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 : GMXX - GENEMAX CORP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: scion who wrote (498)4/14/2003 12:02:58 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 978
 
CONMAN AND CRIMINAL REGIS POSSINO LEADS THE CHARGE OF L'AIR HOLDINGS INC EXIT FROM DTC

(L’Air Holding, Inc) LAIR SEC FILINGS DATED 3/17/2003

Geneva Equities, Ltd
By:
/s/ Regis Possino

Regis Possino, President

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

Between
Geneva Equities, Ltd
And
L’Air Holding, Inc.
(Formerly, Superior Networks, Inc.)

This Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of January, 2003, by and between Geneva Equities, Ltd, a Nevada Company, (the Consultant), and L’Air Holding, Inc, (Formerly, Superior Networks, Inc) (“Company”).

WHEREAS, Company desires to acquire or merge with other businesses, enter into investment banking relationships and enhance shareholder value through the sale or restructuring of its business, recapitalizations, reorganizations and placement of common stock, preferred stock, and/or debt instruments (the “Company Objectives”). The goal of L.Air is to grow its business through the acquisition of other Companies in the Air Line Industry, and other related industries.

WHEREAS, Company recognizes that Consultant can contribute to funding, analyzing, structuring, negotiating and financing business sales and/or acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and other desirable projects, which contribution is of great value to Company and its shareholders;

WHEREAS, Company believes it to be important both to the future prosperity of Company Objectives and to Company’ s general interest to retain Consultant as non exclusive Consultant to Company and have Consultant available to Company for consulting services in the manner and subject to the terms, covenants, and conditions set forth herein;

WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, Company and Consultants desire to enter into this Agreement, effective as of the date of execution hereof, and to provide certain assurances as set forth herein.

WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, Consultant and Company have entered into this Consulting Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and in consideration of the promises and mutual representations, warranties, covenants and promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration,

1

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

the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

1. Retention. Company hereby retains Consultant during the Consulting Period (as defined in Section 2 below), and Consultant hereby agrees to be so retained by Company, all subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

2. Consulting Period. The Consulting Period shall commence on January 15, 2003 and terminate no earlier than May 15, 2004. After May 15, 2004, either party may terminate this agreement upon at least 30 days written notice.

3. Duties of Consultants. During the Consulting Period, Consultant shall use its reasonable and best efforts to perform those actions and responsibilities necessary to: (i) identify, analyze, structure and/or negotiate business sales and/or acquisitions, including without limitation, merger agreements, stock purchase agreements, and any agreements relating to financing and/or the placement of debt or equity securities of Company, (ii) assist Company in its corporate strategies, (iii) assist Company in the implementation of its business plan, (iv)assist in raising and generating financing to acquire other Air Carriers , as may be in the best interest of L.Air (the “Services”),(v)to increase market capitalization through programs designed to expand investor awareness.

Based upon the best efforts of the Consultants to increase market capitalization, and shareholder awareness, Company shall provide all necessary financing required in order to purchase businesses targeted by Company, including cash or freely tradable or restricted securities. Such securities may include freely tradable Common Stock, restricted Common Stock, and preferred stock in Company, debt, convertible debt or any other security. Consultants shall render such Services diligently and to the best of its ability.

In order to facilitate the goals of L.Air, Consultant shall develop and implement a public relations program developing investor relations through the use of multi media technology, with the goal of enhancing shareholder awareness of L.Air, as follows:

• Marketing Media Preparation and Electronic Distribution. Syndicating the Market via the Internet, faxing, and direct mail.

Preparation of a detailed investment research report, profiles and other marketing material. This information will be distributed immediately through an electronic platform to a large database of users. This includes databases of several

2

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

affiliates of consultants, which shall utilize the Internet, Faxing and direct mail to access a broad, yet targeted audience.

Preparation of a schedule of press releases that will be released via a worldwide Business Wire account L.Air will set up. These will be released as warranted by the facts, with each press release drawing a conclusion of what the event means to L.Air’s revenue stream, profits and earnings per share and over what time frame. Each press release will be distributed over an electronic platform, with links to additional information sites.

Website Consultation – to further develop L.Air’s presence and increase the amount of relevant and easily accessible information available.

• Controlled Buying – Using various market maker, consultants shall manage the sale of stock by opening client accounts with broker dealers for large shareholder(s) {minimum 250,000 shares}. Consultants shall arrange for buying over the first 30 - to- 60 days after initial electronic program has been launched to help achieve valuation goals. This will come in the form of purchases from retail brokers and small hedge funds.

• Affiliated Buying – To actively solicit buying from agents and affiliates, including in-place network of new investors obtained during the initial stages of the campaign, and from retail stockbrokers and sales traders at regional brokerage houses. The firms will retail the stock to their customers in exchange for exposure to network of buyers and companies, which is designed to generate thousands of leads each week.

• Final Phase – Renewed electronic and other Internet marketing in conjunction with Institutional Money Manger direct investment and market support. During this phase, in order to achieve target stock price, consultants assist in presenting L.Air to several targeted pension fund managers to invest either through open market purchases, or via private transactions. Amounts invested and the time frame for presenting L.Air to a pension fund or large investor can vary depending upon the valuation in the market and other fundamental considerations affecting L.Air’s stock price.

4. Other Activities of Consultants. Company recognizes that Consultants shall perform only those services that are reasonably required to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth herein, and that Consultants shall provide services to other businesses and entities other than Company. Consultants shall be free to directly or indirectly own, manage, operate, join, purchase, organize or take preparatory steps for the organization of, build, control, finance, acquire, lease or invest or participate in the ownership, management, operation, control or financing of, or be connected as an officer,

3

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

director, employee, partner, principal, manager, agent, representative, associate, Consultants, investor, advisor or otherwise with (collectively, be “Affiliated” with), any business or enterprise, or permit its name or any part thereof to be used in connection with any business or enterprise, engaged in any business, including but not limited to, any business that is the same as, substantially similar to or otherwise competitive with, adverse to, affiliated with, or otherwise related to Company. Consultants may be affiliated with any entity, which may provide services to Company. Company hereby waives any conflict of interest that may arise from a relationship between Consultants and any entity, which Consultants are affiliated with. This Agreement may be assigned by Consultants to an entity designated by Consultants, whether Affiliated or not Affiliated with Consultants, and wherever located.

