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.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7385)4/14/2000 10:25:00 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
Time for another REVERSE SPLIT?

DDD - CHEQUEMATE INTL INC
Exchange: AMEX comp
Delay: at least 20 minutes
Last Price: 5 1/2 at 10:03 EDT
Change: Down 1 1/4 (-18.52%)
High: 6 3/4 at 9:30 EDT
Low: 5 1/2 at 9:58 EDT
Open: 6 3/4
Previous Close: 6 3/4 on 4/13
Volume: 18,300
30-Day Avg. Volume: 71,000
Shares Outstanding: 6,135,000
Market Cap.: 33,742,500
52-Week High: 18.43
52-Week Low: 3 1/2
Beta: Not Available
Yield: Nil
P/E Ratio: Not Material
EPS: -2.00
Currency Units: US Dollar

Confirm all data with your broker or financial advisor before trading.

Data by: S&P ComStock



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7385)4/14/2000 10:33:00 AM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10354
 
Form 8-K "Back Door" Registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Please be advised that with respect to companies electing to become reporting companies under Rule12g-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC treats Form 8-Ks pertaining to 12g-3 successor issuers in the same manner as Form 10 and Form 10SB filings. See, April 7, 2000 letter from the SEC. Accordingly, as is the case for issuers filing Form 10 filings, in order to be deemed an eligible security under Rule 6530, an issuer electing 12g-3 successor issuer status must have received notification that the SEC will not review the Form 8-K or, in cases where the SEC has elected to review the Form 8-K, clear all SEC comments on such Form 8-K prior to the security's scheduled phase-in date. As such, the NASD will append the symbol of an issuer that has not met the above conditions with an "E" pursuant to the Eligibility Rule phase-in schedule and will not remove the "E" appended to an OTCBB issuer electing 12g-3 successor issuer status until the security is determined to be an eligible security or is removed from the OTCBB. For a description of the implementation of the Eligibility Rule, please see NASD Notice To Members 99-43.

Click here to view a copy of the original letter (PDF format).

April 7, 2000

Ms. Lisa Roberts
Director of Listing Qualifications
NASDAQ
National Association of Securities Dealers
9801 Washingtonian Boulevard
Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Re: Form 8-K "Back Door" Registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Dear Ms. Roberts:

A non-reporting company recently asked about its reporting status under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 after it acquired a reporting "blank check" company.1 The requester suggested that it would be a successor issuer to the reporting obligation of the "blank check" company by virtue of Commission Rule 12g-3(a).2 We disagreed.

Under our system, the concept of succession in part depends upon the nature of the company being succeeded. Thus, in Rule 12b-2, the definition of "succession" requires "the direct acquisition of the assets comprising a going business" [emphasis added]. We advised the requester that the "blank check" company did not seem to satisfy these criteria. Consequently, Rule 12g-3(a) would not be applicable, and the non-reporting company would have to file a Form 10 or Form 10-SB registration statement in order to become an Exchange Act reporting company. Nonetheless, we recognized the long-standing availability of the "back door" registration procedure where a going business was acquired, and concluded that if the requester here could provide the same, or at least some minimally acceptable level of information as issuers do in appropriate Rule 12g-3(a) cases, we would raise no objection to the procedure. The same level of information is the information required by Form 10 or Form 10-SB. A minimally acceptable level of information is complete audited and pro forma financial statements required by those forms. This information must be filed on Form 8-K within 15 days of the succession.

As you know, the Form 8-K filing is the seminal event in this "back door" filing procedure under the Exchange Act for the new combined operating company. It is a particularly critical event where a formerly non-reporting company acquires a reporting "blank check" company. For this reason, we treat these Form 8-K "back door" filings in the same way we treat Form 10 and Form 10-SB filings. We subject them to our standards of review selection, and we may issue substantive comments on the sufficiency of the disclosures presented. Any disclosure deficiencies in the Form 8-K may impact the informed nature of trading markets for these securities. Therefore, in accordance with our customary procedure for processing Exchange Act registration statements, we will advise you of those situations where a Form 8-K "back door" registration has been selected for review, when we have issued comments on it and when those comments have been cleared by the staff.

We wanted you to be aware of the way we are administering these filings because of the importance your systems place upon the reporting requirements and information contained in Commission filings under sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. You should feel free to advise your members and others of these views and procedures. If you have any questions, be sure to let me know.

Sincerely,

Richard K. Wulff, Chief
Office of Small Business

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A "blank check" company is a developmental stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, or other entity or person.

"Back door" registration is used to describe the way a formerly non-reporting company first presents disclosure in a Commission filing about itself after completion of a Rule 12g-3(a) transaction. Because the information is filed under cover of Form 8-K rather than Form 10, 10-SB or 8-A, it has been referred to in this way.



