SEC Suspends trading in Onelife Technologies Corp (OLMM) as stock is promoted for second time this year

This morning prior to the market open the SEC supsended trading in Onelife Technologies (OLMM). Back in June I blogged about the boiler room promotion of OLMM at the beginning of the year. The stock was slapped with a caveat emptor warning by OTCMarkets on March 8, 2018 and after that appears to have been abandoned by the promoters.

The caveat emptor designation was removed on August 14th 2018 and two weeks later that was followed by another round of promotion that saw the stock start trading increased volume and the share price spike from $0.15 to $0.60.

 

SEC trading suspension release (PDF)
SEC trading suspension order (PDF)

The reason given for the trading suspension:

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of OLMM because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly available information in the marketplace and potential market manipulation in OneLife Technologies Corp.’s common stock.

OLMM will resume trading on the grey market (no market makers) at the open on October 23rd.

Disclaimer. No position in any stocks mentioned and I have no relationship with anyone mentioned in this post. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

SEC Sues two more for involvement with Nonko Trading and both also criminally charged

While I failed to blog about the proprietary trading firm Nonko Trading that gave certain clients paper-trade accounts and then just took their money when they ‘lost’ it trading, the SEC recently sued two more people who were involved in that alleged fraud and sadly both of them are from my state of Michigan.

The original lawsuit by the SEC against Nonko Trading and many people who were involved in running it was SEC v. Chamroomrat. You can see the docket of that case on CourtListener. The SEC announced winning a final judgment in that case almost a year ago.

The final judgment, entered on September 18, 2017 by the Honorable Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, permanently enjoins Naris Chamroonrat, of Bangkok, Thailand, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 15(a)(1) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and orders him liable for disgorgement of $918,147.31, plus interest of $71,549.24, the payment of which is deemed satisfied by the restitution ordered in the parallel criminal case. Chamroonrat, who pled guilty in a parallel criminal case, is awaiting sentencing

The new lawsuit is against Jeffrey Goldman and Christopher Eikenberry. See the case docket on CourtListener. Read the complaint (pdf). In addition to the SEC lawsuit, Eikenberry and Goldman are facing criminal charges, just announced by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.

Excerpt from the SEC complaint:

1. This case concerns Defendants Goldman’s and Eikenberry’s participation in an illegal scheme to establish and operate an offshore broker-dealer, Nonko Trading (“Nonko”), without the necessary registration and later to defraud Nonko’s customers by providing them with fake trading accounts and stealing funds that these customers deposited with the firm. The scheme resulted in at least $1.4 million in net losses to over 260 investors in over 30 countries worldwide, including over 180 investors in the United States.
2. Between 2011 and early 2013, Goldman and Eikenberry, who both had extensive experience in day-trading operations, helped their associate Naris Chamroonrat (“Chamroonrat”) to establish Nonko as a purported offshore proprietary trading firm that would secretly cater to U.S.-based day-traders while also evading the U.S. broker-dealer registration requirements. Once Nonko was established, starting in late 2013, Goldman and Eikenberry worked with Chamroonrat and his Nonko associates to develop and execute a fraudulent scheme to pocket Nonko’s customer deposits by secretly providing certain customers with fake accounts instead of real ones.
3. As alleged in the SEC’s Amended Complaint against Chamroonrat and his Nonko associates Yaniv Avnon (“Avnon”), Ran Armon (“Armon”), and Adam Plumer (“Plumer”), as well as Avnon’s entity G Six Trading Y.R Ltd (“G6”) and Chamroonrat’s entity NKO Holdings Co. Ltd, the Nonko team lured investors to day-trade through Nonko with promises of generous leverage, low trading commissions, and low minimum deposit requirements. But instead of providing investors with access to a live securities trading platform, as it had promised, the Nonko team secretly provided certain investors with training accounts that merely simulated the placement and execution of trade orders. So when these investors sent funds to Nonko and proceeded to place what they believed were securities trade orders, the orders were never actually routed to the markets. Instead, the Nonko team simply stole the investors’ money, using it, among other things, to fund their personal expenses and to make Ponzi-like payments to those investors who asked to close their Nonko accounts.
4. As set forth below, Goldman and Eikenberry were knowing and substantial participants in the training accounts fraud, providing the rest of the Nonko team with extensive guidance and direction, including on the specific lies that the Nonko team should tell investors in order to evade detection. Goldman and Eikenberry also provided the Nonko scheme with operational and back-office support.
5. Goldman and Eikenberry deliberately concealed their involvement with Nonko by, among other things, avoiding direct contact with Nonko’s customers and inserting multiple intermediary entities, both offshore and domestic, between Nonko and themselves.
6. For their roles in the scheme, Goldman and Eikenberry collected an agreed-upon portion of the fraud’s proceeds, which they funneled to themselves through bank accounts of the intermediary entities.