5. Compensation. In consideration for Consultants entering into this Agreement, Company shall compensate Consultants as follows:

Fees and Commissions:

a. Geneva shall assume the responsibility of providing the PR and IR programs, on a sustained basis, as may be in the best interest of L.Air, and with the full knowledge, consent and participation of L.Air. Consultants shall use their best efforts to generate no less than $2 MILLION on behalf of L.Air, which funds shall be used for operations and acquisitions.

Company shall issue 3 million free trading shares as follows:

i. 2 million free trading shares as follows:

a. Company shall cause to be issued 8 certificates in the amount of 250,000 shares each, which shares shall be held in trust at Research Capital, to be distributed in conformity with the terms and conditions contained in this agreement.

b. Company shall cause to be deposited into a designated account at Research Capital, the first certificate in the amount of 250,000 shares, which shares may be sold in advance in order to pay the out of pocket expenses associated with the I/R, P/R program which is the subject of this agreement.

c. The balance of the shares shall be deposited into the designated account of the Consultant at research Capital as the share price reaches the following milestones:

a. 250,000 shares to be released to Consultant when the closing bid price is .30 per share;

b. 500,000 shares at .50 per share;

c. 500,000 shares at .70 per share;

d. 500,000 shares at $1.00 per share.

4

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

ii. 250,000 free trading shares per month, issued in the name of Geneva Equities, and delivered to the address hereon, which shares shall be due on or before the 15 th day of each month for four (4) consecutive months, commencing 30 days from execution hereon.

Expenses.

a. With the exception of PR/IR services, which consultants shall pay, as referenced above, Company shall pay all out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred during the Consulting Period by Consultant for business purposes related to or in furtherance of the goals and objectives of Company and/or the provision of the Services (collectively, “Company Purposes”), including, without limitation, expenses incurred with respect to Consultant travel (including travel for flights of less than three hours and business class travel for flights of three hours or more or outside the continental United States), meals and entertainment and other customary and reasonable expenses for Company Purposes. Company shall pay such expenses directly, or, upon submission of bills, receipts and/or vouchers by Consultant, by direct reimbursement to Consultant. Consultants shall seek approval of Company prior to incurring such expenses.

b. Consultant shall pay for all IR and PR programs set up and established by Consultant, and Company shall have no obligation or liability thereon.

Warrants.

a. Company shall issue to Consultants or its designees, warrants to purchase three Million (3,000,000) shares of Common Stock (the “Warrants”), with exercise prices equal to (a) as to one million two hundred thousand (1,200,000) warrants, at $.20, (b) as to one million three hundred thousand warrants (1,300,000), at $.25, (c) as to five hundred thousand (500,000) warrants, at $.50, and which may be exercised by Consultants at any time through the payment of (i) cash, (ii) a promissory note bearing interest at six percent (6%) per annum, or (iii) by tendering shares of Common Stock equal to the aggregate exercise price divided by the last closing price of the Common Stock as reported on such exchange or market as such Common Stock is then traded on the date of exercise, in each case at Consultant’s option. Such Warrants as are exercised shall vest immediately if paid in cash or Common Stock, and on a pro rata basis in accordance with receipt of cash or Common Stock in the event Warrant is exercised with a promissory note. Company shall, at

5

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

its sole expense, cause the Common Stock underlying the Warrants to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission upon demand, or upon the first registration of any of the Common Stock of Company after the date of this Agreement if no such demand has yet been made. In the event Company issues or sells Common Stock or any other equity securities of Company after the date of this Agreement to any party other than Consultants for cash consideration or non-cash consideration which has a fair value below the closing bid price as of the date prior to such issuance or sale, or issues options, warrants or other securities convertible into Common Stock with an exercise or conversion price less than the closing bid price as of the date prior to such issuance, the terms of the Warrants herein shall be adjusted so as to protect Consultants against any dilution of its interest in the Common Stock underlying the Warrants. If at any time there shall be a capital reorganization of the Common Stock or merger of Company into another corporation, or the sale of all or substantially all of Company’ properties or assets, then, as a part of such reorganization, merger or sale, lawful provision shall be made so that Consultants shall thereafter be entitled to receive upon exercise of the Warrants, the number of shares of Common Stock, or securities of the successor corporation resulting from such reorganization, merger or sale, to which Consultant would have been entitled had the Warrants been exercised immediately prior to such reorganization, merger or sale.

Fees for Acquisition Opportunities.

a. Company shall pay to Geneva a fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the total aggregate consideration paid for any acquisition or sale by Company of any business, corporation or division (a “Target”), including, but not limited to, acquisitions by stock purchase agreement, merger agreement, plan of reorganization or asset purchase agreement, in which Consultant participates through the raising of the equity capital required for such transaction. Said fee shall be due upon closing of the transaction. The form of payment of the fee shall mirror the transaction. Specifically, if the form of the transaction is 50% cash, and 50% stock, the fee shall be paid, 50% cash, and 50% stock.

b. In addition, in all transactions in which Consultants are involved, Consultants shall also be entitled to a financing fee equal to ten percent (10%) of any private or public placement of debt or equity securities of Company, including without limitation, promissory notes, debentures, convertible debt, common stock or preferred stock, or any other securities owned

6

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

by Company, including without limitation securities of other corporations.

Third Party Commissions.

a. Consultants and/or its Affiliates shall be entitled to share in any fees or commissions payable by third parties on any transaction contemplated herein, including, but not limited to, any fees payable to Consultants by a third party lender, financing partner, or other party, or a seller of a corporation or business, including, without limitation, investment banking fees or commissions, business brokerage fees or commissions, finders fees, or any other fee payable by a third party to Consultants for any reason including the identification of Company as a potential purchaser or seller of such corporation or business (a “Transaction Commission”). Company hereby waives any conflict of interest that may arise due to any transaction wherein Consultants receives such a Transaction Commission, including, but not limited to, any conflict of interest which may arise as a result of the dual representation by Consultants of the seller or purchaser of a corporation or business on the one hand, and Company on the other.

