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 : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7678)	5/3/2000 12:38:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10354

Solv-Ex Suit Against Investment Firms, Short Sellers Dismissed Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 2 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Solv-Ex Corp. against Deutsche Bank AG and about 20 other investors that the oil processing company accused of engaging in a stock market tug-of-war that crushed the company's value. U.S. District John Conway in Albuquerque, New Mexico, dismissed the lawsuit, filed in December 1998, saying he found no evidence of a conspiracy. Solv-Ex, which is developing technology to extract oil from tar sands in northern Canada, claimed Deutsche Bank and its Morgan Grenfell unit artificially inflated Solv-Ex's stock price, and then short sellers misused confidential information to drive down the Albuquerque company's share price. As evidence, Solv-Ex submitted electronic mail messages exchanged among short sellers, investors who profit when stocks fall. ``The e-mails and discussions are merely opinions about the relative value of Solv-Ex stock,'' Conway wrote in his order dismissing the case. ``If such discussions were sufficient to prove a conspiracy, then every person in the securities industry would be a potential conspirator.'' Solv-Ex Chief Financial Officer Frank Ciotti said the company's attorneys were still reviewing the decision, which was issued earlier today. Negative Results The ruling comes less than a month after another federal judge found Solv-Ex, Chairman John Rendall and Senior Vice President Herb Campbell ignored negative test results regarding their technology and cautions from consultants, then issued press releases and statements to shareholders almost weekly that created ``a misleadingly optimistic picture'' of Solv-Ex technology. That decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed in July 1998 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In its lawsuit against the investment firms, Solv-Ex claims Morgan Grenfell, now known as Deutsche Bank Securities, manipulated Solv-Ex's stock as part of a larger scheme to defraud investors. Deutsche Bank fired former fund manger Peter Young in 1996 for allegedly disguising his funds' holdings in Solv-Ex and other risky stocks through a series of dummy corporations. Solv-Ex officials maintained they were unaware of Young's activities. Deutsche Bank ultimately paid $664 million in fines and restitution related to the scandal. Also named in Solv-Ex's lawsuit were eight investment firms and their principals, who Solv-Ex claims sold the company's shares short. Short sellers targeted Solv-Ex in 1996 and 1997, as the company's shares soared, generating a market capitalization of more than $800 million. In addition to Deutsche Bank, the defendants in the lawsuit were: Quilcap Corp. and its principal, Parker Quillen of New York; Martin Zweig and New York-based Zweig Advisors; Michelle Sarian and her firm, New York-based Fahnestock & Co.; New Orleans-based Rice Voelker Bros. & Frantzen and its principals, George Voelker and Tim Rice; Mikles/Miller Management Inc. of Santa Monica, California, and its principals, Lee Mikles and Mark Miller; Stanley Trilling and his Los Angeles-based Trilling Partners, as well as their affiliate, Paine Webber Group Inc.; and Manuel Asensio and his firm, Asensio & Co. of New York. May/02/2000 19:45 For more stories from Bloomberg News, click here. (C) Copyright 2000 Bloomberg L.P.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7678)	5/3/2000 12:42:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10354

By: frisky Reply To: None Wednesday, 3 May 2000 at 12:31 PM EDT Post # of 19949 How much is ZSUNE worth? One needs to compare ZSUNE with WADE. WADE had $84 million sales in 1999 and $3.7 million loss. The loss was primarily from high G&A expenses. Wade had net assets of $16 million and 63 million common shares outstanding as of 12/31/1999. It is a full reporting entity. Wade?s current stock price is around 25 cents. In the last 10k statement, WADE acknowledged that it had a difficulty to grow and now is concentrating its seminar activities in big cities. In fact, Wade?s sales declined from $118 million of 1998 to $84 million of 1999. ZSUNE is pretty much a transplant of WADE because 85% to 90% of its revenues are from OIA. ZSUNE had $27 million revenues and $3 million profits (excluding one-time gain) in 1999. I have no idea how many diluted shares that ZSUNE has. My best estimate is between 45 to 60 million shares. It has not complied with SEC?s reporting standards. ZSUNE?s other profitable business is exchanging its own penny shares with the related parties, TMOT, DDD, LCAI and "other"(???). It was a successful strategy in 1998 and 1999 by shifting the additional paid-in capital to realized and unrealized gain of marketable securities. Hence, the EPS was boosted. However, the stocks of those related parties performed very poorly this year.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7678)	5/3/2000 12:45:00 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 10354

