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.
Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (3177)11/8/2000 9:07:44 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
Here is a very interesting post;

To: Mike M who wrote (3632)
From: Mad2 Thursday, Sep 16, 1999 11:47 PM ET
Reply # of 7575

Dear Mike M
My, my Mikey you resort to anger, foul language and denial (no its not a river in Egypt). You come here to "support" GUMM, but instead only throw around acqusations that aren't found in fact.
You write:
I remember the incident in question and it didn't quite happen the way you say it did....Doesn't matter. You are wrong and so is your analysis. You haven't got one bit of the story straight...and you can't spell worth a hoot either.
If you think you know something put your money where your mouth is. Your distortions are libel!
What I write is based on factual information (unlike your posts). Why don't you bone up on what has been written before you run off and expose your ignorance. The only thing you can criticize is the spelling.......getting desperate eh Mikey.

You also claim,
I remember that too...and you didn't have a clue then what the company was about....just somebody's recommendation to short....Better lucky than good when you are clueless...!

I've followed GUMM for 2 years, longer than your beloved thread has been in existance. No one recomended GUMM as a short to me, period.
I've forgotten more about GUMM than your small brain has the capacity to understand.
I review many good short opportunities that are posted here as well as other threads but make no decision based on someone elses recomendation as sucessful shorting is not based on luck.

Do you also represent your knowledge of GUMM and other companies you tout with the same degree of accuracy you have displayed here? Where are your compelling (based on facts, not opinion) that support a long position in GUMM

On my position with GUMM

Message 7603673
Message 7670325
Message 7696151
Message 7729635

On the orgin of Dr. Davidsons firm Gel-Tech

Message 7565215
Message 7569161
Message 7571742

On the confusion of Gum Tech's representation of Gel-Tech, Biodelivery
Message 7571742
Message 7573668

On the available information concerning ZICAM and professional references and verification
Message 7576603
Message 7580546
Message 7588097
Message 7588934
Message 7590914

GUMM's deal with Gel-Tech smells of a stock promotion scheme, that was hastily put togeather to prop up the price of GUMM and attract new money. Confusing press releases and conflicting information from consultants all add up to a seat of the pants approach centered around pumping the zicam story.
Five years of failure will be followed by ?????
We will know shortly, but history has a funny way of repeating itself.
With disrespect to you and your worthless opinions,
Mad2



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (3177)11/8/2000 9:22:17 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
GUM TECH CUT ITS TIES TO OUSTED STOCKBROKER
05/09/1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's newest public company has started trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange after severing financial ties with a former stockbroker whose license was revoked for securities fraud.

Phoenix-based Gum Tech International (Nasdaq: GUMM) makes specialty chewing gums for such uses as losing weight, boosting energy and cleansing breath.

Both John E. Epert, the company's chairman and president, and former stockbroker Brett L. Bouchy, have links to Unitech Industries, an electronics firm in Scottsdale that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, a month after announcing it may have misstated its earnings.

Epert serves on Unitech's board of directors. Bouchy helped finance Unitech before its initial public offering in November 1994.

Bouchy says he no longer has ties with either Gum Tech or Unitech.

Shareholder lawsuits accuse Unitech of falsely reporting strong sales and earnings growth, which drove share prices up and allowed insiders to profit from selling parts of their holdings.

Epert acknowledged that he sold some shares before the company's downfall, but said they amounted to less than 5 percent of his holdings in the company. His losses were extensive when the stock price collapsed, he said.

Of his profitable sale of Unitech stock, Epert said, "I can guarantee you it was not because I knew any negative inside information." At the time of the sales, the company's auditors at Coopers & Lybrand said the company was doing fine, he added.

Michael Marrie, who was managing partner of the Phoenix office of Coopers & Lybrand at the time, declined to comment. He now heads administrative and business operations at Snell & Wilmer, a law firm in Phoenix.

The ex-stockbroker, Bouchy, 27, said a distinction must be made between Unitech and Gum Tech. "Each company speaks for itself," he said.

On April 24, the Arizona Corporation Commission rejected requests by Bouchy and a former colleague, Richard C. Whelan, 31, for a rehearing of their license revocations and penalties.

In the early 1990s, Bouchy and Whelan ran a now-closed Scottsdale brokerage called Franklin-Lord. The brokerage and both men were fined and their licenses revoked earlier this year by the state for allegedly manipulating stock prices and engaging in other fraudulent securities practices, none related to Unitech.

Also, both men have been disciplined by the National Association of Securities Dealers, which runs Nasdaq, for a variety of securities violations.

NASD insisted that Bouchy sell his equity stake in Gum Tech as a condition of Nasdaq listing, according to the April 16 Gum Tech prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"The National Market's objection to allowing Mr. Bouchy to remain an equity holder in the company resulted from fines and censures imposed upon Mr. Bouchy by the NASD and the Securities Commission of the State of Arizona," the filing says.

Bouchy, who grew up in the east Valley and now lives in Incline Village, Nev., defended his role in Gum Tech.

He took on a "tremendous amount of risk" by initially investing in Gum Tech, held stock for more than a year, and invested considerable "time, effort and work" into the company, he said.

Gum Tech's financial results reflect improvement, he said. The company's pre-tax income for 1995 was $768,321 on revenues of $4.3 million. That compares with pre-tax income of $231,589 on $1.9 million in revenue in 1994.

Gum Tech is expecting further strong growth in 1996, Bouchy added.

