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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (7905)	4/12/2005 2:26:34 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

April 12, 2005 Stocklemon Reports on iMergent Part 6 stocklemon.com “Who naught suspects is easily deceived." Petrarca Petrarch Stocklemon believes that iMergent Inc. is not only attempting to deceive it potential customers through a variety of channels, but it is also trying to deceive the investment community by fostering an image of its corporate history and business model that is inconsistent with documented facts. With that in mind, we present to you part 6 on iMergent Inc. Is iMergent Selling Business Opportunities? iMergent consistently defends itself to analysts and regulators by claiming that it does not sell “business opportunities”, but rather software. This below link take you to the CURRENT iMergent Marketing RSVP page for their seminars. Notice the following items about this page: inetseminars.com 1. Nowhere on the page does it mention the word "software" 2. Nowhere on the page does it mention the words "Storesonline" or "iMergent" 3. Notice these phrases which clearly show a solicitation for a business opportunity. "please call me to discuss this exciting opportunity in your area" "if you're looking for a career change, an opportunity to earn more money on the side or bring a spouse home from a job, I urge to explore this money making opportunity." "learn how you can make money on the internet by attending our free lunch or dinner" "you'll know if creating income from the internet is right for you and your family." After reading this page, it is the opinion of Stocklemon that case brought by the Attorney General has substantive merits and is not, as stated by Mr. Danks in the February 25 conference call “political”, “baseless”, or “flimsy” (his words, not ours) . Mr. Danks also stated in the conference call that the Texas AG did not “do their diligence before filing a lawsuit”. It is the opinion of Stocklemon that this one page documents irrefutably that the Texas Attorney General is right on track. The True Significance of the Texas AG suit vs iMergent The relevance of the Texas AG’s “business opportunities” case cannot be overstated. The threat to iMergent is not that it will be prohibited from selling in Texas. But rather, upon a finding that it is offering a “business opportunity” within the definitions of the Texas statute (and numerous other states) it will be forced to make disclosures and concessions which will cripple the hard-sell sales strategy that it uses to convince “seminar” attendees to make an impulsive decision to plunk down that big purchase price that drive its revenues. As stated on the Texas AG Website: oag.state.tx.us Disclosure Requirement: “If the seller makes representations about sales or earnings potential, he or she must disclose both the total number of people participating in the business opportunity for the past three years and the total number of people who have actually achieved the represented sales or earnings within the past three years.” This is possibly the single most toxic admission that could ever be disclosed to iMergent’s sales prospects: that in fact, only a small percentage of iMergent’s customers ever successfully launch their websites; that of these, only a small percentage actually become financially viable; and finally, only a small percentage of these actually renew with iMergent, once they discover they have grossly overpaid for services readily available at higher quality and lower cost elsewhere. As further reinforcement of the importance of these metrics, we note two numbers that iMergent doesn’t disclose: (these numbers should be very easy for them to produce) The amount of their revenue received from hosting fees (and in particular, fees for renewal after the first year’s “paid in advance” fees, (collected up-front as part of the package sale), come up for customer renewal.) The amount of fees generated by e-commerce transactions hosted for their customers. Note that virtually every e-commerce merchant pays per-transaction fees to an intermediary for credit card clearing, “shopping cart” software, and payment procurement. This number must therefore be readily available to any ISP hosting e-commerce sites. iMergent widely touts its “50,000 licensees” so it should be simple math to calculate their retention rate. If as we suspect, only a tiny percentage have become successful e-commerce entrepreneurs, and even a smaller percentage actually have stayed with IMergent, rather than rewriting their sites and moving on to other software platforms and ISP’s, a true picture of iMergent’s business would be visible to all. And most important, it would be clear to prospective customers what kind of odds they were fighting in trying to become successful ecommerce entrepreneurs when they make a $5,000 or $10,000 purchase commitment at an iMergent “seminar”. We suggest investors demand this information from the company, and we look forward to the company stating it doesn’t disclose that information for “competitive reasons”. All in the Family – and Too Crazy to Believe In the last Stocklemon report, we showed how one of the Storesonline testimonials came from the brother of the President of the company (without disclosure). It gets better! On the same page, the company displays a blue ribbon award given by CK Oliver for “Regional Wealth Award”. Stocklemon wondered “(And who is “C K Oliver” on that Blue Ribbon they awarded themselves over on the left?)” iregnow.com Che Kevin Oliver works for iMergent. Call (801) 227-0004 and ask for him. Sources on the web list different titles such as “Marketing Director”, but in this link he states his title as “VP Conference Relations”. badbusinessbureau.com He is also married to the daughter of former CEO Jay Poelman. You can read the Denver Post’s expose of her iMergent endorsement (without disclosure of her family relationship) here: denverpost.com So now we have a testimonial from a brother and a daughter and an award given by a son-in-law. Does Grandma have a website? Don Danks Public Company History Stocklemon will just stick to the facts. He has served as the CEO or President of 2 companies before Imergent. This is non-disputable. Here is the current status of both companies. Advantage Life Products (ADVT.pk)- last trade 10 cents , company is defunct to the best of our knowledge Prosoft Learning- (POSO)- last trade .84 cents with a market cap of $3.47 million. At one time both companies had lofty stock prices and “big” stories. You be the judge. There is No Such Thing as New Management!! Stocklemon has received much correspondence about old vs. new management at iMergent. It appears as if Mr. Danks is placing the blame for the ills of the company on some fictional “old management”. Consider these conflicting quotes given in the same CC: “Old management that drove this company into the ground, we’ve got new management…” “…when I took the company over in 2001, the folks that Brandon Lewis and David Rosenval, and Dave Wise, they had been building this company since 1994.” This is the list of iMergent’s officers: Donald Danks- Chairman and CEO Brandon Lewis- President and Chief Operating Officer David Wise- VP-Operations David Rosenvall- Chief Technology Officer All 4 men have been listed in filings since iMergent (and predecessor Netgateway) began filing with the SEC over 4 years ago, when it operated as Galaxy Mall. Mr. Danks served as CEO prior to and following Jay Poelman’s 1 year-plus tenure (2002 – 2003) as CEO. WHAT IS THIS NEW MANAGEMENT ????????? Don Danks Lawsuit Mr. Danks has decided to sue Stocklemon for publishing what we believe to be the truth. Neither Mr. Danks or iMergent has ever contacted Stocklemon to correct any statements that have been published. It is the opinion of Stocklemon, that Mr. Danks lawsuit against us is not in the best interests of shareholders, for reasons explained in a study made by Yale Professor Owen Lamont while he was teaching at the University of Chicago. As excerpted from “The Economist” magazine: “Owen Lamont of the University of Chicago studied 270 companies that fought short-sellers by demonizing them publicly, hiring private investigators to spy on them, or taking them to court. The companies' shares fell on average by more than 40%, relative to the market, over the next three years.” economist.com Stocklemon believes that this is nothing more than a SLAAP suit answers.com and plans to defend all statements made. Conclusion Need we say any more? Cautious Investing To All. Disclaimer: Stocklemon.com does not guarantee in any way that it is providing all of the information that may be available. We recommend that you do your own due diligence before buying or selling any security. At any times the principals of Stocklemon.com might hold a position in any of the securities profiled on the site. Stocklemon.com will not report when a position is initiated or covered. Each investor must make that decision based on his/her judgment of the market.