6. Termination.

a. Company may terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days written notice, as follows: i. If Consultants are unable to provide the consulting services by reason of dissolution, filing for protection under federal bankruptcy laws, or any bankruptcy petition or petition for received is commenced by a third part against Consultants, any of the foregoing of which remains undismissed for a period of sixty (60) days. ii. Change in control of Consultants resulting from a merger, acquisition or such other change wherein more than fifty percent (50%) of the Consultant’s equity is exchanged, sold, or transferred to another party. iii. Breach or default of any material obligation of Consultants, which breach or default is not cured within five (5) days of written notice from Company. iv. If the Consultants are not able to raise the equity capital required to grow L.Air as set forth herein, or if the IR/PR campaign developed by Consultants is not effective in achieving the stated goals.

7. Notice.

a. Any notice required, permitted or desired to be given pursuant to any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed

7

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

to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes if delivered in person or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage and fees prepaid, or by national overnight delivery prepaid service to the parties at their addresses set forth below. Any party hereto may at any time and from time to time hereafter change the address to which notice shall be sent hereunder by notice to the other party given under this paragraph. The date of the giving of any notice sent by mail shall be the day two days after the posting of the mail, except that notice of an address change shall be deemed given when received. The addresses of the parties are as follows:

TO CONSULTANTS:

Geneva Equities, Ltd

3200 Airport Suite 20

Santa Monica, California 90405

Attn: President

Telephone: (310) 636-9224

Facsimile: (310) 636-4405

TO COMPANY:

Superior Networks, Inc.

130 King St. West

Suite 3670

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1B1

8. Waiver.

a. No course of dealing nor any delay on the part of either party in exercising any rights hereunder will operate as a waiver of any rights of such party. No waiver of any default or breach of this Agreement or application of any term, covenant or provision hereof shall be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other breach or default or the waiver of any other application of any term, covenant or provision. Definition of “Reasonable and Best Efforts.” Reasonable and best efforts shall not include the payment of any non-reimbursable out-of-pocket costs or other payments by Consultants. Consultants shall not guarantee, make any representation concerning (which representation would survive the closing of any escrow or other transaction) or warrant (i) the condition, performance, value, or profitability of any business purchased, sold by, or otherwise considered for purchase by Company; (ii) the validity or authorization of any capital stock purchased, sold by, or otherwise considered for purchase by Company; (iii) the market value of any capital stock, business or assets purchased, sold by, or otherwise considered for purchase by

8

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

Company; (iv) the ability to finance, refinance or otherwise mortgage or encumber any business or corporation purchased, sold by, or otherwise considered for purchase by Company; or (vi) that Consultants will find or present any business or corporation which Company will consider, approve or ultimately purchase or be able to purchase; or (7) the covenants, representations or warranties of any party to any stock purchase, asset purchase, merger or other agreement entered into by Company with any third party.

9. Successors; Binding Agreements.

a. Prior to the effectiveness of any succession (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of Company, Company will require the successor to expressly assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that Company would be required to perform it if no such succession had occurred. As used in this Agreement, “company”@ shall mean Company as defined above and any successor to its business and/or assets which executes and delivers the Agreement provided for in this Section 11 or which otherwise becomes bound by all the terms and provisions of this Agreement by operation of law or otherwise.

10. Survival of Terms.

b. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement for whatever reason, the provisions hereof shall survive such termination, unless the context requires otherwise.

c. Notice of No Conflict. Company agrees that Regis Possino is the President and owner of Geneva Equities, Ltd, and that he shall be appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of Company. Company, recognizes no conflict by and between Company, and Consultant from actions arising from or contemplated by this Agreement.

11. Counterparts.

a. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any signature by facsimile shall be valid and binding as if an original signature were delivered.

12. Captions

a. The caption headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not intended and shall not be construed as having any substantive effect.

9

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

13. Governing Law.

a. This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California applicable to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely therein. Any suit, action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the state courts of the state of California or in the federal courts of the United States, which are located in Los Angeles, California. The parties hereto hereby agree to submit to the jurisdiction and venue of such courts for the purposes hereof. Each party agrees that, to the extent permitted by law, the losing party in a suit, action or proceeding in connection herewith shall pay the prevailing party its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection therewith.

14. Entire Agreement/Modifications.

a. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior understandings and agreements, whether oral or written, regarding Consultants retention by Company, including, but not limited to, any prior agreement, or any agreements related thereto; provided, however, that all fees previously earned or paid to Consultants under the Prior Agreement shall be deemed earned, and shall be in addition to any fees payable hereunder. This Agreement shall not be altered or modified except in writing, duly executed by the parties hereto.

15. Warranty.

a. Company and Consultant each hereby warrants and agrees that each is free to enter into this Agreement, that the parties signing below are duly authorized and directed to execute this agreement, and that this Agreement is a valid, binding and enforceable against the parties hereto.

16. Severability.

a. If any term, covenant or provision, or any part thereof, is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the same shall not affect the remainder of such term, covenant or provision, any other terms, covenants or provisions or any subsequent application of such term, covenant or provision which shall be given the maximum effect possible without regard to the invalid, illegal or unenforceable term, covenant or provision, or portion thereof. In lieu of any such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision, the parties hereto intend that there shall be added

10

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

as part of this Agreement a term, covenant or provision as similar in terms to such invalid, illegal or unenforceable term, covenant of provision, or part thereof, as may be possible and be valid, legal and enforceable.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

CONSULTANTS:

Geneva Equities, Ltd

By:
/s/ Regis Possino

Regis Possino, President

Company:

L’Air Holding, Inc.

By:
/s/ Philippe Solomon

Philippe Solomon, CEO

==================================



To: scion who wrote (498)4/14/2003 12:03:32 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 978
 
."(Mr. Switzer confirms he knows Mr. Possino, but denies he has any involvement in L-Air.)"