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7385)4/14/2000 10:49:00 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
Friskies new unbias accounting opinion!!

ragingbull.com
By: frisky
Reply To: None Friday, 14 Apr 2000 at 10:36 AM EDT
Post # of 19020


If you read all ZSUN?s 10sb and 10q statements, you will discover a significant number of accounting irregularities. Please be very patient to read this message.

1. INCOME STATEMENTS:
A. Sales of 1998
a. 10sb, 9/16/99: $2,289158
b. 10sb, 11/18/99: $2,289158
c. 10sb, 12/16/99: $2.289,158
d. 10sb , 4/5/00:: $760,529

B. Basic & Diluted EPS of 1998.
a. 10sb, 9/16/99: diluted EPS: Not reported. basic EPS: $.47. ZSUN violated FASB statement 128 reporting requirement. Surprising, Jones & Jensen offered an unqualified opinion.
b. 10sb, 11/18/99: diluted EPS: $.11. Revised basic EPS to $.11 because ZSUN revised the weighted average outstanding shares of common stock.
c. 10sb, 12/16/99: diluted EPS: $.11. basic EPS: $.11.
d. 10sb, 4/5/00: Revised diluted EPS to $.04. Revised basic EPS to $.05.

Why did ZSUN revise its sales of 1998 from $2,289158 to $760,259? Why did ZSUN revise its 1998 diluted EPS $.04? Why did ZSUN report three different basic EPS and two different diluted EPS? Have you ever seen this type of reporting in a NASDAQ or NYSE company? ZSUN bragged about its 1998 basic earnings achievement of $.47 early last year. This year it revised 1998 EPS all the way down to $.04 so it could brag about a greater achievement in 1999. Is this is not a lie or just a stupid error? You make your call.

B. Loss on equity investment in 1999 and 1998
10sb, 9/16/99: $0
10sb, 11/18/99: 0
10sb, 12/16/99: 0
10sb, 4/5/00: ($165,449) for 1998 and ($49,356) for 1999.

This was the investment in Bevex by New Age Publication or Momentum Asia before the reverse-merger in September 1998. Bevex, formerly Foutain Fresh Inc. or a transplant of Bestway USA, has been out of business for a long long time. ZSUN recorded the investment in Common Stock Held to Maturity originally. After three attempts to fool SEC, ZSUN reluctantly wrote off $165,449 for 1998 and $49,356 for 1999. As of 12/31/99 the balance of this investment was $254,195. ZSUN transferred the balance from Common stock Held to Maturity to Equity Investment on the balance sheet as of 12/31/1999. IMO, Bevex stock certificates are nothing but toilet paper now. The whole balance should be written off. However, the write-off will affect the EPS.

C. Realized and unrealized gain on marketable securities:
Realized gain: 1998: $535,801; 1999: $470,185
Unrealized gain: 1998: $712,438; 1999: $114,795

If one excludes both items, the diluted EPS of 1998 will reduce $.05. In other words, ZSUN had an operating Loss in 1998. The diluted EPS (net of 36% tax) of 1999 will reduce $.015.

ZSUN directly or indirectly exchanged its shares with LCAI, TMOT, DDD and some other invisible but related penny-stock companies. If ZSUN sells its own stock, ZSUN must book the proceeds as capital. If ZSUN sells the stock of its related parties, it books as a realized gain of marketable securities. If ZSUN holds those BB shares whose prices have been pumped up, ZSUN books the paper gain as unrealized gain on marketable securities. Therefore, ZSUN claims itself a profitable Internet holding company. If you check LCAI?s 10k statement, you will discover that LCAI also has a realized gain of selling ZSUN stock for $2.7 million. Realized gain means that ZSUN has sold those related parties BB shares.

D. Management fees in 1999: $45,000.
Who is charging ZSUN for $45,000?

E. Gain on sale of subsidiary: $4,778,596.
The diluted EPS (net of tax) was inflated by $.12. This is a one-time gain. It should be clearly excluded from the operating EPS.

ZSUN made a good profit from selling 70% Asia4sale.com Ltd. to foreign uniformed individual investors. The transaction was handled by Internet Venture who sold piece by piece to small investors. After a reverse-merger with Aisa4ale.com Inc, ZSUN reduced its equity in AFSI to 27%. AFSI is thinly traded for around $10 per share. ZSUN had ballooned the market value of AFSI to $900,000,000. Sadly, in 1999, AFSI only recorded a revenue of $69,000. Since over 90% of AFSI shares are restricted for one year, we do not know what will happen until 2/10/2001. On 3/27/2000, ZSUN announced a special dividend to pay 9,000,0000 shares of AFSI restricted shares to ZSUN?s shareholders. ZSUN cut the holdings of AFSI from 27% to 19%. Therefore, ZSUN does not have to apply the equity method. If ZSUN classifies AFSI as trading securities, it will have an unrealized gain or a windfall profit for diluted EPS. If ZSUN classifies AFSI as available for sale securities, ZSUN will increase the total shareholders? equity.

