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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)9/14/2002 4:30:25 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
Jonathan Labed Lebed & Lara LLC President
Cedar Grove N.J. 973-220-4299 Lebed316@aol.com Capital Growth, CEO Foundation Compliance, Corporate Governance

ceocouncil.net

Take a look at the CEO Council Members.

Jonathan Labed, Ed Leosi who was a Boiler Room Guy of PT Dolok and promoter of Mob Stock Millionaire.com, Thomas S. Hughes of Econnect who was recently indicted as well as some other notables.



To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)9/14/2002 4:46:16 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
Now I am totally shocked about NUTK, the CEO Council and Jonathan Labed. Also after reading this click on this link. 216.239.51.100

10. "Shoot the shorters - Task Force takes dead aim at wrongdoers"
I received this in my email this morning:
Fi/X: Financial Intelligence Xchange
Vol. 5, No. 16 / Monday, July 15, 2002

SHOOT THE SHORTERS
Task Force takes dead aim at wrongdoers.
Nutek CEO fed up and not going to take it anymore.
Condemns 'handslap $2,500 fines' considered 'cost of doing business.'
ceocouncil.net

The CEO Council has formed a Special Task Force on Trading Practices. The Task Force's organizer is Murray N. Conradie, President/CEO, Nutek Inc. He is also president of the Business Advisory Committee representing the state of Nevada to Congress, and chairman of the state's Republican Congressional Committee.

Here is his experience with shorting, and he is inviting all CEOs with similar stories to get in touch with the CEO Council and volunteer to serve on the Task Force:

"I took over Nutek in April 1999 when it was no more than just a shell company, one employee, $2 million in debt, no history of sales, $3,500.00 cash in the bank, and a $0.035 share price. However, there were over 460 shareholders who had invested their hard earned savings into this company and many were of retirement age. Previous management had made promises, yet not fulfilled and these investors were about to lose it all. I was approached by many of these shareholders to take over as CEO and salvage the company. This was going to be a challenge yet at the same time, an opportunity to salvage these shareholders life savings in some instances.

"In just over three years we have grown from nothing to a company now about to generate approximately $5 million in revenues for 2002 and $600,000 in earnings. We now have almost 400 employees and still continuing to grow at a tremendous pace with assets in excess of $6 million. We have announced contracts in excess of $12 million and well on our way to success. Sounds like a dream come true, in some instances yes in others NO !!!

"Our share price is being forced down and manipulated on a daily basis, and are now approaching all time lows since I took over as CEO, yet why is this.? Let me explain, we are considered a 'penny stock' as we trade on the OTCBB, a privilege that cost us almost $160,000 in legal and audit fees to complete our Form 10 filing just to return back to the OTCBB in 2000 when the NASD introduced Rule 6530. Many CEO's thought this would bring legitimacy to the market and assist them in growing their companies. How mistaken we were. Although, there was some clean-up necessary, the major problem I feel was not just with the companies, but with the traders and market makers who trade these 'penny stocks'. They are allowing this to take place and facilitate the trades.

"In early 2001 a known shorter started posting on the internet message boards that everyone should start selling Nutek stock and do it immediately. This continued for a great deal of time and even involved using the FBI to perform background checks on myself to find something to throw out to my shareholders. Nothing was found and this shorter along with two FBI agents and their accomplices have now been indicted by the US Attorney's Office and are sitting in jail. The very people who are supposed to be protecting us, are abusing their privileges to steal money from the man in the street. HOW CAN THIS BE TOLERATED !!!!!. I have even received death threats and been subject to a barrage of abusive phone calls and abusive emails.

"Here is are excerpts from one of the boards (the expletives are deleted due to the email barriers on many systems):

'Hey you criminal axx lying sack of cxxx, do something that matters and get me a cup of coffee-NOW....then you can shine my shoes ... I'm a Veteran...Can you help me? I'm a veteran bullsxxx sniffer-outer and you are the most bullsxxx mother I have come across...I have a clock, it's lubricated with an oil well, and I sell them online to veterans with exercise tapes..... You lyxxx sack of monkey sxxx....what kind of axxhxxx would believe this? Oh, they are called "NUTK shareholders".....sxxxxxs....I'm going to that message board, I'm going to spread the truth....You can't handle the truth can you boy... Where's my coffee? Where are my shiny shoes? You bxxxx...I told you, "get me some motherxxxxxxx coffee NOW-bxxxx"...'

"Again, is this what we call 'doing business in America….?' Is this what we have to tolerate because we want to create a successful company.