"I felt highly misled by OTCFN's representations on the number of SEXI shares. If the company won't tell you who the transfer agent is, consider that a red flag." Message 395225 To: Linda Brandt (38 ) From: Chuck Bragg Monday, Oct 28 1996 6:40PM ET Reply # of 77 WARNING TO ALL POTENTIAL BUYERS OF THIS STOCK OTC Financial Network (aka. OTC Communications) is a promoter of this stock. My experience with OTCFN has resulted in numerous material misstatements by this PR firm in regards to a stock named Systems of Excellence, which was represented by OTCFN. During that time, Geoff Eiten, partner at OTCFN, mistated the number of common shares outstanding to me on 3 occasions. It was only after I did further research that he finally admitted the additional shares. He denied reports that the NASDAQ has denied Systems of Excellence (SEXI) a listing, when in fact they had been denied. He told shareholders that SEXI had a $130 million deal with the State of Florida which never came to fruition. And probably on his worst offense, he told me on Friday, October 4th that all SEC problems had been solved and that the company had indeed signed the deal with the State of Florida. This, as anyone following the SEXI saga would know, was a blatant lie. On Monday, October 7th, the SEC halted SEXI trading. Finally, Mr. Eiten had been telling shareholders all along that all the shares being issued were for restricted stock. However, a call placed to the transfer agent this week confirmed that most of the company's shares are not restricted. OTCFN has a dismal record of disseminating accurate and truthful information in my opinion. If you are thinking about investing in a company in which OTCFN represents, I would very carefully examine the company, and certainly not rely on anything this PR firm has to say. If you're a current shareholder, I have no bone to pick with the company. But if you're relying purely on information given out by OTCFN, you might want to start asking some very tough questions. Incidentally, you can call your company's transfer agent and find out the current number of shares. This information is considered public. I felt highly misled by OTCFN's representations on the number of SEXI shares. If the company won't tell you who the transfer agent is, consider that a red flag. ================================================== SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934RELEASE NO. 37791 / October 7, 1996 The Securities and Exchange Commission today ordered the temporary suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), of trading in the securities of Systems of Excellence, Inc. ("SOE"), beginning at 9:00 a.m. EDT on October 7, 1996 and concluding at 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 21, 1996. SOE is located in Coral Gables, Florida and Mclean, Virginia. The Commission ordered this trading suspension because of questions raised as to the adequacy and accuracy of publicly- disseminated information concerning, among other things: (1) SOE's reported financial condition; (2) the existence and value of services rendered to SOE in exchange for stock issued by SOE; (3) whether stock was issued by SOE to consultants without registration; (4) the reasons for changes in SOE's independent accountants; and (5) SOE's sales of its video teleconferencing products. The Commission determined that the public interest and the protection of investors requires a suspension of trading inSOE securities. The Commission cautions broker-dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by thecompany. Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer has any questions as to whether or not he has complied with the rule, he should not enter any quotation but immediately contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by Rule 15c2-11, he should refrain from entering quotations relating to SOE's securities until such time as he has familiarized himself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (7678)	5/3/2000 12:49:00 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 10354

By: frisky Reply To: 19947 by xcit Wednesday, 3 May 2000 at 12:41 PM EDT Post # of 19952 Xcit, you forgot to mention that the 1998 EPS was revised from $.47 to $.04, sales was revised from $2.2 million to $760,000. The 1999 EBIT EPS was revised to diluted EPS of $.23. We are still waiting the press release for the E status. You said it would be Monday or Tuesday. It is 9:38 am Pacific Time now.