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 : TGL WHAAAAAAAT! Alerts, thoughts, discussion. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: der-gute-alte who wrote (62047)	9/6/2000 12:58:12 PM
From: SSP	Respond to of 150070

sec.gov

To: der-gute-alte who wrote (62047)	9/6/2000 1:02:52 PM
From: y2kfree_radical	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 150070

didn't most of these guys use to post here :o}

To: der-gute-alte who wrote (62047)	9/6/2000 2:19:59 PM
From: lindao	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 150070

to think I followed these guys ... SEC v. Torsten Prochnow d/b/a/ Stockreporter.de, Dennis C. Hass and World of Internet.com AG (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) (SEC Contact: Donald Hoerl, 303-844-1060) The SEC alleges that Torsten Prochnow and Dennis C. Hass, residents of Germany, touted the stocks of approximately 64 U.S. public companies under the name Stockreporter.de. The touts have been disseminated through postings on Stockreporter.de's Internet website and numerous press releases. As set forth in the complaint, Prochnow, Hass and WorldofInternet.com AG (a German corporation owned by Prochnow and Hass) targeted U.S. investors and these investors purchased the touted stocks based on the Stockreporter.de recommendations. The Stockreporter.de website contained false statements concerning the purportedly "long-term" trading intentions of Stockreporter.de's principals. The website also contained baseless financial and/or stock price projections concerning one of the touted issuers. The website also falsely stated that Stockreporter.de's principals were not compensated for their touting, and both the website and press releases failed to disclose both the nature and source of the compensation. The touts caused the price and trading volume of the stock of certain issuers to increase significantly in the short term. Baseless recommendations resulted in price and volume for 28 stocks increasing an average of between 28 percent and 390 percent. On at least 15 occasions, the SEC alleges that Prochnow and Hass sold their holdings of the touted stocks into the resulting inflated market, realizing profits of $111,530. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Prochnow and Hass have agreed to the entry of an order that enjoins them from future violations of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The order also requires them, jointly and severally, to disgorge $111,520 plus prejudgment interest, and for each to pay a civil penalty of $50,000. BBAN tsk ... tsk 11. SEC v. Broadband Wireless International Corporation, BroadCom Wireless Communications Corporation, Ivan W. Webb and Donald L. Knight (U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma; Civil Action No. 00-1375-R) (SEC Contact: Spencer Barasch, 817-978-6425) On August 11, 2000, the SEC filed an emergency enforcement action against Ivan Webb and Donald L. Knight, two recidivist securities laws violators engaged in an ongoing manipulation scheme involving the stock of Broadband Wireless International Corp, traded in the over-the-counter market under the symbol "BBAN." During the fall of 1999, Knight and Webb caused BBAN to issue several press releases and file reports with the SEC that fraudulently touted the company's purported acquisition of several private telecommunications companies, none of which ever came to fruition. Knight and Webb further hyped the company's stock on the company's website and on an Internet bulletin board. The promotional or "pumping" efforts resulted in a dramatic increase in the company's stock. Between late 1999 and February 2000, the stock price increased 10,000%, from 12 cents per share to over $12 per share. Concurrently, Knight, who is on criminal probation for a prior securities fraud scheme, sold or "dumped" millions of shares of restricted BBAN stock, reaping at least $5 million in illicit profits. Later in the scheme, Knight, in an effort to regain control over BBAN from Webb, conducted a fraudulent Internet proxy solicitation through BroadCom Wireless Communications Corp. (a company he controlled). On the same day the suit was filed, a federal court entered orders freezing the assets of all defendants and appointed a receiver to take control of BBAN and BroadCom. An Oklahoma U.S. Attorney simultaneously filed a petition to revoke Knight's criminal probation. The Commission also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement and civil penalties against Knight, BroadCom, Webb and BBAN. Additional Materials Available on This Topic Press Version of the "Pump&Dump.con" brochure (Tips for Avoiding Stock Scams on the Internet) Linda

To: der-gute-alte who wrote (62047)	9/6/2000 5:37:03 PM
From: Jim Bishop	Respond to of 150070

Interesting read there. In each case, I see phases such as below. "spread false information" "sale of bogus securities" "false financial and stock price projections" "false and misleading statements" "disseminating the false press releases" "false and misleading data" "wash sales" "published false and misleading information" "fraudulent press releases" "false information about the issuers and baseless price predictions" "manipulative trading" "false statements concerning the purportedly "long-term" trading intentions" " "baseless financial and/or stock price projections" "manipulated the prices" "misrepresentations about an issuer's business ventures and assets" Hopefully none of those things are happening on this thread, although if a company issues a false and misleading news release, and we post it.......how the hell are we to know, that it's false and misleading? I'm not too clear on this "manipulative trading". For example RNWR today. I bought the other day at $3.85, I bought more today at $2.50, to arrggghhh "average down" but I'd rather call it "accumulate lower" as that doesn't sound as much like "I blew it" on the first buy. Now in my mind, I wanted to take out the last of the offer at $2.50 so hopefully the ask would sit at $2.75, and shhhh, also in the hopes that someone else would come in and take the $2.75 out, then I'd feel better looking at a $3.125 offer which would be close to my average cost. So is that "manipulative trading", LOL or just manipulative "thinking". And what about momo's. If something pops up on a scan, unusual volume is coming in, I buy some, it moves, it slows, so I buy again on the ask to "give it a push"...is that manipulative trading?? Hell on most of the momo's I don't know any more than the symbol, some quick chart, thread, and filing DD, and sometimes am in and out without ever knowing the name of the company....and could care less what they do, who or what started the momentum. Should I be caring? I don't know. Stick to the truth, stick to what you know for fact, don't make price projections, and if you say you're buying, you'd better actually be buying.