"Many might ask why I included this excerpt; let me explain these shorters tactics. They find a penny stock they feel they can manipulate, they then sell the stock short and then take to the message boards and start their campaign of bashing and trashing the company. They attack the CEO's of these companies personally in the hopes of driving them to despair. When a CEO is dealing with a falling stock price for no reason at all, positive press releases do nothing but seem to move the stock lower, this begins to take its toll. The next thing we are dealing with concerned shareholders wanting to know where all the selling is coming from and why is there someone selling so much stock when you have all these positive announcements?

"The general sentiment is that the company must be in trouble or the company is selling stock, either way this causes concerns and panic and many shareholders start to sell their stock for fear of losing it all. What has in fact taken place, is the shorters are playing their game, they then cover their short positions at pennies or even fractions of a penny and make extremely large profits when either the CEO finally calls it quits and walks out or the company collapses. This is a very lucrative business for them. However, who is losing out, the MAN IN THE STREET !!!! The shareholders, the elderly investors who bet their retirements, the new parents who were hoping to start a college fund, these are the people losing out.

"This is their money these shorters are taking and dashing their dreams. Many of the companies who have fallen prey to this are now just 'shell companies' languishing at sub-penny values. What started off as a dream for many with great potential has been destroyed through someone else's greed and in my opinion illegal market manipulation.

"Take Nutek again, (OTCBB:NUTK) we have never been in a stronger position financially with a business plan that has succeeded, yet we watch our stock manipulated on a daily basis. Why ?, I intend to show Congress, the NASD and the SEC that these market makers have a large short position and are manipulating the stock of Nutek to allow them to cover their positions at much lower prices. I can say with certainty that many of the other CEO's of the OTCBB and pink sheet companies have similar experiences to ours. In other instances even if they do not hold short positions, they are manipulating the stocks on a daily basis for their own gain.

"Now the issue is, what should be done about this. I believe it should be illegal to short any "pink sheet" or OTCBB stock. I have been in contact with Staci Warden from the BBX and have been extended an invitation to join the advisory panel for the BBX Exchange once Nutek is listed with them. Should the CEO Council create this task force, I intend to push very hard to make shorting an illegal activity on the BBX Exchange. Most OTCBB and pink sheet companies are just getting started on their business plans and basically at the infant stages and rely on shareholder investment to grow their company. To have to be the brunt of market manipulators right at the start is a sure recipe for failure as the companies are never given a fair chance to perform. The shorters know this and revel in the demise of these companies, as it is such a lucrative business for them.

"Another tactic very widely used is the 'so-called' funding of these public companies. Many of these 'bankers' will provide funding to the company on a convertible note, often with overseas investors. Many companies have accepted these funding deals, only to be subjected to a slow death spiral of their stock. Why? The stock is sold short and manipulated downward as these funders now have the protection of the convertible stock to borrow against and then look to cover these short positions. 99% of the time this is covered at greatly reduced prices and they amass fortunes -- again who suffers -- the companies and ultimately the man in the street.

"The time has now come to put an end to all this, not only do these traders create short positions, but many are creating 'naked short positions', why should we tolerate this? We need reform and change in the regulations and we need this sooner rather than later.

"Many market maker firms or traders that are caught making these illegal transactions most often settle with the regulatory bodies by not admitting guilt and paying a $2,500.00 - $5,000.00 settlement. To get to this stage, it would cost companies thousands of dollars in legal fees and this is the sole remedy. Most market maker firms have deep pockets and know the average penny stock is just trying to survive through all this manipulation and know they will not come after them legally. If however, they are finally penalized, this amount is considered a 'COST OF DOING BUSINESS', it is never made a part of their record and they are free to get back to doing the same thing.

"I propose the following:

"1. It should be illegal to short any pinksheet, OTCBB or BBX stock, period.

"2. Any market maker, brokerage or private individual found supporting shorting or illegally manipulating one of these stocks should be fined $500,000 and the individual trader at the brokerage fined $50,000 personally with a loss of their license.

"Again, why should we as CEO's of legitimate public companies have to suffer the abuse and loss of credibility of our companies through falling share prices due to illegal manipulation. I welcome all support on this issue," concludes Conradie.

Marvin Mears, CEO, Environmental Products & Technologies Corporation (EPTC), responds that "EPTC had a similar problem from 1999 to 2001. Every time we took a step forward and made an announcement of progress with the development of our products the price of our stock went down and the volume went up. We have had our stock at $14.00 and it is now delisted!