SEC target Switzer rolls L-Air down the runway

Securities and Exchange Commission *SEC
Wednesday February 19 2003 Street Wire
Also L-Air Holding Inc (U-LAIR) Street Wire

by Brent Mudry
In the latest intriguing U.S. penny stock promotion gearing up for takeoff, Toronto-based L-Air Holding is rolling down the runway for the April launch of its Belgian airline, pushed along by regulatory target-tout John Robert Switzer of Los Angeles, an associate of regulatory target Mark Bergman and disbarred Los Angeles lawyer Regis Possino.
L-Air, also called L.Air, calls itself a French airline, supposedly the first budget carrier which will operate between France, the Caribbean, West Africa and "the American Continent." The concept airline, not yet airbound, misses few chances to describe itself as the next Jet Blue, after Jet Blue Airways, the successful discount upstart serving the U.S. domestic market.
Mr. Switzer confirms he knows Mr. Possino, but denies the former jailed lawyer has any involvement in the L-Air promotion. "Not that I know of," he replied. Mr. Possino and Mr. Bergman are best known as significant players in the recent General Commerce Bank affair, an Austrian-Belgian boiler room scandal featuring fugitive Thai financier Rakesh Saxena, Saudi arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi and a star-studded cast of other colourful characters.
Mr. Switzer, eager for positive press, gave Stockwatch a sneak preview of several big news announcements he is working on with L-Air, including a pending $20-million financing. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.)
The L-Air head tout warns, however, that he will deal harshly with any unflattering coverage. "I won't work in your favour. I will bring a defamatory lawsuit," says Mr. Switzer. "I deal with bad press in a lot of different ways ... I will sic an attorney on you."
Mr. Switzer issued his stern warning after being asked questions about his relationship with Mr. Bergman, a current target of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in a Toronto deal, and his own time behind bars.
While the Los Angeles tout suggested a reporter had done something criminal by ferreting out his regulatory and corrections history, such records are public.
Mr. Switzer had the misfortune of being targeted by the SEC in October, 1998, when the regulator rounded up 44 Internet touts and touting companies in its first nationwide Internet sweep. The SEC prosecuted him and three other Southern California defendants: Brian Volmer, International Alliance Trading Inc. and Sun Pacific Capital Group Inc. for accepting stock and cash payments for promoting penny stock companies in newspaper advertisements and the Investors Edge Web site.
In a civil complaint filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, the SEC alleged that Mr. Volmer touted Cetacean Industries Inc., a company which claimed to be a diamond explorer in Brazil, through ads in Investor's Business Daily crafted to look like independent research reports, while Mr. Switzer assisted him in touting several penny stocks, including Juina Mining Corp., which vended in Cetacean's Brazilian assets, on Investors Edge, a Web site run by Mr. Volmer.
The SEC won a $600,000 judgment against Mr. Volmer in court in October, 2000, upheld on appeal last year. The California tout was ordered to pay $296,429, representing both his compensation and trading profits, a civil penalty of the same amount, and interest.
Mr. Switzer got off considerably easier. In a consent settlement finalized in court in February, 2000, he was permanently enjoined from future securities violations. Mr. Switzer skated off without any fine, based on his plea of poverty in his sworn financial statement.
"The Court does, however, note the appropriateness of a civil penalty in this instance. The determination that Switzer is unable to pay a civil penalty is contingent on the truthfulness of the representations in the Financial Statement," stated the final judgment. "The Commission may, at any time following entry of the Final Judgment, petition the Court for a hearing to reconsider the defendant's inability to pay a civil penalty if the Commission obtains information from any source that the Financial Statement was inaccurate in any respect."
Mr. Switzer had a rather unusual mailing address for his court papers -- Centinella State Prison in Imperial, Calif. The penny stock tout was welcomed as a guest of this exclusive gated community, hosted by the California Department of Corrections, on Aug. 13, 1999, after he was sentenced that July 28 to one year and four months for an offence called "disregard for safety."
The prosecution, handled by the District Attorney's Office for Los Angeles County, was a humdinger, related to a DUI, or drinking under the influence, offence which involved evading an officer.
Mr. Switzer confirms the details, and points out that while it was his second impaired driving offence, he has now been sober "for a number of years." "It was my second DUI and I was doing over 150 miles per hour," the penny stock tout told Stockwatch. He notes his high-speed chase, in a Turbo Porsche, took place on I-5, the north-south interstate highway. "The police weren't too impressed."
The promoter, however, claims his days as an outlaw speed demon are long past, and he has done his time, serving seven months in jail. "My background is my background. It is none of your business," he said hopefully.
Mr. Switzer is quite keen to talk up L-Air, one of several stock promotions he is currently working. He notes the company hired him to do investor relations and public relations. He works out of the offices of a company called "Capital Consultants."
"They've done a $20-million private placement which is pretty well closed out," offers the tout.
"There is a bunch of stuff to come out (soon in press releases) ... I do a lot of the writing for them," he told Stockwatch.
According to Mr. Switzer's spiel, L-Air will send its first two charter jets down the runway in April, and both can be operated for 120 hours per week. "They're getting paid about $350,000 for 40 hours" by charter operators, he notes. Assuming some downtime, he says that at two-thirds time capacity, L-Air will be pulling in $1.5-million per week in revenues.
The story takes off from there. L-Air, says Mr. Switzer, has three other planes in the works, with agreements in place with Boeing for reconditioned jets from Singapore Airlines, to be staggered into operation this summer through early fall. "I have seen all the contracts," he says. The only thing holding L-Air back, he says, is getting approval in Belgium for L-Air's transfer of the licence for Belgium Universal Airlines, which should come soon. "We are just waiting for the air operating certificate."
The stock, trading at just 20 cents, sounds like a steal if the spiel pans out. "A correction valuation is somewhere between $4 and $5," says Mr. Switzer. He points out that he is a picky man, and he only gets involved in good deals. "There are too many deals there is no future with. You can only talk about a company so long before you have to perform."
L-Air's captain of the talk waves notes the company has a number of press releases in the works. "There is a lot of stuff going on," he says. L-Air should announce an on-line ticketing promotion in the next couple of weeks as part of what he calls an "on-line marketing push."
Although still just a tiny company, L-Air has come a long way in a short time.
Until last September, the company was based in Vancouver and called Superior Networks Inc., a shell in the stable of Howe Street promoter Robert Rosner. Mr. Rosner sold his control block of 15 million shares to L-Air president Alexander Goldman, who moved the company's headquarters to Toronto. Although Mr. Goldman is described as a French resident, he maintains offices in Toronto.
L-Air features quite a cast. Mr. Switzer says the company is "backed" by Universal Capital Partners. (Other documents suggest Universal Capital has a 36-per-cent stake, although this has not been verified by securities filings yet.)