See the announcement of criminal charges. Linked from that page are the Goldman indictment (pdf) and the Eikenberry information (pdf). From the announcement:

Christopher D. Eikenberry, 49, of Birmingham, Michigan, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

Jeffrey E. Goldman, 52, of West Bloomfield, Michigan, who was arrested today in Michigan, is charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of wire fraud. He is scheduled to appear today before U.S. Magistrate Judge David Grande in Detroit federal court.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gain or loss from the offense. The wire fraud count carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gain or loss from the offense. Sentencing for Eikenberry is scheduled for Dec. 12, 2018.

I should point out that this kind of fraud would likely not have occurred were it not for the stupid pattern day trader (PDT) rule that prevents people with accounts smaller than $25,000 from making more than 3 day-trades in any five business-day period. Without that rule there would be little to no interest in offshore brokers and proprietary trading firms.

 

Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above except that one of the trading platforms I use is DAS Trader Pro and that is owned by DAS which is the company that alerted the traders that the accounts they were using were paper-trading accounts. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

SEC Sues Ovations Holdings Inc (INOH) and its CEO for false press releases

On September 5th, 2018 the SEC announced a lawsuit against In Ovations Holdings, Inc (INOH) and the company’s CEO Mark Goldberg for filing allegedly false press releases from January 2015 to October 2015.

SEC v. In Ovations Holdings & Mark Goldberg complaint (pdf)

The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of New York in Federal Circuit Court. You can see the docket for free at CourtListener.

From the complaint, see the (alleged) facts of the case:

11. During the Relevant Period, Ovations issued at least seven false or misleading press releases about its business.
12. On information and belief, Goldberg, as Ovations’ CEO, generated each of these press releases himself and caused Ovations to issue them.
13. Goldberg did so to fraudulently induce investors to buy shares of Ovations stock so that one or more stock promoters could sell their Ovations shares in the market for a profit.
14. Goldberg knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity or misleading nature of each of these press releases.
15. On information and belief, Goldberg received approximately $250,000 in return from one or more stock promoters at least partly for Goldberg’s role in issuing Ovations’ false or misleading press releases.

This looks like a pretty standard false press release case. The only interesting thing is the use of the “on information and belief” for the alleged payment to Goldberg from stock promoters. Basically that phrasing indicates that the SEC doesn’t have clear evidence of the payment. It is unfortunate that the SEC doesn’t name the stock promoters but if they had to use the “on information and belief” language to state that they believe there was a payment then they certainly didn’t have enough information to name and sue any involved stock promoters.

 

Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

Avalon Holdings Corp Sues Mintbroker International and Guy Gentile

The story of MintBroker International buying up large stakes in microcap companies and quickly selling them continues. I previously wrote about MintBroker filings SEC forms 3 and 4 reporting large stakes in New Concept Energy (GBR), MER Telemanagement Solutions (MTSL), and Avalon Holdings Corp (AWX). In that post I speculated on the potential profit MintBroker might have made on those trades using the average prices for share sales and guesses on the average prices on the buys. My conservative estimate for the AWX trades was a loss of $963,037 for MintBroker. However, MintBroker filed a new SEC form SC 13D last night listing all the trades in AWX from July 24th to August 1st, 2018. The trades are in an attachment to the form SC 13D.

I copied and pasted the table of AWX trades by MintBroker into a Google Sheets spreadsheet that anyone can view (only I can edit it). Please do check out the spreadsheet and see if I have made any errors. I counted a total of 2,680,759 shares of AWX bought and 2,686,047 shares sold over that period, which leaves 5,288 more shares sold than bought. This is possibly an error on my part or MintBroker’s part or possibly they bought those shares prior to July 24th. Regardless of the reason for the missing 5,288 shares, they don’t substantially change the calculation of MintBroker’s profit on the trades. As you can see in the spreadsheet I calculated that the average price of shares bought was $4.10 while the average price of shares sold was $6.41. Using the number of shares bought I calculated a total profit (after trading fees reported by MintBroker) of $6,202,596.22 (with uncertainty of about $20,000 based on the 5,288 missing shares). Needless to say my estimate of profits was way off and I likely badly underestimated MintBroker’s profits on the GBR and MTSL trades as well.

One trader I know of plotted all the buys and sells in Tradervue charting / trade analysis software. I have not verified his analysis but it is worth looking at:

Besides calculating the profit, I was also able to easily calculate the number of shares held by MintBroker at the end of each day (by just adding up the shares in all the trades for each day). They are as follows:

July 24: 549,252
July 25: 1,142,961
July 26: 1,593,674
July 27: 1,721,628
July 30:  998,954
July 31:   197,354
August 1: -5,288

As you can no doubt tell by the negative position at the end of August 1st, my calculated MintBroker position at the end of each day is off by up to 5,288 shares.