"Our patents are now issued and we have a bright future with equipment and processed ready to market with government grants available through a newly funded EQIP section of the Farm Bill in the amount of 6.1 Billion. I am considering doing a corporate name change just so I can find those who are still short on our stock," said Mears.

"A second issue - in 1998 under a Reg D private placement EPTC issued 150,000 shares of stock to an investor for $210,000. The check was never made good. The stock was sent to Canada and put in street name and 26,000 shares sold in two or three days. We put a 'stop code' on the certificate and took the investor (a) and the party who arranged the sale (b) to court. We obtained a judgment and authorization to cancel the certificate. (b) was given the certificate, took the certificate to an insurance company and used the certificate as collateral for a 250,000.00 loan. The loan went into default and the insurance company called EPTC to have the certificate transferred into the insurance company's name. The insurance company was told the certificate had been cancelled by court order and the information forwarded to the insurance company. The laws of the State of Nevada say the 'Stop Code' is only enforced against the party the certificate is issued to. The insurance co
mpany now has a judgment against EPTC.

"This is the business surprise of my life," states Mears, who is joining the Task Force on Trading Practices.

Postscript: a staffer at the NASD has privately stated that Nasdaq is interested in this issue, and looks forward to meeting with the Task Force when it is organized. The Task Force has been provided a slot on the agenda for the CEO Summit in Washington, September 25.



To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)9/14/2002 5:07:22 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
Yesterday's issue of the New York Times included yet another article about Jonathan Lebed, the fifteen year old high-school student who was "the first minor ever to face proceedings for stock-market fraud."

This story first broke last fall after the SEC issued a "cease-and-desist order documenting Jonathan's very successful "pump & dump" efforts. However, this new article humanizes the story, giving us a real-life look at the personalities and motivations of its various participants. In addition, it explores a number of basic truths about the market over the last few years. And lastly, the article is a very "lively read."

Last fall, U.S. News & World Report interviewed me about I-net stock fraud, and one of my quotes became the "punch line" in their article about Lebed - "To Bob Davis, an expert on stock fraud, the scariest thing isn't the age of the scammer. It's "all the stupid people out there willing to throw money at stuff like this," he says."
I still agree with this comment. If Lebed's actions are illegal, then this is a crime with willing victims.

Lets explore these "basic truths about the market" individually:

Did Jonathan really do something wrong?
The article raises questions as to whether Jonathan Lebed actually did something that was illegal. However, an examination of his trading and I-net posting activity for Man Sang Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:MSHI) shows that his actions constituted a "fraud or deceit." According to evidence presented in the SEC's cease-and-desist order:

On January 5, 2000, Lebed purchased 18,000 shares of MSHI at prices ranging from $1.375 to $2.00 per share. The trading volume on December 30, 1999 was 100 shares with a closing price of $1.125 per share. On January 5, 2000, the volume was 60,700 shares at a closing price of $1.8125. At 11:46 p.m. on January 5, 2000, Lebed posted messages on Yahoo! Finance message boards claiming that MSHI was "the most undervalued stock in history" and would be trading at more than $20 per share "very soon." On January 6, 2000, in response to the messages posted by Lebed, the volume of trading skyrocketed to 1,074,900 shares at a high of $4.6875 per share. On that date, Lebed sold all 18,000 shares of MSHI at prices ranging from $3.8125 to $4.00 per share.
Rule 10b-5. of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 specifically states that "It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchangeŠto engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

It is obvious that Lebed clearly knew that his $20.00 per share projection for MSHI had no basis whatsoever, since he sold his entire position in this stock the day after he publicized this projection, and at a price that was 80% below his "target." As a result, Lebed did "engage" in a fraud.

Is everybody doing it?
The article also questions whether Lebed's actions are really different from what goes on elsewhere in the securities marketplace. In fact, there appears to be no real difference in the intent of an analyst interviewed on one of the cable TV investing channels, the publisher of an E-mailed newsletter "profiling" an obscure OTCBB stock, or Jonathan Lebed posting a tout-message on an I-net forum. Each of them intend to encourage their readers or viewers to buy a particular stock so as to drive its market price upwards. In many cases, to do this the "professionals" make statements that they themselves must recognize to be misleading.