Besides its current 20-cent stock price, this might be the first indication that L-Air is indeed a low budget operation. In a convenient cost-cutting measure, it and Universal Capital share the same office, suite 3670 at 130 King St. West. This building, the Exchange Tower, is a Bay Street landmark, housing the Toronto Stock Exchange, amongst other tenants.
Despite its grandiose name, Universal Capital Partners is not yet in the top tier of Bay Street firms. At this point, it says it specializes in "unique investor relations situations." "Our boutique size assures that our senior executives are intricately involved in all client relationships," states the company on its Web site.
"We bring a distinct edge to traditional North American investor relations: we include European audiences and investment opportunities. We also stray from convention for our clients looking for methods of going public, by offering our expertise in facilitating reverse mergers."
Besides L-Air, the only other "client" noted on Universal Capital's Web site is Blue Industries Inc., a French-flavoured penny stock promotion which claims to be a "global leader in the field of safe drinking water" through its proprietary technology. Blue also hopes to be a big shaker and mover in the global shrimp market.
Last June the company opened a manufacturing plant in the suburbs of Bangkok to build its proprietary water treatment units for Thai shrimp producers. Less than a month earlier, the ambitious company welcomed a new major shareholder, based in the secretive offshore enclave of Gibraltar. Blue traded 9.75 million of its shares, a 33-per-cent stake, to Advanced for "raw materials" valued at $1.17-million, or 12 cents a share.
L-Air's most exciting development took place on Feb. 5, when it announced a consulting agreement with Geneva Equities Ltd., a Los Angeles company. "Geneva Equities Ltd. will contribute to funding, analyzing, structuring, negotiating and financing business acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and other desirable projects of great value to the Company and its shareholders," states L-Air.
"In order to facilitate the goals of the company, Geneva Equities Ltd. shall develop and implement a Public Relation program developing investor relations through the use of multi-media technology, with the goal of enhancing market awareness of the Company for the benefit of shareholders."
In an amazing coincidence, a company with Geneva's identical name was incorporated in Nevada on Oct. 5, 2001, showing Mr. Possino as president. (Mr. Switzer confirms he knows Mr. Possino, but denies he has any involvement in L-Air.)
Authorities also know Mr. Possino, who operates out of Santa Monica, Calif., quite well. The disbarred lawyer, active in a number of international penny stock deals in recent years, was a major behind-the-scenes player in the General Commerce affair.
Mr. Possino is one of those colourful characters who suffer misfortune after misfortune, but keep bouncing back in big-league cases. The State Bar of California disbarred him about 17 years ago, just because of his entrepreneurial moonlighting in the marijuana industry, which it called "a crime involving moral turpitude," and a few other youthful indiscretions.
Mr. Possino wasted little time making a name for himself after being admitted to the bar in 1972. A mere four years later, in 1976, he was privately rebuked for wrongfully causing an employee to make a false notarial declaration. This was peanuts, however, compared with his antics in 1975. In November and December of that year, the budding young lawyer attempted to sell some marijuana to undercover Los Angeles police officers, a mere 350 pounds of the weed.
That November, Mr. Possino had offered to sell 1,000 pounds, or half a ton, of pot to the officers, but they suggested they could only handle a smaller amount. During several meetings over the following few weeks, Mr. Possino negotiated the deal, delivered samples of his merchandise, and calculated that his profit on 350 pounds would be about $38,500, which is not bad pay, even for a lawyer. Once Mr. Possino had his buyers on the hook, he sought to up the ante and diversify his merchandise. During the marijuana negotations, he sought to buy some cocaine from the undercover officers.
"He told the officers that he was an attorney and was acting on behalf of several groups who could purchase eight to 10 kilograms of cocaine twice a month at a price of $34,000 per kilo. However, these negotiations ended when one of the undercover officers said he would not be able to obtain any cocaine until Christmas," states a disbarment document filed in the Supreme Court of California.
While these dealings might sound ambitious, this was just the beginning. At one of the meetings, Mr. Possino offered to sell $5-million worth of stolen treasury bills or bearer bonds to the undercover agents. "At a subsequent meeting, the officers brought along an undercover agent of the United States Treasury Department, introducing him as a cousin of one of the undercover narcotics officers and a dealer in stolen securities," states the document.
Although Mr. Possino and the treasury agent negotiated a purchase price of 20 cents on the dollar, the young lawyer never came through with the goods, and later told the agent he had negotiated a better price with another buyer. Through this big-league negotations, Mr. Possino represented himself as an attorney and produced identification as a deputy or former deputy of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. (He was a former deputy by this time.)
During his subsequent drug trial, Mr. Possino was locked up after he accidentally bumped into a juror at a restaurant and chatted her up, something U.S. judges frown upon. (In Canada, a defendant once slept with a juror, and later, that also was frowned upon.) Mr. Possino was subsequently convicted in 1978 in the drug case, given a one-year term of imprisonment in county jail and put on probation for five years with various conditions. Mr. Possino was later disbarred.
While Mr. Possino was recently replaced as president of Geneva Equities, his aura lingers on. The company's new corporate secretary is Pearl Asencio, who played roles in two promotions linked to Mr. Possino or his associates: Thaon Communications Inc. and Castpro Inc.
In the serendipity of the penny stock world, that brings us back to Mr. Bergman, a close associate of Mr. Possino. Mr. Switzer confirms he previously worked with Mr. Bergman at Pacific Growth Equities. "I can show you my resume," he says.
Mr. Switzer's bio states that he worked as an "institutional research analyst" at Pacific Growth from 1990 to 1993. "Worked as junior analyst for leading small cap telecommunications analyst, Mark Bergman," states the resume.
More recently, in 1998, as an "independent" analyst, Mr. Switzer wrote a glowing research report, for which he was paid, about Conectisys, a penny stock promotion linked to Mr. Possino. At the time of the report, the stock was trading at $3.38, midway in a 52-week range of 90 cents to $5.88. Mr. Switzer gave a target price of $20 to $25 based on projected 2000 earnings per share. At the time, Conectisys had a modest book value of seven cents per share.
According to Mr. Switzer, Mr. Bergman, like Mr. Possino, is not involved with L-Air in any way. This is a good thing as the airline prepares for takeoff; Mr. Bergman carries heavy baggage these days.
Last August, Mr. Bergman was the sole American named by the SEC in its kickoff prosecution of a major international boiler room network. The rest were Canadians, including two Ontario lawyers.
In a civil complaint filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the SEC claims the ring perpetrated a "massive" stock fraud from 1998 to 2000 with Environmental Solutions Worldwide, an OTC Bulletin Board company now based in Telford, Penn., after moving from Markham, a suburb of Toronto. The SEC claims the pump and dump, which featured dubious distributions of millions of shares through European and offshore accounts, ran the stock up from $2 to $7 per share. Two Canadians, Teodisio V. (Ted) Pangia, of Kleinburg, Ont., and New York, and Satbal Singh, of Toronto, allegedly dumped $15-million of Environmental Solutions shares on unsuspecting victims.



