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.
Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pilapir who wrote (9635)4/12/2002 9:26:05 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 19428
 
"Merrill Lynch clients as Aether System, Excite@home, GoTo.com, InfoSpace, Lifeminders and 24/7. In one instance, an analyst made highly disparaging remarks about the management of a company and called its stock “a piece of junk,” yet gave the company, a major investment banking client of the firm, the highest possible rating. In other cases, analysts used expletives to describe companies to one another, but continued to maintain unrealistically high ratings for the stocks."

MORE PERIL FOR MERRILL

stockpatrol.com

April 11, 2002

Plaintiffs’ lawyers must be salivating. A lawsuit filed this week by the New York State Attorney General against Merrill Lynch & Co. has opened the door to claims by thousands of customers who relied upon the advice of the Merrill Lynch analysts.

The court action was initiated after a lengthy investigation revealed that the brokerage firm’s supposedly independent and objective investment advice was actually biased to favor the firm’s investment banking clients. It has already taken a significant turn. On April 8, 2002, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer announced that the New York State Supreme Court had issued an order requiring immediate reform of investment analysis practice at Merrill Lynch.

The Attorney General’s action may come as a surprise to those who believed that a “Chinese Wall” separates a brokerage firm’s analysts from its investment bankers and salespersons. An extensive investigation revealed that Merrill Lynch did not maintain a fully independent and unbiased research group. Instead, the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit charges that Merrill Lynch distorted stock ratings in order to attract, and keep, investment banking business. Indeed, Merrill Lynch analysts were compensated for recruiting investment banking clients. As a result, analysts gave favorable ratings to the firm’s clients, even when they acknowledged internally that those stocks were not sound investments.

Other regulators have expressed concern about the independence of brokerage firm analysts. On July 2, 2001 the National Association of Securities Dealers proposed new rules requiring analysts to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Securities and Exchange Commission has voiced similar views; an SEC “Investor Alert” warns investors of such potential conflicts. See Cracks in the Wall.

The case against Merrill Lynch demonstrates that such concerns are merited. Saying that this action “must be a catalyst for reform throughout the entire industry,” Spitzer characterized Merrill Lynch’s behavior as “a shocking betrayal of trust by one of Wall Street’s most trusted names.”

In preparing its case, the New York Attorney General’s Office reviewed over 30,000 documents, consisting of more than 100,000 pages. They discovered that the Merrill Lynch rating system was a sham since analysts declined to issue “reduce” or “sell” recommendations concerning the firm’s clients, even when they privately expressed concerns about the future of those companies.

Indeed, internal e-mails revealed that the analysts’ recommendations often were inconsistent with their actual opinions. For example, one internal e-mail acknowledged that there was “No helpful news to relate” regarding the firm’s investment banking client, Internet Capital Group. Still, while analysts conceded in private correspondence that “there is really no floor to the [Internet Capital Group] stock,” they did not immediately lower their rating.

An affidavit submitted by the New York Attorney General in support of the lawsuit noted similar discrepancies between the published ratings and internal comments by analysts concerning such Merrill Lynch clients as Aether System, Excite@home, GoTo.com, InfoSpace, Lifeminders and 24/7. In one instance, an analyst made highly disparaging remarks about the management of a company and called its stock “a piece of junk,” yet gave the company, a major investment banking client of the firm, the highest possible rating. In other cases, analysts used expletives to describe companies to one another, but continued to maintain unrealistically high ratings for the stocks.

According to the Attorney General’s affidavit, Merrill Lynch analysts “knew very well that investment banking business translated into compensation for them personally and the firm generally, and that their research played a role in attracting and keeping that investment banking business.” As a result, there was a conscious effort to protect investment banking business by managing ratings.

While Merrill Lynch analysts seemed diligent in their desire to mollify their investment banking counterparts, they paid little heed to the right of investors to receive accurate, untainted information. The court order obtained by Attorney General Spitzer seeks to rectify that situation. It requires Merrill Lynch to disclose to investors its relationships with investment banking clients, and to provide more context for its stock ratings.

That should mean that Merrill Lynch will be gearing up for a wave of investor lawsuits. And Attorney General Spitzer promises that the investigation into other brokerage firms is continuing.

No wonder those plaintiffs’ lawyers are smiling.

©2002 Stock Patrol.com. All rights reserved.