In fact, I E-mailed you back on January 31st to alert you that "Last night 60 Minutes II ran a very important feature about securities analysts employed by the major Wall Street Firms and their inherent conflicts of interest. "Many investors don't realize that some high-profile analysts and their firms stood to make a fortune on stocks they recommended. A lot of their advice was tailored to make them rich, not you, as Correspondent Scott Pelley reports." Unfortunately, the transcript of this show is no longer available on the Internet.
Can investors make decisions on their own?
The article also makes a very crucial point about how investors make decisions. About Jonathan, the author writes, "He had glimpsed the essential truth of the market: that even people who called themselves professionals are often incapable of independent thought and that most people, though obsessed with money, have little ability to make decisions about it." This, of course, is absolutely true, and it is the specific problem that The Napeague Letter and Securities Sleuth are both working to solve.

What is the underlying basis of the market?
The Times article quotes an E-mail message that Lebed sent to his lawyer, in which he explains that,

"People who trade stocks, trade based on what they feel will move and they can trade for profit. Nobody makes investment decisions based on reading financial filings. Whether a company is making millions or losing millions, it has no impact on the price of the stock. Whether it is analysts, brokers, advisors, Internet traders, or the companies, everybody is manipulating the market. If it wasn't for everybody manipulating the market, there wouldn't be a stock market at all. . . ."
This is an interesting perception which was, to some extent, correct during the 1996 to 1999 era. And realistically, even the best investment opportunity will remain undervalued by the market unless investors become aware of it. However, during the last few years, "awareness" became the driving force behind a stock's success. On many occasions, "awareness," in the form of "promotion" and hype, completely masked a stock's lack of solid fundamentals or a viable business plan.

However, over the longer term Jonathan is clearly incorrect. During the late 1990s, an investment strategy based on fundamentals continued to be effective, and over the last year, a value-oriented approach to investing has clearly paid off.

What do the securities laws allow?
Or, to put it another way, what is a person allowed to say about an investment and under what circumstances can they say it? The Times article raises this issue tangentially in a number of different places. As a matter of fact, I've long been struck by the broad scope of certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These Acts were initially put into place to deal with a wide range of then-current and potential abuses, but their lack of specificity naturally leads both to a search for loopholes and to changes in the focus of enforcement efforts. As a result, it is not always entirely clear in the "Age of the Internet" what activities are, or are not, allowed.

securitiessleuth.com



To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)9/14/2002 10:21:45 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
S.E.C. Nemesis -- and 15 (now nutk's pr guy)http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/rbb/risd/Lebed.html

He is 18 now.....



To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)9/27/2002 2:18:28 PM
From: afrayem onigwecher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 122087
 
GMXX - GENEMAX CORP
Last Price: 6.68 at 13:02 EDT
Change: Up 0.48 (+7.74%)



To: Bear Down who wrote (80157)10/4/2002 9:06:02 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
Peter Lybrand has served as general manager of OTC Filing.com since itacquisition by the Company in October, 1999. Mr. Lybrand has been intimatelyinvolved in the development of StockFiling.com website, and the implementationof OTC Filing.com's business plan.Mr. Lybrand is an owner, along with his wife, of B&E Holdings, Inc., whichsold 100% of the shares in OTC Filing.com to the Company in return for 6,625,000restricted shares of the Company's common stock.Mr. Lybrand, who was formerly known as Peter Tosto, legally adopted hiswife's name on his marriage in May, 1997. Mr. Lybrand was convicted in 1990 inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ofconspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.ss.371. Mr.Lybrand received a sentence of three years probation. On May 14, 1998, Mr.Lybrand entered a plea of guilty to a criminal information in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York charging securities fraudin violation of 15 U.S.C.ss.78j(b) and 78ff in connection with an allegedfraudulent scheme involving the sale of securities in 1993 and 1994. Mr. Lybrandis presently awaiting sentencing. In connection with the same conduct asresulted in the 1998 plea of guilty, Mr. Lybrand, without admitting16or denying liability, entered into a consent injunction in an AdministrativeAction commenced by the Securities and Exchange Commission whereby he agreed tocease and desist from any future violations of Section 17(a) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, andagreed to pay a fine of $1,100,241.92. Mr. Lybrand also consented, withoutadmitting or denying liability, to the entry of a permanent injunction againstfuture violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 andSections 10(b) and 15 (a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in anaction known as Securities and Exchange Commission v. Balance For Life, No.95-D-2471 (D. Colo.) arising from the sale of unregistered stock in 1991-1992.Mr. Tosto also consented to the entry of a fine of $71,791.99.

10SB12G for QCL GROUP INC filed on 2/23/00 8:02:00 AM