Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Q. who wrote (4394)	10/7/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: Q.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7056

While I would like to emphasize that I do not know if Peter Foley CRD #210650 is the same as the Pete Foley quoted in today's Hitsgalore newsrelease, I do think it merits following up. There are three reasons why I think it deserves a look: the Southern Calif. location, the use of the name "The Foley Group", and the involvement with penny-stock brokerages that scammed small investors. The next post is an SEC announcement from August that names his most recent employer, Richmark Capital Corp. of La Jolla, as one of the SEC's targets in a sweep of brokers involved in fraudulent microcap schemes, pump and dumps, etc. You can find the original at the following URL: sec.gov

To: Q. who wrote (4394)	10/7/1999 11:19:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 7056

This just in: we've got an ID on Bob Thompson. He's the former SCMI bookkeeper....

To: Q. who wrote (4394)	10/7/1999 11:52:00 PM
From: wonk	Respond to of 7056

In regards to the individual in question, check out the date he left Meridian - 2/19/99. This was the end of the week in which the reverse merge agreement between hitsgalore and SCMI was signed - according to the 8K on 2/16. The filing showed on Edgar on the 17th. EDIT: double zero?

To: Q. who wrote (4394)	10/10/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: Q.	Respond to of 7056

re. Peter Foley, CRD #210650 and stock manipulation: here's an excerpt from SEC litigation and administrative action against his former employer, the president of Waldron & Co. The alleged action occurred before Pete Foley began his employment with Waldron, so I'm not suggesting that Foley was involved in this particular manipulation, but it does demonstrate the nature of Foley's employer by showing that Foley's employer ordered his brokers to participate in stock manipulation. You can imagine what sort of skills Foley learned while working for him. --------------------------------------------- U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 16146 / May 14, 1999 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. WALDRON & CO., INC.; CERY B. PERLE, Civil Action No. 99-3299 DT (Ex) (C.D. Cal.) A federal judge in Los Angeles has found that Cery B. Perle, part owner and former president of a now-defunct Irvine, California brokerage firm, Waldron & Co., manipulated the stock of the Corona del Mar, California Internet retailer, Shopping.com. In the decision, which was in response to a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission last September, the judge found that Perle, age 36, planned, directed and executed a scheme to fraudulently increase the price of Shopping.com?s stock by 255%. Waldron profited by over $4.1 million from the illegal scheme. The findings, which were signed by U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian on May 3, 1999 and released this week, show that from November 25, 1997 through March 23, 1998, Perle and Waldron artificially raised the price of Shopping.com?s stock from its IPO price of $9.00 to more than $32.00 a share. The Commission had suspended trading in the security on March 24, 1998, due to suspected manipulative conduct. Perle manipulated Shopping.com?s stock by, among other things, controlling the supply for the security. In fact, the court found that Perle and Waldron controlled over 90% of the supply of Shopping.com?s stock. In order to control supply, Perle sold 220,000 shares of Shopping.com?s stock to Waldron customers without their authorization, parking the stock in their accounts while asking a Waldron broker to "bury" more stock in the accounts of other Waldron customers. Perle also parked at least 75,000 shares in twelve fictitious customer accounts. To further control supply and prop up the price of Shopping.com?s stock, Perle prevented Waldron customers from selling their stock. According to the court?s findings, Perle threatened to fire any Waldron broker who allowed customers to sell Shopping.com?s stock to persons outside of Waldron. He ridiculed brokers who allowed their customers to sell at all and made brokers sign an agreement forfeiting their commissions if their customers sold Shopping.com?s stock within 90 days of their purchase. Moreover, Perle personally refused to honor sell instructions that he received from Waldron customers. In addition to making the above findings, the court permanently enjoined Waldron and Perle from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 15c1-2 thereunder. The court also imposed $110,000 in civil penalties against Perle. sec.gov