Below is a daily chart of Avalon’s stock price:

As of August 3rd (per the company’s August 9th Form 10-Q) Avalon Holdings “had 3,191,100 shares of its Class A Common Stock and 612,231 shares of its Class B Common Stock outstanding.” On July 27th, 2018 at 5:47pm MintBroker filed an SEC Form 3 showing direct ownership of 1,922,095 shares with the “date of event requiring statement” being 7/27/2018. But by my calculations based on MintBroker’s own data filed in the form SC 13D yesterday they owned over 10% of the shares of Avalon Holdings as early as July 24th.

I did not mention it in my prior blog post about Avalon Holdings and the other companies whose stock was traded by MintBroker, but there is an SEC rule called the “short swing profit rule“. Here is Investopedia’s definition:

The short-swing profit rule is a Securities & Exchange Commission regulation that requires company insiders to return any profits made from the purchase and sale of company stock if both transactions occur within a six-month period. A company insider, as determined by the rule, is any officer, director or holder of more than 10% of the company’s shares.

Securities lawyer Brenda Hamilton has a more detailed explanation (pdf). From Hamilton’s article:

Q. What remedies exist for Section 16 violations?

A. If an Insider violates Section 16, he or she must surrender their profits to the company.

How does the company obtain the profits from the insider? From Legal And Compliance LLC (pdf):

Any “profit,” whether inadvertent or intentional, realized by matching a purchase and sale within a six-month period is recoverable by the company. If the company fails to recover such profit, any shareholder of the company may sue to recover it on behalf of the company. Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed with the SEC are publicly available and are routinely monitored by attorneys who make their living by threatening to file Section 16(b) suits on behalf of shareholders. In the event of a violation of Section 16(b) by an insider, these attorneys are generally able to compel the company and/or the offending insider to pay their fees and expenses if the company had not acted to obtain restitution of the deemed “profit” from the insider prior to receiving a communication from the attorney.

On August 13th, Avalon Holdings filed suit against MintBroker International and Guy Gentile (its owner). Read this article from The Business Journal Daily for details and quotes from the CEO of Avalon. The lawsuit is Avalon Holdings Corporation v. Gentile (1:18-cv-07291) in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. CourtListener has the docket and the complaint (pdf) available for free. The lawsuit’s second claim is for short swing trading profits. According to the suit, “Profits are estimated to exceed $5,000,000.” The first claim in the lawsuit is for “Williams Act Compliance.” According to the complaint:

28. MINTBROKER and the other defendants have at no time to the present complied with their reporting obligations by filing a Schedule 13D and amendments thereto from the actual date of first entry into a more-than-5% beneficial ownership position to the date of their claimed liquidation of their position.

29. AVALON has no adequate remedy at law and invokes the equity powers of this court to enjoin MINTBROKER, GUY GENTILE and the other defendants to make such filings forthwith including in such filings complete and truthful responses to all questions including a detailed enumeration of purchases and deemed purchases and sales and deemed sales.

MintBroker and Guy Gentile have not yet filed an answer to the complaint.

 

Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above except that one of the trading platforms I use is DAS Trader Pro and it may be partially owned by Guy Gentile (I am not sure). This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

Scottsdale Capital Advisors Sues me

Scottsdale Capital Advisors (referred to here and in many court filings as SCA) sued me personally and my company, MorningLightMountain LLC (referred to here and in many court filings as MLM), in The Kalamazoo County Circuit Court in Michigan. My lawyers removed it to federal court (Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp. v. MorningLightMountain, LLC (1:18-cv-00533) U.S. District Court, W.D. Michigan) and then agreed with SCA’s lawyers to remand it back to state court. You can see all the initial filings and the filings that happened at the federal level for free at the Court Listener website:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6627318/scottsdale-capital-advisors-corp-v-morninglightmountain-llc/

Full federal case docket
(Note that the links that are not PDFs are OCR text of the filings performed by CourtListener.com and will have errors):

1. May 11, 2018 Main Doc Notice of Removal Download PDF

Att 1 Exhibit 1 – Summons & Complaint Download PDF

Att 2 Exhibit 2 – First Amended Complaint Download PDF

Att 3 Exhibit 3 – State Court Register of Actions Download PDF

Att 4 Exhibit 4 – FINRA Amended Extended Hr’g Panel Decision Download PDF

Att 5 Exhibit 5 – Scottsdale Schedule of Commission & Fees Download PDF

Att 6 Exhibit 6 – Proof of Service for Notice of Removal Download PDF

2. May 14, 2018 Main Doc Notice Regarding Assignment of Case Download PDF

3. May 14, 2018 Main Doc Corporate Disclosure Statement Download PDF

4. May 18, 2018 Main Doc Stipulation and Order (Proposed-one document) Download PDF

 

Kalamazoo County Circuit Court does not yet allow the public electronic access to court records. To keep my readers updated, I will be posting a copy of the register of actions (docket) every so often as well as posting scans of all documents publicly available in the case.