Bouchy estimated his profit in Gum Tech deals at $2 million to $3 million.

Epert said Bouchy "found a company that was not doing much" and has enhanced its value. He noted the addition of officers and directors and the company's move to manufacture its own products. Earlier, it outsourced the work.

As for his past, Bouchy said Franklin-Lord has been the subject of much criticism, but the brokerage's track record includes having underwritten the initial public offerings of several companies, including Employee Solutions (Nasdaq: ESOL), a Phoenix-based employee leasing concern, Bouchy notes.

Employee Solutions' earnings swelled to $3.8 million in 1995, up nearly tenfold from a year earlier. Revenue in 1995 was $165 million, compared with $74 million in 1994.

Epert, too, said Bouchy has severed his ties to Gum Tech.

"The only association with Mr. Bouchy was that he was an investor early on. When the SEC objected to him being involved, we asked him to liquidate his positions, which he did," Epert said.

Bouchy added that Gum Tech repaid loans he had made to the company out of the proceeds of the recent IPO. He now has no role in the company, he said.

Epert referred questions about regulators' concerns about Bouchy's role in Gum Tech to Englewood, Colo., attorney Gary A. Agron, who handled the prospectus filing. Agron declined to comment.

Epert explained that his roles in Unitech and Gum Tech grew from his earlier investing through the Franklin-Lord brokerage.

Gum Tech's IPO raised $7.4 million for the company.

Gum Tech, organized as a Utah corporation in 1991, is a newcomer to Arizona. In February it completed improvements and began manufacturing product in its 28,000-square-foot facility in Phoenix, according to the prospectus.

The company's product line includes gums with ingredients that Gum Tech claims promote weight loss (ChromaTrim and CitrusSlim brand names), contribute to energy and endurance (Buzz Gum, Power Gum and Love Gum brands), alleviate certain premenstrual symptoms (Repose brand) and promote oral hygiene and fresh breath (DentaHealth brand), the prospectus says.

Brett Bouchy's role in financing Gum Tech, as described in the prospectus, began in November 1994 when Gregory Gossett, then the company's president and majority stockholder, sold just over 2 million shares, at 48 cents per share, to Dale Holdings LDC. At that time, and until December 1995, Dale was owned 51 percent by Riverlux Trust REG, a Liechtenstein company, and 49 percent by Bouchy.

In February 1995, Dale sold 367,150 shares of common stock to a group of 11 investors for $560,000, or $1.53 per share. A year ago, the company and Dale each sold 420,000 shares of the company's common stock through an underwriter for $756,000, or $1.80 per share, according to the prospectus.

Also, Bouchy was one of four lenders who loaned a total of $1.55 million to Gum Tech in October 1995, according to the prospectus.

In December, Dale dissolved and issued 51 percent and 49 percent of its common stock in the company and its loans receivable due from the company to Riverlux Trust REG and Bouchy. The next month, the company repurchased from Bouchy the remaining 619,175 shares of Gum Tech common stock owned by him for $4.50 per share, or $2.5 million total.

Bouchy's brother, Jeffrey L. Bouchy, is listed as secretary, treasurer and chief financial officer of Gum Tech. He joined the company in May 1995, according to the prospectus.

Brett Bouchy and Epert said Jeff Bouchy has a master's degree in accounting and is well-qualified to serve as a company officer.

The firm that underwrote Gum Tech's IPO was Kensington Securities, which is based in Agoura Hills, Calif., and has branches in Scottsdale and New York.

See Sidebar: "Offers for Unitech may delay filing of proposal"

(Copyright 1996 Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.)



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (3177)11/8/2000 9:35:49 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5582
 
RE: Brett L. Bouchy->U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 15171 / December 2, 1996
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. BRETT L. BOUCHY and RICHARD
C. WHELAN, Civil Action No. 96-2629 PHX (RGS)(D. Ariz.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a Complaint on
December 2, 1996 against Brett L. Bouchy and Richard C. Whelan,
former registered representatives and co-owners of now-defunct
Franklin-Lord, Inc. In its Complaint, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, the Commission
alleges that Bouchy and Whelan engaged in a variety of fraudulent
schemes in connection with the offer and sale of securities.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that from December 1990
through August 1991, while employed as registered representatives
at now-defunct First American Biltmore Securities, Inc., Bouchy
and Whelan: (1) received undisclosed compensation for their
recommendations of the common stock of Supermail International,
Inc. to their clients; (2) misappropriated funds from one of
their clients; (3) fraudulently sold this same client certain
other securities without disclosing that they owned these
securities personally and that they would earn approximately 200
percent in profits from this transaction; and (4) utilized
nominee accounts to personally profit from, and cause the false
closing of, a public offering of securities underwritten by First
American Biltmore.
The Complaint further alleges that in September 1992, Bouchy
and Whelan, who owned and controlled Franklin-Lord, failed to
disclose the following material facts in connection with the
initial public offering ("IPO") and aftermarket trading of the
securities of 2 Bi 2, Inc.: (1) that IPO units would be placed
in a nominee account; and (2) that Franklin-Lord would restrict
retail sales of 2 Bi 2 securities by instituting a no net-sale
policy. The Complaint also alleges that Franklin-Lord solicited
aftermarket orders during the 2 Bi 2 distribution.
The Complaint seeks permanent injunctions from future
violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws, disgorgement, with prejudgment interest, of all profits
derived from their fraudulent activities, and civil penalties
against Bouchy and Whelan for their violations of Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5, 10b-6 and 10b-9thereunder.