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.
Pastimes : Whodunit? Two Stockbrokers Murdered in Jersey; No Clues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (853)11/13/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 1156
 
Just to refresh everyones memory

To: IceShark (83 )
From: Janice Shell Friday, Oct 29 1999 2:31PM ET
Reply # of 853

More on Jeff Bruss, FutureSuperStock, and StockInvestor. Stock Detective goes to work:

In Other News??..

One of the Internet's most notorious stock promotion sites, Future SuperStock, appears to be re-inventing itself, ready to take in a fresh flock of eager, but wary, investors. According to records at Internic, a registry for Internet IP addresses, Future SuperStock and StockInvestor. Com share the same numeric address - 207.32.155.67 and 207.32.155.68. The two companies also share a P.O. box in Chicago, according to Internic files. A coincidence? Not likely. Calls to the phone number listed for Stock Investor.com's administrative contact were for a cell phone not in service. Stock Detective had a little better luck when we called Future SuperStock's listed contact. A receptionist answering the phone said all questions about the relationship between Future SuperStock and Stock Investor.com would have to be answered to Jeff, as in Jeff Bruss, Future SuperStock's kingpin. Bruss was not available for comment when we called. For an expansive list of paid promoters, check out The List!

financialweb.com

News and Updates of the Stock Detective Kind.
Sponsored by WallStreet Guru

Stock Detective Light - April 13, 1998...

Future SuperStock, EOSC & Barrow Street Securities - Without kicking a horse many wish was already dead, it is important to note that Stock Detective continues to follow the saga of Future SuperStock and the trail of Stinky Stocks it leaves in its wake. Among recent financial flotsam is a company calling itself Electro Optical (OTCBB: EOSC). Electro Optical was featured by Future SuperStock in January as its "Stock of the Year."

This hype came just weeks after EOSC had started trading. But within days of the FutureSuperStock's pump, more than 2.5 million shares of EOSC were trading daily. This despite the fact that between the two companies that merged to create EOSC, neither had a bucket or even a mop. Fortunately for investors ? well, some investors ? the SEC arrived early to the promoter party, pulling the plug on EOSC's trading 61 days after it started.

Another pseudo-research outfit, Barrow Street Research, had also recommended the stock. Both Barrow and Future SuperStock are on our list of paid promoters (http://www.financialweb.com/stockdetective/list.html) that try passing themselves off as objective analysts.

One reader recently alerted us to an excellent article on Briefing.com's website about the creative con behind EOSC (http://www.briefing.com/stkbrief/eosc.htm) and how two non-functioning companies merged to become one with a market capitalization of more than $100 million.

financialweb.com




To: Carolyn who wrote (853)11/13/1999 2:49:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 1156
 
StockPlayer.com, more on this later tonight

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No 16254 / August 18, 1999

S.E.C. v. Vincent Napolitano, Irving J. Stitsky, Jordan I. Shamah, Robert B. Kessler et al., Civ. No. 99 4807 (U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the filing of a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on August 18, 1999, seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement, civil penalties and other relief against Vincent Napolitano, Irving J. Stitsky, Jordan I. Shamah, Robert B. Kessler, StockPlayer.com, Inc. and fifteen corporate relief defendants, many of them offshore companies. The Complaint alleges these individuals engaged in a complex "pump and dump" scheme in which they: (1) obtained large blocks of stock in certain microcap issuers; (2) disseminated buy recommendations through StockPlayer, an Internet newsletter published by StockPlayer.com and controlled by Napolitano; (3) manipulated the prices of those securities through the use of bid and ask quotations and by bidding for and purchasing those securities while engaged in distributions of the blocks of stock held by the defendants; and (4) sold out their shareholdings at profits of millions of dollars. The Complaint also alleges Napolitano and StockPlayer.com disclosed only a portion of the compensation they received from issuers for publishing buy recommendations for their securities and alleges Napolitano engaged in "scalping" by selling stock at the same time StockPlayer was recommending to subscribers that they buy those securities.

According to the Complaint, from at least March 1998 through June 1999 Stitsky, Shamah and Kessler engaged in this course of conduct with respect to transactions in the securities of at least four issuers: Detour Magazine, Inc.; Wineco Productions, Inc.; TriCom Technology Group, Inc.; and Fidelity Capital Group Holdings, Inc. It is also alleged that Napolitano participated in the fraudulent course of conduct with respect to Detour, Wineco and Fidelity. It is alleged that Stitsky, Shamah and Napolitano obtained up to 95% of the public float in these securities, published buy recommendations on the StockPlayer web site and distributed detailed profiles of the issuers via e-mail to StockPlayer subscribers. It is further alleged that Kessler, Stitsky, Shamah and Napolitano manipulated the prices of the securities and kept those prices at the manipulated levels while the stock controlled by Stitsky, Shamah and Napolitano was sold into the demand created by the StockPlayer recommendations.

The Complaint alleges that beginning in May 1997, Napolitano published buy recommendations in StockPlayer regarding the stock of at least seven issuers: ARXA International Energy, Inc.; Iron Holdings Corp.; Collision King, Inc.; Tilden Associates, Inc.; Detour Magazine, Inc.; Wineco Productions, Inc. and Fidelity Capital Group Holdings, Inc. It is alleged that in each instance, the issuer paid Napolitano large amounts of the company's stock as compensation for his promotional services. The Complaint alleges that Napolitano only disclosed a small portion of this compensation and that most of the stock was placed into the accounts of offshore corporations controlled by Napolitano. It is alleged that the stock paid by issuers had an aggregate value of at least $10,000,000 at the time it was paid to Napolitano. It is further alleged that Napolitano's scalping activity in these securities yielded profits to him of at least $3,000,000. Finally, it is alleged that with respect to at least two of the recommendations published in StockPlayer, Napolitano knowingly or recklessly disseminated false information concerning the operations of those issuers.

All four individual defendants are former employees of Stratton Oakmont, Inc., a defunct Lake Success, New York broker-dealer. On August 18, 1998, while they were allegedly engaged in the conduct which is the subject of this Complaint, Stitsky and Shamah were barred by the Commission from association with any regulated entity and ordered to cease and desist from violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

It is alleged that by engaging in such conduct Napolitano violated Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Rule 102 of Regulation M. It is alleged that Stitsky and Shamah violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Rule 102 of Regulation M. Finally it is alleged that Kessler violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Rule 101 of Regulation M.

sec.gov
Last update: 08/20/1999