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.

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

To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10906)	1/6/2003 8:42:09 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 19428

Deal Reached in Stan Lee Media Suit .c The Associated Press LOS ANGELES (AP) - A federal court judge will be asked next month to approve a proposed settlement of a lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders of defunct Stan Lee Media Inc. People who bought shares of the company between Aug. 23, 1999, and Dec. 18, 2000, have until Feb. 3 to submit claims. Terms of the settlement include repayment to shareholders of $1.82 million, which came from insurance. The lawsuit would also be dismissed and attorney fees paid. The suit, filed in February 2001, claimed that officers of the company, which operated an Internet site featuring comic characters created by Stan Lee, made false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the value of the stock. Three company co-founders and a Wall Street analyst were indicted in 2001 on federal charges they manipulated the company's stock and cost investors more than $25 million. Last December, two former executives were convicted of federal fraud charges for writing checks from empty bank accounts, costing the company and two financial institutions more than $10 million. Lee was not charged in any of the schemes. 01/06/03 20:16 EST

To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10906)	1/7/2003 5:29:30 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 19428

Calif. accuses two drug firms of inflating prices LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's attorney general on Tuesday filed suit against Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Wyeth , claiming the drug companies had inflated prices to bilk the state's public insurance system. California Attorney Bill Lockyer accused the two companies of reporting false drug prices which the state's Medi-Cal program uses to set reimbursement rates. Similar lawsuits targeting other drug companies were likely to follow, he said. Lockyer said in a statement that the alleged fraud had cost the state tens of millions of dollars. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles under the state's False Claims Act, which provides treble damages and penalties of up to $10,000 per claim. "The drug makers hid the true costs of their drugs so that Medi-Cal reimbursements would be artificially inflated," Lockyer said. "We believe this kind of illegal conduct bloated some drug prices by up to 1,198 percent and contributed to soaring health costs for needy Californians." Abbott spokesman Jeff Leshay said he had yet seen the lawsuit. A Wyeth representative also declined to comment because he had not seen the suit. The complaint was prompted by a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys Inc., a small pharmacy in Key West, Florida. It alleges that the drug makers grossly misrepresented the price of drugs prescribed to patients in the state's $27 billion Medi-Cal system that serves poor, elderly and disabled Californians. For example, the complaint says that in 1996, Abbott reported that a one-gram dose of its antibiotic drug Vancomycin was $55.59, even though the actual cost to the whistle-blower pharmacy was just $6.29 -- representing a 752 percent mark-up. Ven-A-Care also paid $11.20 for a 10 milliliter dose of Wyeth's sedative Ativan for which the Medi-Cal program paid $70.19 in a 523 percent mark-up, the complaint said. "While the number of Medi-Cal patients declined by 15 percent between 1997 and 2001, Medi-Cal's prescription drug costs have doubled," Lockyer said. "We believe one of the reasons is the inflated drug prices reported by the pharmaceutical companies." 01/07/03 17:25 ET

To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10906)	1/7/2003 6:07:44 PM
From: superred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

TTR to Trade on OTC Commencing on January 8, 2003 biz.yahoo.com

To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10906)	1/8/2003 12:35:37 AM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 19428

Brokerages accused of overcharging fund investors By James Paton NEW YORK, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Regulators worry a number of brokerage companies may have slapped unfairly high sales charges on investors who made big mutual fund purchases and are considering penalizing those firms. An investigation into the matter has drawn the attention of lawmakers, who on Tuesday called for "swift and severe" action against any companies that may have defrauded investors at a time when investor confidence is flagging. Mutual funds often lower sales commissions for those who make big initial investments. But the National Association of Securities Dealers and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suspect that brokerage companies they have yet not named may have overcharged investors, failing to give those discounts in some cases, a spokeswoman for the NASD said. "Our examinations have found a number of instances where firms have not extended the discounts," said spokeswoman Nancy Condon. The firms may face fines or be forced to pay restitution to investors, she said, adding that it was premature to consider what kind of penalties could be meted out. Mutual funds without sales charges once were popular, but an increasing number now are sold through financial advisers and brokers, as competition heats up and companies struggle to win investors' attention after a long bear market. 'DISTURBING ALLEGATIONS' In a letter, Ohio Rep. Michael Oxley and Louisiana Rep. Richard Baker asked regulators to reveal within 30 days how many brokerages may have overcharged investors and to what extent the problem was unintentional. "In light of the fact that mutual funds are the primary vehicle for retirement and other savings for tens of millions of Americans, these are very disturbing allegations," they wrote. The NASD, the self-regulatory agency that oversees brokerage companies, is working with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in an investigation into the matter. "Charging investors the correct sales loads is a fundamental and important process," the SEC said in a Dec. 23 letter sent to brokerage companies. The SEC in the letter went on to urge the companies to "take immediate action" to rectify the issue. The NASD offered a letter of its own in late December asking brokerage companies to carry out a review of how much they are charging investors to get into mutual funds. Often mutual fund investors face lower sales commissions if they make bigger initial purchases. For instance, a fund might take an upfront sales charge of 5.75 percent for purchases of less than $50,000, cut the fee to 4.5 percent for investments up to $100,000 and then slash or scrap the fee for bigger amounts. But the NASD found that in some cases, investors contributing larger amounts of money did not receive the lower sales charges. 01/07/03 18:31 ET

