, announced the company's shares were approved to move from the OTC Bulletin Board to the Nasdaq National Market.
Last night, Computerized Thermal issued a statement saying it received word from Nasdaq that its listing application was placed on hold. It said the exchange ``asked for information about a 10 year old legal proceeding concerning one of the directors of the company.'' Neither the name of the director nor the nature of the proceeding was included in the statement.
In 1990, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $25 million default judgment against Johnston in a racketeering and fraud lawsuit filed by investors who lost money in a rabbit- breeding tax shelter investment called Promorex that he sold in the mid-1980's.
``It was a huge bloody nose for me,'' he said in an interview after the annual meeting. Johnston said he lost nearly $4 million of his own cash in the Promorex fiasco. ``I'm tired of hearing the issue.''
Upbeat Prospects
Johnston was upbeat about Computerized Thermal's imaging system. ``My opinion is that it's going to give mammography a run for its money,'' said Johnston. The 57-year old executive said it's cheaper, faster and more comfortable than mammography, which he described as the ''gold standard'' of breast cancer detection.
Yet his company has struggled to sell its $500,000 breast imaging systems. Until last week, it had sold only one of the scanners, to Orchard Hospital in Thailand in 1996. That sale was arranged by then-president Richard Secord, best known for his conviction for lying to Congress about his conduct with Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Secord said his connections in Thailand were crucial to making the sale. He said he was awarded the Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant from that nation's government for his assistance during the Vietnam War.
In 1994, Computerized Thermal announced a $3 billion sale to China. ``It was not fulfilled,'' said Secord, blaming changes in that nation's economic and political climate. Secord, now vice- chairman of the board, also attended the annual meeting.
Touting Concern
Yuri Parisky, an associate professor of radiology at the USC/Norris Cancer Center in Los Angeles, is directing a company- sponsored clinical test of the breast cancer scanning system at USC. He's concerned some investors are over-hyping the scanning system. Parisky said he began reading messages about the company on Ragingbull.com after fielding numerous investor calls.
``People are touting this as a replacement for mammography, which it's not,'' he said. Parisky also is paid $1,000 a day by the company for periodic consulting services. He said the system may spare patients the need to undergo a biopsy for breast cancer by analyzing heat patterns in the body.
Preliminary tests show a 96 percent cancer detection rate for its system, according to an article he published in 1998.
That's not good enough, according to Edward Sickles, professor of radiology at the University of California at San Francisco. Biopsies are 99 percent accurate, he said.
``It's an experimental technology,'' said Sickles, referring to Computerized Thermal's system. ``It probably doesn't work.''
Doctors won't substitute a new technique unless they're confident about its accuracy, according to Sickles. Using a less reliable, although less invasive technique -- like a thermal scan -- could be fatal if it fails to detect a cancer.
Johnston is confident about the market for his system.
``Most women don't want to go through a biopsy, to begin with, and they're willing to take the chance,'' he said.
Scientific Evidence
Persuading doctors to accept the usefulness of Computerized Thermal's technology will be an uphill battle, said Michael Bernstein, a spokesman for the American College of Radiology, the principal organization of radiologists in the U.S. ``The ACR doesn't believe there's enough scientific evidence to show if the new technology is effective,'' said Bernstein.
In 1997, the company decided to conduct clinical tests needed to win approval for its system as a tool ``complementary to mammography'' from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company says FDA approval, which isn't required, would help ``to gain market acceptance.'' As part of that trial, the company has installed units at five teaching hospitals, including USC, where the study is run by Parisky.
Last week, the company announced a sale of 10 machines for a total of $5 million to a Mexican company called CTII de Mexico.
In the SEC filing three days later, Computerized Thermal said the buyer was given options as an inducement. For each $500,000 system sold, the buyer got two-year options to buy 50,000 shares at $1.67 a share. On the day the sale was announced, Computer Thermal shares closed at 10 3/4. That meant that for each $500,000 system the buyer was awarded options worth more than $454,000.
Jun/29/2000 18:26 ET
For more stories from Bloomberg News, click here.
(C) Copyright 2000 Bloomberg L.P. |