To: scion who wrote (498)4/15/2003 1:29:06 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 978
 
“Vantage Point” editorial by James Dale Davidson
November 2002


In an echo of hysteria over the growing international political clout of Lyndon LaRouche, another Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece has penned a wild slander, accusing LaRouche of hijacking the economic and monetary policy of the new Brazilian government of Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, and worrying that LaRouche's appeal may may become irresistible to American voters, as the economic crash accelerates. Through a LaRouche supporter, we have recently received the text of an undated “Vantage Point” editorial by James Dale Davidson, the American business partner and alter ego of the London Time's Lord William Rees-Mogg. Rees-Mogg is a longtime LaRouche-watcher, and he has also carved out a profile as the Establishment economist who sees the crash coming, and tells his subscribers and clientele how to make money when there is “blood in the streets.” The Davidson editorial was written and circulated sometime between the Oct. 27 Brazilian elections and the Nov. 5 U.S. mid-term elections. The excerpts below speak for themselves:
“For a hint of how frightening election results can be, take a look at Brazil, where Luiz Inacio ‘Lula' da Silva swept to a landslide victory on Oct. 27. Lula, as he is known, is a former metal worker who had previously run for President of Brazil three times and been soundly defeated. But his left-wing Worker's Party won over 61% of the vote in the recent election, triggering fears that Lula will implement the ideas he has espoused during his political career. Most worrisome is Lula's identification with anti-free market and anti-globalization policies of American fringe figure and convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche. A cursory Google [Internet] search revealed page after page of links to stories associating Lula with Lyndon LaRouche. A German story even speculated that Lula would appoint Lyndon LaRouche as his new Finance Minister. This is unlikely. But the fact that LaRouche's anti-market, anti-trade and anti-investor tirades are given any hearing or credibility by the leader of the world's fourth largest democracy shows that any country could be no more than a show of hands away from raving lunacy at the helm.”

Davidson then went into the usual ADL/Roy Cohn smear of LaRouche, from his Trotskyite background, to his joining the Democratic Party, and all the rubbish about anti-Semitism, “Israel a zombie state” run from London, the Queen pushing dope, etc. (For more information about the source of slanders about LaRouche, read "Who's Telling Lies About Lyndon LaRouche?".)

He then resumed the rug-chewing: “It is as yet unclear how many of LaRouche's views Lula shares, or how deeply he is committed to pursuing them. But the specter of havoc that hangs over Brazil is only a more extreme manifestation of the logic of politics as encompassed by Mencken. ‘The advance auction of stolen goods' was too tempting for millions of impoverished Brazilians to resist. The income distribution in Brazil, while one of the most lopsided in the world, has substantially narrowed in the past 40 years. By contrast, the U.S. income distribution is one of the more lopsided among the advanced economies, by some measures, almost as lopsided as that in Brazil. It has substantially widened in the past 40 years. The United States is becoming even more vulnerable to demagogic appeals to ‘soak the rich' for this very reason. But this doesn't mean that the Democrats, much less Lyndon LaRouche, are necessarily going to gain an immediate purchase with their pandering to economic insecurity.” Obviously, the London Times Thatcherite/neo-cons are beginning to worry that LaRouche, in the United States, could repeat the Lula experience of turning a string of past electoral defeats into a stunning upset victory.

-30-

Paid for by LaRouche in 2004



To: scion who wrote (498)4/15/2003 1:48:34 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 978
 
Speech by SEC Commissioner:SEC Implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley:
The New Corporate Governance
by
Commissioner Cynthia A. Glassman
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
National Economists Club
Washington, D.C.
April 7, 2003
Thank you. It is a great pleasure to be here today. I have been a member of the NEC for a number of years and am a past Board member. I have made many friends and helpful contacts through this terrific organization. As you may already know, I am the only economist on the Commission - a badge I wear proudly among so many lawyers! -- and, with 14 months on the job, I am the most senior commissioner. Before I begin my remarks, let me make the standard disclaimer: the views I express here today are my own and not those of the Commission or its staff.

I have chosen to speak today about the SEC's implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because that has been a key focus of our attention for the past six months. Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted last summer in response to financial frauds at Enron, WorldCom and other corporations and the realization that many of the "gatekeepers" responsible for preventing fraud had fallen down on the job. Congress recognized that dramatic steps were needed to right the system and restore investor confidence. Under the new legislation, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules to increase the accountability of CEOs and CFOs, improve the quality of financial reporting and raise professional, legal and ethical standards for the gatekeepers of our financial system -- analysts, auditors, audit committees, boards and attorneys.

Sarbanes-Oxley gave the Commission 90-, 180- and 270-day deadlines to implement several key rulemakings and conduct several studies. By the end of the 90-day deadline, we adopted rules accelerating the filing of quarterly and annual reports for certain issuers, requiring CEOs to certify quarterly and annual reports, and speeding up the disclosure of personal securities trading by corporate insiders.

In January alone, we adopted nine new rules required by Sarbanes-Oxley and two additional rules in the investment management area. Thanks to our staff's hard work, we were able to adopt rules requiring heightened standards of auditor independence, the disclosure of off-balance sheet arrangements, and the inclusion of a reconciliation to generally accepted accounting principles -- for earnings releases and other financial information prepared on a pro forma basis. We also adopted rules requiring companies to disclose whether they have codes of ethics for executive officers, and whether they have designated an "audit committee financial expert" on their audit committees. We approved rule changes by the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD dealing with analyst conflicts. Finally, we adopted rules requiring securities lawyers to report evidence of fraudulent corporate conduct "up the ladder" to the chief legal or chief executive officer of the corporation or, if necessary, the board of directors. In the process of implementing Sarbanes-Oxley and other recent rules, the Commission received over 9,000 comment letters, each of which was read, carefully considered, and included in a comment summary that you can find on the Commission's website. The following statistics are unofficial, but I'm told our adopting releases for the 11 rules adopted in January totaled over 1,000 pages (double-spaced, 10-point font) (only lawyers could take over 1,000 pages to write 11 releases), and they contained over a quarter-million words. I'm also told - off the record -- that we reviewed over 113 different drafts, held over 2,700 man-hours worth of meetings, ate over 1,100 meals at our desks, and drank more than 4,800 cups of coffee!