To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (10906)	1/16/2003 2:39:08 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Participating OTC Bulletin Board Companies Confirm Certificate Only Transfer Procedure Meets Market Compliance and Trading Standards Thursday January 16, 11:57 am ET BLAINE, Wash., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- A group of OTC bulletin board listed companies that have exited the DTC system and have subsequently been the target of a media campaign that questions the validity and legality of this procedure have jointly confirmed the precedence for the use of this method and support by all governing bodies concerned. The group of companies that have opted out of electronic share ownership via the Depository Trust Corporation (DTC) in favor of actual share certificates includes GeneMax Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: GMXX.OB - News), Hadro Resources (OTC Bulletin Board: HDRS.OB - News), Vega Atlantic Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: VATL.OB - News), Ten Stix, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TNTI.OB - News), Intergold Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: IGCO.OB - News) amongst others. These companies began exiting the DTC system in 2002 due to its inability to provide authenticity of actual shares trading, allowing for illegal naked short selling trade abuses. Under a naked short sale of stock, short positions are not declared, shares are not borrowed to cover the short sale, and shares are sold without delivering the stock to the purchaser. Naked short selling results in the undermining of real shareholder ownership by naked short sales of stock and resulting failed deliveries of real certificates that artificially inflate share ownership and devalue the trading prices of shares in the marketplace. Unscrupulous brokers and market makers may conspire to manipulate and devalue the price of securities in this way. Recent media coverage of the actions taken by these and other companies inaccurately portrays the intent of the companies and goes so far as to suggest the approach may in some way impede the regular course of trading, breaking federal securities rules or that the use of a transfer agent may not be legitimate (see January 14, 2003, Dow Jones news wire story authored by Carol S. Remond entitled "Some Small Companies Get Physical to Fight Shorts" issued at 10:56 AM EST). The group of companies refute these facts and confirms that certificated delivery is not unusual or illegal. Roughly 5% of all securities trade in "ex-clearing"/physical form. This practice simply puts an illegal short seller in a position whereby they are called to deliver the shares they have shorted illegally. Legal opinion has been obtained that exiting a company from DTC is not a violation of any securities laws. News wire media targeting the group can mislead the investing public and do not address the real underlying concerns, namely that the 3-Day Settlement System in the U.S. does not have integrity: The basis for moving to a certificate only share transfer system has nothing to do with short selling but instead with "naked short selling" where shares sold are never borrowed, never delivered by the seller, but where the seller collects money for the stock they never delivered in three days. The three days settlement system run by the National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC") does not ensure that shares that are sold in a transaction are ever delivered. This takes place routinely in the U.S. Securities industry. Shareholders purchasing shares in the United States do not often understand that even though their broker will take their money and fill their order for a share purchase, shares are routinely not delivered to the broker on behalf of the client. The client in most cases never knows that share delivery abuses are taking place as they do not normally take delivery of their actual share certificates. It's important to note that the NSCC no longer guarantees at their website that a trade will be conducted within the three day settlement process. The money gets settled in 3 days, but the stock is routinely not delivered, and a process of "kited" or failed buy-in's can occur. In a "buy-in," the stock not delivered to the purchaser in the original naked short sale transaction is supposed to be re-purchased at arm's length from other bona fide sellers of real share certificates, and the cost of the stock "bought in" charged back to the original broker who sold the stock naked short. However, buy-in's are routinely conducted without adhering to real market dynamics; shares "bought in" are purchased from non-arm's length parties in the marketplace, or are purchased at a share price that has been manipulated lower by dilution from repeated naked short sales, or non-existent shares are purchased from other naked short sellers that do not own real shares. The buy-in that is intended to rectify the original naked short sale of stock often results in a further failed delivery of real share certificates. Cooperating broker dealers in naked short sales of stock will repeat this failed buy-in process over and over again to circumvent share delivery rules so that real certificates are never obtained for the purchasing client in a naked short sale transaction. The process of repeated failed "buy-in's" relating to a naked short sale is known as "kiting" and allows unlimited supply of non-existent stock to flood the marketplace to provide an unfair market for the shares transacted (more supply than demand and lower share prices). Kiting of buy-in's on the stock not delivered is a circumvention of the 3-day settlement rule