To: rrufff who wrote (7905)	4/12/2005 3:10:57 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 12465

Now that is a very interesting case. A CEO of an AMEX-traded company going after not just the principals of the site but also all aliases involved in publishing false, misleading and/or defamatory statements and claims regarding the company. Maybe the aliases involve the principals themselves making the posts, deceiving the public by posing as a large number of "satisfied and successful clients," just like Berber, Moor and Rea here at SI and at the IA sites? Site software makes this a very simple matter; I have copies of that software, could show any of you in a few minutes how false aliases can be created in less than 30 seconds, up and posting - and that moreover if you were a real client and critical how a site owner could boot you from the chat and then hijack your name, posting under it without your permission (happened all the time). I wonder if Mr. Rothman noted the can of worms opened up by the AP trial, many of the "satisfied clients" in fact conspiring to commit RICO violations, a number of whom have already pleaded guilty to criminal offenses (Daws the hedge fund manager now as well). Keep us posted rruff, please. Barry K. Rothman, attorney for Mr. Danks said, "Litigation has been filed against StockLemon.com and its principals, which litigation we intend to be the test case to disclose the fact that certain websites that profess to be consumer watchdog sites are really sites who manipulate the stock price of a given stock they have a vested financial interest in by intentionally publishing false and negative information regarding the stock, which causes StockLemon.com to make substantial profits when stock prices fall as a result of the false and negative information having been published. As well this litigation is intended to be a test case that will make it mandatory for principals of these self-professed consumer watchdog sites to disclose their identities, and the true identities of the fictitious names of the people who post. Most importantly this litigation is intended to be a test case that these websites have a financial motive in publishing the false and negative information they publish and they cannot hide behind Freedom of Speech and 1st Amendment Rights and we intend to have the court impose severe punitive damages against all defendants as a result of the outrageous defamation that has been published "for profit."