We still have more work to do on Sarbanes-Oxley. We are well along in the process of selecting a chairman for the accounting oversight board and will soon approve its budget and rules. We also have to consider some new rules on analyst conflicts proposed by the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD. We completed an additional Sarbanes-Oxley item last week when we adopted a rule directing the exchanges and Nasdaq to prohibit the listing of the securities of any company that does not comply with heightened audit committee requirements.

While we obviously wanted to do everything possible to prevent future Enrons and WorldComs, it was important to maintain a balanced approach. We tried our best to ensure that our rules targeted the root causes of past problems without overreaching our objectives or creating negative unintended consequences. In analyzing the Commission's new rules, I looked to several factors. What are we really trying to accomplish with this rule? Will the rule be effective in achieving its purpose or is it merely cosmetic? Does it make practical sense? Does it serve the purpose for which it was intended? Does it meet the spirit and the letter of the law? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the rule go too far or not far enough? And finally, will it raise unrealistic expectations or create unintended consequences?

What we - and Congress through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act - are trying to accomplish is to restore investor confidence in our companies and our markets. To do that, investors need to be able to trust the companies in which they invest. That requires that companies practice - and exhibit - good corporate behavior. In my view, there are three components to achieving good corporate behavior:

1) an effective corporate governance process;
2) punishment of bad behavior - by the company, by civil and criminal law enforcement and by the market; and
3) an ethical corporate culture.

We cannot legislate the third factor - an ethical corporate culture, so our efforts have been directed at the first two: rules to incent good procedures and behavior, and enforcement actions to disincent bad behavior. Taken as a whole, I believe that our new rules reflect a thoughtful and measured approach. They make clear that management and the board of directors have ultimate responsibility for a company's governance program, but that gatekeepers also play an important role.

Our difficult task has been, and continues to be, to ensure that we do not create an environment in which the markets cannot allocate resources efficiently. One way I have come to evaluate our proposals is through what I call the "Goldilocks" approach to regulation: If the media and critics of the Commission say we are too lenient, and the entities we regulate say we are too harsh, chances are we got it just right.

By any measure, we promulgated an ambitious regulatory agenda in the area of corporate governance, and it is becoming clear that some time is necessary for companies to absorb and implement the barrage of new regulations. This is not to imply that the Commission will shy away - even in the slightest - from our obligations under Sarbanes-Oxley or our mission of investor protection. However, we have to acknowledge that regulatory risk is part of running a business and that the uncertainty caused by perpetual rulemaking can have a chilling effect on legitimate business decisions, including the decision to commit capital. I think we need to take some time to monitor how the new rules operate in practice, to provide guidance and clarification where necessary, to get a better measure of costs and unintended consequences, particularly for small business, and to assess whether we are accomplishing what we intended.

I am encouraged by evidence that the market is driving reform. We read that companies are being more selective in choosing directors - and directors are also being more selective in choosing companies. We've heard that some director nominees now hire consultants to review the company and assess the rigor of its governance procedures, the quality of its reporting and its overall risk profile. In the current environment, companies have a strong incentive to adopt rigorous governance procedures because those that fail to do so will be unable to attract top quality directors and will pay a risk premium in terms of both director compensation and possibly officer and director liability insurance.

Now that most of the rules have been adopted, I come back to my initial questions.

Do our rules meet our objectives?
The objectives of the Sarbanes-Oxley rules seem clear: to restore investor confidence in our companies and our markets and to enhance investor protection by improving corporate governance and transparency. My impression is that our rules meet our objectives. Although we will never be able to eliminate fraud, the good corporate citizens - and that includes most companies - are taking our rules seriously. Equally important, the market seems to value companies that display good corporate governance and make clear disclosures.

Did we meet the spirit as well as the letter of the law?
Regarding the spirit, I believe we did. Regarding the letter, I also think we did. But on at least one point - our proposal that lawyers make "noisy withdrawals" -- there was much discussion of whether we had overstepped our mandate. We did approve a rule that requires lawyers - both in-house attorneys and outside counsel - to report securities law violations "up the ladder" to the chief legal officer or chief executive officer of the corporation. Where the CLO or CEO fails to respond appropriately, the attorney is required to report the evidence to the audit committee, another committee of independent directors or the full board.

The much more controversial part of our proposal was that, where the board of directors fails to respond appropriately, the attorney would have to withdraw from representation of the corporation and make a public filing with the SEC - a so-called "noisy withdrawal." Because of the strong opposition to the "noisy withdrawal" in the legal community, we split out that part of the rule and went back out for comment with an alternative proposal that the corporation - rather than the attorney -- disclose the attorney's withdrawal. Stay tuned.

Have we gone far enough?
In at least one instance, we have been criticized for not going far enough -- namely, in not prohibiting auditors from providing abusive tax shelters to their audit clients. To be perfectly frank, I would have supported such a provision if we could have defined it. But since neither Congress, the Treasury nor the IRS could define an abusive tax shelter, we didn't think we could, especially given the short deadlines we had to put out the rules. So we did the next best thing - we put the burden on the audit committee to scrutinize carefully any tax shelter services proposed by the auditor. I assume that no audit committee in its collective right mind would approve any tax service by its auditors that could be construed as abusive - and I hope that the audit firms won't offer them.

Do our rules go too far?
Clearly, our proposed rule on financial experts went too far. As originally proposed, it appeared that luminaries like Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet would not have met our criteria, so we got more realistic in our final rule.

I have heard some grumbling about our certification requirements -- that CEOs are spending days with the auditors reviewing the accounting treatment of every aspect of the firm's operations. That is certainly not what I had in mind. If they are doing that, they are missing the forest for the trees. What CEOs should be focusing on are the critical assumptions and judgments that could have a material impact on the financials - revenue recognition, impairments and pension funding. These are judgments that CEOs and CFOs should have been making even before Sarbanes-Oxley, and they certainly are judgments they need to understand before they can certify that their financials present a true picture of the company.