discussed above. A case in point is GeneMax Corp. (symbol GMXX), which has obvious large blocks of stock being moved ("parked") from one account to another, kiting a massive illegal undeclared short in the stock (see NEWS - GeneMax Corp.). Parking a buy-in is a violation of Section 9(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and falls under the Commission's definition of "market manipulation" (SEC v. floyd Leland ogle, Donald Tabor, Kailey Mining Co, et al, Civil Action no. 99 C 609, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). Another abuse used to circumvent share delivery and buy-in's is known as "pairing off." This is a process where brokerages who have numerous naked short share transactions of buying and selling between each other elect over a period of time to settle up the difference in amounts owed in cash. In this manner shares are never delivered in any of the transactions between the brokerages and the buy-in process is circumvented completely. In these circumstances, the 3-day settlement system with respect to share deliveries is non-existent as brokers elect to transfer no shares. The group of companies named here have been assisted in their efforts by Global Securities Stock Transfer of Denver, CO that acts as their transfer agent. The practices of the small firm were also questioned in the media without opportunity for comment, but company President, Robert Stevens has responded by offering open and objective review of his company's record. "In 2002 Global Securities Stock Transfer transacted over 1,700 separate transfer requests, completing 100% of its 'rush requests' the same day received, and in our last DTC report received the highest rating of any agent in our category," Mr. Stevens said. "Our small customer base is a draw for our clients, who receive 'boutique' service for reasonable fees. We have turned away several new potential customers in the last quarter because we are a profitable small firm and felt the addition of more business might detract from the world class service we pride ourselves on ... " stated Stevens. "Since our firm formulated the concept of 'certificated trading' we have received dozens of new client applications, and dozens more public companies have run with the concept. The clearing system in the U.S. is flawed, and small public companies know this as they are usually preyed upon by naked short sellers and share price manipulators. Our small firm stands in awe of the immense ruckus that the concept of certificated share transfer has caused in the securities industry. Our feeling is that the unscrupulous and illegal activity of naked short selling and circumvention of share delivery rules, in its current widespread state, will not exist in ten years assuming the public is made aware of this activity and its negative effects on companies, the U.S. economy, and a fair and orderly marketplace." At a time when initiatives to automate electronic trading systems in America further are contemplated by certain groups, certificate only transfer system highlights the nature and scope of rampant trading abuses in our securities trading and clearing systems. Shareholders purchasing shares have no idea that the stock they are buying is routinely not delivered notwithstanding that they have paid for it. As shares purchased by a shareholder only are listed as a line item on their account statement with their broker, they are none the wiser. Investor Communications International, Inc., a private firm from Washington State, has been working with Global Securities Stock Transfer, and is in the process of contacting all OTCBB issuers to obtain their support to lobby Congress on these issues. Grant Atkins, a director of GeneMax Corp. and a representative of other public companies also commented, "The trading system in America allows abusive trading practices to over inflate share ownership in U.S. public companies. The 3-day securities clearing system operated by the NSCC and DTC fails to operate correctly to ensure that a fair marketplace exists to trade U.S. public securities. While the world is watching the U.S. struggle with issues relating to corporate misconduct, and President Bush has in recent months asked corporate America to 'Stop Cooking the Books,' the world has not yet discovered that the U.S. Trading system lacks integrity. The ramifications to Americans is that the U.S. people, through the federal reserve, have inherited the DTC and NSCC, and a system that can cook the books of public company issuers on American Exchanges. What happens when the world finds out that share ownership in American companies is over inflated? What happens when the world finds out your can sell U.S. securities, never deliver them, and collect the funds? The only question left will then be, 'Why would the world invest in American companies when selling is the only game in town?'" SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT THIS NEWS RELEASE MAY INCLUDE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 27A OF THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 21E OF THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING CORPORATE OBJECTIVES, DEVELOPING ADDITIONAL PROJECT INTERESTS, THE COMPANY'S ANALYSIS OF OPPORTUNITIES IN THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS PROJECT INTERESTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. THESE STATEMENTS ARE MADE UNDER THE "SAFE HARBOR" PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995 AND INVOLVE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES WHICH COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE IN THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Investor Communications International, Inc.