WE'RE BACK ON PATROL



To: pilapir who wrote (9635)4/12/2002 10:16:15 AM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19428
 
RE:Aaron Tsai->:Deals & Deal Makers:As ` Blank - Check ' Firms Regain Allure,
Businessman Lines Up Numerous Suitors
By Timothy D. Schellhardt

10/29/1999
The Wall Street Journal
Page C1
(Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Aaron Tsai is phasing out his wholesale camera business because he is just too busy starting other companies. One hundred and one, in fact.

The 29-year-old Evansville, Ind., businessman is at the leading edge of a resurgence in " blank check ," or shell, companies, publicly held concerns with few if any assets, income, products, or activities, no business plan and no experienced managers.

That may sound like a prescription for disaster, but companies in the business of doing nothing are helping turn Mr. Tsai into a millionaire. The allure is that these blank - check companies can be used by private companies to go public in "reverse mergers" without the hefty cost and the hassle of doing their own initial public offerings.

The idea isn't new, but it has taken on new life because of the stock market's surprising gains in recent years, especially the pulse-pounding performance of many Internet-related offerings. For the first nine months of this year, 458 blank - check companies made Securities and Exchange Commission filings, up from 320 for all of 1998 and 260 in 1997.

Mr. Tsai, who retains 3% to 10% of the merged company's shares outstanding, has registered 20 blank - check companies with the SEC and has the others waiting in the wings. Already, he has merged or is in the process of combining nine of his companies, and he says three others are committed to suitors.

One of the companies he merged with in March is SurgiLight Inc., a Winter Park, Fla., operator of laser-eye centers. He retained more than 350,000 shares of its stock, which was cleared for price quotation on the over-the-counter bulletin board yesterday.

"I've been very busy," he says. "It's exciting. Every deal is different."

Blank - check companies have had a checkered past. Most states outlaw them. In 1992, the SEC tightened regulations on them because many were being used for fraudulent purposes. The SEC and several states required blank - check concerns to place proceeds from a public offering into an escrow account and then, when merging with a going concern, to disclose information on the deal and give stockholders the opportunity to have their funds returned.

For his part, Mr. Tsai says he has run into some "not very reputable" people as he has sought to find partners for his blank - check companies.

"You've got to be careful," he says. He gets referrals from a wide range of sources, including attorneys, accountants, and financial public-relations firms.

Not much has been heard about blank - check concerns until the recent revival on interest in reverse-merger deals. Among other Internet-related blank - check companies that have registered recently with the SEC are Acquireu.com, of Boca Raton, Fla., which pursues "a business combination in the Internet Industry," Dynadapt System Inc., of Wheat Ridge, Colo., which seeks information-technology acquisitions, and E-Commerce Group Inc., of Las Vegas.

"Internet and dot-com companies have been attractive and the bloom may not be off the rose entirely," says Richard Heller, a New York lawyer advising Acquireu.com.

The SEC won't comment publicly about the increase in blank - check companies, but it is watching closely. In May, for instance, James H. Ridinger, chief executive and president of Market America Inc., of Greensboro, N.C., and former stockbroker Gilbert Zwetsch, of Spokane, Wash., agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle SEC allegations they violated antifraud and other provisions of federal securities laws in connection with an unregistered sale of the direct-marketing company's shares. Without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, the two men agreed to be barred from violating securities laws in the future.

In its complaint filed in Washington, D.C., the SEC alleged, among other things, that Mr. Zwetsch arranged a series of blank - check public offerings and then had the shell companies file materially false and misleading registration statements with the SEC that failed to disclose that he owned all of their shares. Under an agreement between the two men, the SEC says, one of the shell companies was to be used in a reverse merger with Market America in an effort to take Market America public. The two men were to own all of its shares.

Because of their very simplicity -- the SEC filing fee can be under $50 and incorporating a company can cost less than $100 -- blank - check companies attract a colorful assortment of people of all ages and backgrounds.

Many of them are started by people in their 20s while some are led by septuagenarians. The CEOs include a ski instructor, a personal trainer, teachers, and real-estate salesmen. The two principal officers of Bioincubation Corp., of Chicago, are 27-year-olds, one with a background in computer technology and the other in marketing. The president of N.T. Properties Inc., of Irvine, Calif., is a 49-year-old fitness consultant for an adult day-care center in San Clemente, Calif., while the president of Dream Team International Inc., Las Vegas, is a 59-year-old master carpenter. A locksmith heads Be Safe Services Inc., and its corporate secretary is a New York City teacher.