Do our rules make sense? Are the benefits commensurate with the costs? Are there likely to be unintended consequences?
I think overall the rules do make sense - but I have begun to hear about some unintended consequences. For example, I have heard that to avoid our pension blackout rule, companies will be less likely to change plan administrators. I have also heard that firms are finding it more difficult to get independent directors - although if that's because the candidates are doing more due diligence and think the risk is too high in a particular company, then the market is working.

Finally, do our rules create unrealistic expectations?
This one worries me. As I said earlier, we cannot prevent all fraud nor legislate ethics. And, importantly, our requirements do not address - nor should they - bad business strategies. So companies will still perform badly and even fail for a variety of reasons not under our control. It is important that investors understand that - which is why I am such a strong proponent of investor education. The goal of all of our new rules is to restore investor confidence and trust in the markets. Yet the ultimate effectiveness of the new corporate governance rules will be determined by the "tone at the top." Adopting a code of ethics means little if the company's chief executive officer or its directors make clear, by conduct or otherwise, that the code's provisions do not apply to them. Designating a financial expert means little if the person designated, while technically qualified, does not possess the personal qualities required to do the job effectively by asking the tough questions and insisting on clear answers. More than any regulatory body, corporate officers and directors have it within their power to restore public trust. Trust depends not just upon putting new rules on the books, but more importantly, on whether there is a widespread consensus that those rules are accepted and will be implemented effectively and in good faith. Corporate officers and directors hold the ultimate power and responsibility for restoring public trust by conducting themselves in a manner that is worthy of the trust that is placed in them.

Thank you. I'd be happy to take questions.



sec.gov

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



To: scion who wrote (498)4/15/2003 1:57:39 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 978
 
IN THE MONEY: SEC Files Complaint Against Publisher Agora
By Carol S. Remond
15 April 2003
12:42
Dow Jones News Service A Dow Jones Newswires Column

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a
complaint against Agora Inc., Pirate Investor LLC and Pirate's manager Frank
Porter Stansberry.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
last week, alleges that Agora and Pirate engaged in a scheme to defraud
investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters
published by Agora or its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Pirate.
According to the SEC complaint, Agora and Pirate last May offered to sell
inside information to newsletter subscribers for a fee of $1,000.
"The purported inside information was false and, as a result, the
subscribers did not realize the profits the defendants promised," the SEC
said in its complaint.
Although newsletter subscribers did not make out well on Agora's purported
"inside tip", the newsletter publisher profited handsomely, the SEC said.
"On information and belief, Agora received in excess of $1 million from the
sale of false information to its newsletter subscribers," the Commission
said in its complaint.
Agora is a Baltimore-based newsletter group founded by James Dale Davidson.
Agora, Pirate and Stansberry filed a preemptive lawsuit against the SEC last
September in the District court of Maryland, alleging that a then-ongoing
SEC investigation into Pirate Investor was in violation of the publisher's
First Amendment rights. Agora, Pirate and Stansberry asked the court to
block the SEC from proceeding with its investigation and sought, as
publishers and writers, to be exempt from anti-fraud provisions contained in
section 10(b) of the 1934 SEC act.
A judge has yet to rule on an SEC motion to dismiss the Agora suit against
the commission.
But the SEC isn't wasting any time and is now seeking to restrain Agora and
Pirate from engaging in conducts and transactions "which violate the federal
securities laws." The SEC is also seeking to have Agora, Pirate and
Stansberry disgorge all ill-gotten gains and is looking to impose civil
monetary penalties on the three defendants.
The SEC began its investigation into Agora and Pirate after Pirate wrote
about a small company called USEC Inc. (USU), a Maryland-based supplier of
low-grade enriched uranium to commercial nuclear plants.
Court documents show that the SEC investigation started after Agora
disseminated a May 14, 2002 e-mail to subscribers. The heading of the e-mail
read: "Double your money on May 22 on this super insider tip." The e-mail
offered to sell, for $1,000 per investor, inside information obtained from a
senior executive of an unnamed company concerning a major agreement to be
announced by USEC on May 22, 2002, according to court documents obtained by
Dow Jones Newswires.
"After the dissemination of this e-mail and before the promised USEC
announcement, the price of USEC common shares and its trading volume rose
substantially. After May 22, 2002 passed and USEC never made the
announcement promised by the PirateInvestor.com e-mail, the price of USEC
stock fell substantially," the SEC said in a court document.
The SEC said in its complaint against Agora and Pirate that the defendants'
"conduct occurred in connection with the purchase and sale of securities of
public companies, including but not limited to, USEC Inc."
According to the complaint, while Agora's newsletters promise original and
independent research, "they contain nothing more than baseless speculation
and outright lies, fabricated to induce investors to pay Agora (or its
subsidiaries) for subscriptions or purported inside information."
The SEC said in its complaint that Agora continued to engage in "on-going
efforts to disseminate false information to the investing public" even after
the publisher became aware of the Commission's investigation.
Among companies promoted by Agora are GeneMax Corp. (GMXX) and Endovasc Ltd.
Inc. (EVSC), two companies that have been the subject of previous "In The
Money" columns.
The SEC complaint alleges that Davidson, the Agora founder and editor of
Agora's Vantage Point Investment Advisory, promoted GeneMax and Endovasc in
his newsletter without disclosing his relationships to the two companies.
Davidson is an officer, director and, indirectly, a substantial shareholder
of both GeneMax and Endovasc, the complaint said.
In a written statement, Matthew Turner, general counsel for Agora, said "the
SEC is far outside (its) jurisdictional boundaries." He added that none of
the defendants named in the SEC complaint ever purchased or sold the
recommended securities. Regarding the SEC's comment that Agora's newsletters
contained nothing more than lies, Turner said that Agora has been "in
business for over 25 years and the vast majority of its customers seem
pretty content. The market speaks for itself."
(On Wall Street, when something is "In The Money" that means it has value.
This column, published periodically, looks at the value of companies and
their securities and explores unusual trading strategies.)
-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201 938 2074;
carol.remond@dowjones.com



To: scion who wrote (498)4/15/2003 2:00:39 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 978
 
"The SEC complaint alleges that Davidson, the Agora founder and editor of
Agora's Vantage Point Investment Advisory, promoted GeneMax and Endovasc in
his newsletter without disclosing his relationships to the two companies.
Davidson is an officer, director and, indirectly, a substantial shareholder
of both GeneMax and Endovasc, the complaint said."