F. Weighted-average outstanding common shares
a. 1998
10sb, 9/16/99: basic EPS: ,426,2000 shares.
10sb, 11/18/99: basic EPS: 10,465,000 shares. diluted EPS: 10,565,000 shares.
10sb, 12/16/99: basic EPS: 17,022,767 shares. diluted EPS 17,122,767 shares.
10sb, 4/5/00: for basic EPS 17,022,767 shares. diluted EPS 17,122,167 shares.

How can ZSUN present three different figures for the same year? Does ZSUN know that three strikes you are out?

b. 1999
10sb, 9/16/99: f basic EPS: 24,457,500 shares. No diluted shares were reported. The figure is for six month weighted-average shares as of 6/30/99.
10sb, 11/18/99: basic EPS: 22,055,000 shares. diluted EPS: 27,205,000 shares. The figures are for six-month weighted average shares as of 6/30/99.
10sb, 12/16/99: basic EPS 21,957500 shares. diluted EPS: 27,107,500 shares. The figures are for six-month weighted-average shares as of 6/30/99.
10sb, 4/5/00: basic EPS: 21,769,583 shares. diluted EPS: 25,717,500. The figures are for 12-month weighted-average shares as of 12/31/99.

IMO, ZSUN had a great difficult to calculate weighted-average shares of the 5,000,000 restricted shares in escrow that they gave to former OIA shareholders in 10sb version 1, 2, 3. They kept coming with the different figures. We know that the EPS will be different if the denominator is changed. In the 10sb version 4, ZSUN counted 3,847,9717 weighted shares for rewarding former OIA shareholders (two shares for every dollar of one year profit ended 3/31/00). However, strangely, it excluded 5,000,000 escrow shares that it has accounted for in 10sb version 2 and version 3. This is truly amazing. Again, you will not see any other companies in NYSE or NASDAQ do this weird accounting.

Well, if you check 10q statements, ZSUN had different weighted-average shares too:
10q on 11/18/99: basic EPS: 25,756,250 shares. diluted EPS: 25,856,250 shares. The figures are for nine-month weighted-average shares as of 9/30/99.
10q on 12/16/99: basic EPS: 21,675,834 shares. diluted EPS: 26,750,834 shares. The figures are for nine-month weighted-average shares as of 9/30/99.

2. BALANCE SHEETS.
A. No other companies in NYSE or NASDAQ just present one year balance sheet without presenting the balance sheet of previous year for comparison. No accountants can check the accuracy of the cash flow statement without seeing the two consecutive the balance sheets. IMO, somebody can easily massage the numbers in the cash flow statement. Jones & Jensen must have assumed that all ZSUN?s investors were gullible.

B. Goodwill
a. 10sb, 9/16/99: $14,40 1,732 as of 6/30/99
b. 10sb 11/18/99:$14,767,357 as of 6/30/99
c. 10sb 12/16/99: $2,579,857 as of 6/30/99
d. 10sb 4/05/00: $4,667,623 as of 12/31/99

Come on! How much is it? ZSUN could not make its mind. ZSUN viewed the value of its share worth about $2.5 to 2.67. The former OIA shareholders got their investment back, when ZSUN paid them $400,000 at the time of the merger. The 6,000,000 shares were viewed as goodwill. ZSUN priced its stock between $2.4 to $2.67. Therefore, it booked 14,401,732. I do not know why it increased to $14,768,357 the second time. Since SEC questioned the validity of the goodwill, ZSUN wrote it down to $2,579,857. The figure is 1/6 of the original goodwill. I think that the reason is that at the time of acquiring OIA, ZSUN placed 5,000,000 out of 6,000,000 in escrow. ZSUN inflated the goodwill in the last 10sb, because it knows that all the escrow shares will be free to go. Moreover, it may have to issue more shares.
IMO, there is no goodwill. ZSUN simply overpaid OIA shareholders. The goodwill should be written off to $0. Of course, the EPS will be ugly, if it writes off the goodwill.

C. If you click the insider info in Yahoo, all the insider estimated that the fair market value for ZSUN as of 11/15/99 was $4.94 per share. Why would you pay $10 per share or even $8.00 per share at the time I released my findings?

Any person who still has some conscience would acknowledge that something is wrong.



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7385)4/14/2000 11:13:00 AM
From: who cares?  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10354
 
Down a buck and a half on a "perthetic" 35,600 volume, looks like Atlas is shrugging under the weight of propping this pig up. This is going to be one ugly POS if/when the OIA boys have to sell a wad to pay taxes. The continued fiddling with past numbers isn't helping their credibility even one iota.
You know if it were me, i'd be just yanking people off the street to come work in the boiler rooms and pump out as much as I could while I could.

CMB