"It's not as if there's great brainwork to set one of them up," says Bert Blevins III, who with four partners recently registered five blank - check companies with the SEC. The 28-year-old is executive vice president and chief information officer of Campbell Mello Associates, a three-year-old Las Vegas corporate-securities consulting firm that tries to link public shells with potential merger candidates. Its CEO is 27-year-old Anthony Mello III, who also writes a monthly column for Casino Executive Magazine. Mr. Blevins says the five blank checks will be added as a button on Campbell-Mello's Web site for prospective partners to inspect.

Mr. Tsai, born in Taiwan, moved to Indiana with his family when he was 13. He attended New York University's Stern School of Business and began his camera business in November 1992. A bachelor, he says he spends six days a week on his blank - check business, filing regular SEC reports on each, seeking merger partners, and advising others. He says he's focusing his reverse-merger transactions primarily on Internet and technology businesses.

Mr. Tsai's first combination was completed in December 1997 when MAS Acquisition III Corp. merged with Salient Cybertech Inc., formerly Sloan Electronics Inc., of Sarasota, Fla., a maker of electronics-monitoring devices. For that transaction, he received 819,917 shares, or 8.7%, of Salient's stock outstanding, and another 100,000 shares as payment for consulting services. In August 1998, according to SEC filings, he sold nearly 726,000 shares for $162,000, or 23.3 cents per share. Salient was recently quoted on the OTC bulletin board at about 31.25 cents a share.

In recent months, besides the combination with SurgiLight Inc., he has completed reverse mergers with NetStaff Inc., an Internet-based multiple-listing service for the professional staffing industry, based in San Francisco, and with Dimgroup.com, an Internet-publishing company headquartered in Toronto. He retains a 6.8% stake in Dimgroup.com and a 9.6% holding in NetStaff Inc.

Mr. Tsai says he has "big dreams." Eventually he says he wants to establish a full-service Internet investment-banking firm. "We believe the Internet will open the equity markets to individual investors, create alternative stock-trading systems for them and thereby change the model of capital formation that exists today," he says.

"I know I have to be realistic," he says. "I have to take this one step at a time."

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

Copyright ¸ 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



To: pilapir who wrote (9635)4/12/2002 4:59:38 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19428
 
INVESTCO NEWS--SPLATTT--LOL-->A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--There's an old saying among investors infinancial-services firms that goes something like this: A company is only as good as the assets that walk in and out of the front door each day.
With that in mind, investors in Investco Inc. (IVSO) would be well served to learn more about its "assets," and especially about the chairman of a firm that owns a controlling interest in Investco.
In other words, when looking at Investco, forget for the moment that it's next to impossible to figure out how many shares the company really hasoutstanding.
And forget the fact that just a few months ago the company was in entirelyanother business - voice recognition.
Likewise, pay no attention for the time being to the changing circumstances around its acquisition of a Costa Rican surety and insurance business.
Instead, begin with Michael Zapetis, the man who controls Investco through another company and a man who has had a few run-ins with the law.
This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is another major tenet of financial services firms: trust. A little background: Investco, formerly known as Intraco Systems Inc., is a small Florida-based company that reinvented itself into a provider of financial
services in January when it began offering financial guarantees to help would-be-borrowers secure loans.
Zapetis is the chairman of First International Finance Corp., or FIFC, a privately held invesment company that last December acquired 1 million shares of series C convertible preferred stock of what was called Intraco in exchange for $15 million of stock in Anglo American PLC (AAUK). Following a name change, the preferred stock is now convertible into 7.5 million common shares of
Investco. According to a January 30 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, FIFC holds about 94.4% of Investco's common shares after conversion.
What regulatory filings don't say, however, is that in 1987, Gerald Lewis, then Florida state comptroller and head of the department of banking and finance, charged Zapetis and three others in a civil suit alleging sale of
unregistered securities, sale of securities by unregistered persons, operation of an unlicensed bank and other violations.
Lewis charged that Zapetis and others through four unlicensed companies - First Union Guaranty Trust, First International Trust Corp., First Houston
Trust Co. and Marine Trust Corp - operated an advance-fee scheme, collecting funds upfront from customers and then failing to honor letters of credit issued by the companies.
Court documents show that just one month after Lewis filed his civil suit, Zapetis agreed to an order permanently restraining and enjoining him and others in the case from a variety of actions including: acting as a bank; doing business under any name or title containing the words "bank," "banker," "banking" or "trust company," and selling or offering for sale securities without first registering them. Under the order, Zapetis, with no admission of guilt, and others also agreed to make restitution to any party who can demonstrate that they had paid improper expenses or fees in connection with the
procurement of, or the commitment for letters of credit.
After seemingly staying out of trouble for almost a decade, Zapetis caught the eye of regulators once again. This time, in 1995, he was charged in a criminal case involving collecting advance fees from a would-be-borrower.
Zapetis pleaded no contest to a charge of petty theft and to a charge that he violated Florida law by collecting an advance fee while acting as a loan broker. He was convicted on the petty-theft charge but received a withhold of
adjudication on the more serious advance fee charge for which he was put on probation and forced to make restitution.
In this case, court documents filed with the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida show that back in 1993, Zapetis told Robert Searles, an individual who was seeking a $5 million loan, that he could arrange such financing through
Merrill Lynch & Co. The same documents show that later that year Zapetis requested $25,000 as a fee to arrange the loan, demanding half in cash upfront. Searles paid Zapetis $12,500 in cash in July but soon discovered that Zapetis
never supplied a promised line of credit and that Merrill wouldn't provide the loan. A Merrill employee testified against Zapetis in 1995. Merrill declined to comment on the case.
This, by the way, was not the first criminal case filed against Zapetis. In 1982, he was convicted by the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida of "knowingly and intentionally importing (a) quantity of marijuana into the United States." He was sentenced to a 15-year jail term. His sentence was later amended, and he was released after spending just eight months in federal prison.
Karen Carazo, Zapetis' wife and corporate secretary of FIFC, said that Zapetis wasn't available to comment.

Known: There ARE Shares

Meanwhile, if Zapetis' past indiscretions are not enough to make investors hesitate to endorse Investco's new line of business, lax information about the company's shares may.
A Feb. 13 SEC filing shows that Investco had 946,901 common shares outstanding as of Jan. 31 as well as 2.2 million in preferred shares which would convert into 7.512 million shares of Investco.
But earlier this month, Investco announced that it had received a tender offer from FIFC at $10 a share. The press release told investors that "FIFC planned to acquire at least 95% of Investco stock that is not presently owned
by FIFC (26%) and Mercury Surety & Insurance Company (70%)." The announcement went on by telling readers that FIFC intends to acquire at least 950,000 shares of the company's stock for cash. The 950,000 shares would come from the approximately 499,114 shares in the public float and approximately 500,000 shares of restricted shares currently being held by investors.
If FIFC and Mercury hold 96% of Investco stock and only the remaining 4%, or about 950,000 shares, is up for grabs, that would mean that the company has
about 23.75 million shares outstanding and not the 8.5 million showing up in the Feb. 13 filing (7.512 million from the convertibles and 946,901 common shares).
Asked about the inconsistencies in the amount of shares outstanding, a spokesman for Investco referred all questions to Joseph Lents, interim chief executive of Investco, who has so far been unavailable for comment. Carazo also declined to comment.
The number of shares outstanding isn't the only peculiarity when it comes to Investco's press releases and public SEC filings.
Information about Investco's most recent acquisition, Mercury Surety &Insurance Company of Costa Rica, is hard to decipher. In a Jan. 31 press release, Investco told investors that it would acquire 100% of Mercury from Capitales Tres De America S.A. with promissory notes and
restricted stock worth a total of $50.5 million. In the release, Lents saidthat the company planned to keep Mercury intact and use the $50 million in certificates of deposits on the Costa Rican insurance firm's balance sheet to
provide guarantees. By March 7, Investco had changed its mind, saying in a press release that it would acquire Mercury for $100 million in promissory notes and restricted stock. According to that release, Mercury had $250 million
in certificates of deposit on its balance sheet that would help Investco meet increasing requests for asset guarantees and collateral enhancements.
So is it $50 million or $250 million? Well, according to yet another press release issued by Investco on March 14, Mercury has $100 million in certificates of deposit on its balance sheet. Again, Lents wasn't available to comment.
Given FIFC's Zapetis charged past when it comes to loans and guarantees and Investco's apparent inability to clearly state its intentions, perhaps investors should be well advised to wait for clarifications from the company before investing in Investco stock.
The company is late in filing its annual report for the year ending Dec. 2001, a document that will hopefully include information about FIFC and its officers. (Investco's or rather Intraco's past filings are of little value to investors since they deal with the company's previous business, voice recognition).
Investco stock was recently trading at $1.35 a share. The stock spiked to $8.50 a share in early January before slowly retreating to its current level.

-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201 938 2074;
carol.remond@dowjones.com.

(END) DOW JONES NEWS 04-12-02