The case is 2018-0153-CZ in the Civil Division of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Michigan.

Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.

v

Does 1-10
Michael Goode
MorningLightMountain, LLC

Michigan State case register of actions (2018-0153-CZ)

Register of Actions as of 10/19/2018 (PDF)
[All links below are to PDF files]

4/16/2018 – Summons and Complaint – Civil – New Filing
Service To: Defendant MorningLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode,
Michael; Defendant Does 1
10

4/17/2018 – Notice of Review by Business Court Judge

4/20/2018 – Amended Complaint
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.

5/11/2018 – Notice of Removal to Federal Court
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.; Defendant MorningLightMountainLLC; Defendant Goode, Michael; Defendant Does 110
[This is the same as the notice of removal filed in the federal case; the exhibits are not included in this scan because they were included with the federal case linked above]

5/25/2018 – Stipulation with Order Regarding:
Fixing Deadline to Response to First Amended Complaint

5/25/2018 – Substitution of Attorney and Order
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.

5/29/2018 – Court of Appeals- Supreme Court – Remand for:
Remanded from the Western Distict of Michigan

6/7/2018 –  Answer to Amended Complaint
Party:
 Defendant MorningLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode, Michael

6/7/2018 –  Motion for Summary Disposition
Party: Defendant MorningLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode, Michael
First Amended Complaintwith Brief in Support

6/7/2018 –  Praecipe

6/7/2018 –  Proof of Service

6/7/2018 –  Notice of Scheduled Proceeding
on Defendants Motion for Summary Disposition

6/27/2018 – Civil Proceedings Scheduling Order MCR 2.401
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.; Defendant MorningLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode, Michael

8/2/2018 – Stipulation
Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order

8/14/2018 – Adjournment Stipulation and Order
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.; Defendant MomingLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode, Michael; Defendant Does 110
to Amend Scheduling Order

8/15/2018 –  Notice of Scheduled Proceeding

8/17/2018 –  Response to: (Specify)
Party: Plaintiff Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.
in Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition of First Amended Complaint

8/17/2018 –  Proof of Service
Reply in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition of First Amended Complaint

8/20/2018 –  Response to: (Specify)
Party: Defendant MomingLightMountain, LLC; Defendant Goode, Michael
Reply in support of Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Disposition of First Amended Complaint

8/20/2018 –  Proof of Service
on Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition of First Amended Complaint

8/20/2018 –  Motion for Pro Hac Vice 
Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Admission of Out of State Attorney, Nicholas A. Kurtz with supporting documentation

8/20/2018 –  Proof of Service
on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Admission of Out of State Attorney, Nicholas A. Kurtz with supporting documentation

8/21/2018 –  Order for Pro Hac Vice
as to Nicholas A. Kurtz

8/22/2018 – Motion for Summary Disposition (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Lipsey, Alexander C.)
Events: 06/07/2018 Motion for Summary Disposition

9/14/2018 – Notice of Scheduled Proceeding
Amended Trial date – original set for the wrong date

9/18/2018 – Proof of Service
Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants; Request for Production to Defendants

10/4/2018 – Opinion

10/9/2018 – Miscellaneous Filing
Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs Counsel Nicholas A. Kurtz
10/09/2018

10/9/2018 – Proof of Service
of Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs Counsel Nicholas A. Kurtz

2/6/2019 –  Settlement Conference (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer: Lipsey, Alexander C.)
Events: 08/14/2018 Adjournment Stipulation and Order
12/26/2018 Continued to 02/06/2019 Stipulation and Order Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.; MorningLightMountain, LLC; Goode, Michael; Does 1-10

4/9/2019 –  Civil Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Lipsey, Alexander C.)
Events: 08/14/2018 Adjournment Stipulation and Order
01/15/2019 Continued to 04/16/2019 Stipulation and OrderScottsdale Capital Advisors Corp.; MorningLightMountain, LLC; Goode, Michael; Does 110

 

 

[Filings and state case register of actions last updated 10/19/2018]

 

Due to the litigation I will not be providing my opinion on this case or on any of the parties involved so please do not ask.

 

Disclaimer: I and MorningLightMountain LLC of which I am the sole member are being sued for defamation and false light invasion of privacy by Scottsdale Capital Advisors. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

Some Forms 3 & 4, MintBroker, and how three microcap stocks moved 200%+ in days

Check out MintBroker International Ltd’s SEC filings on EDGAR. There was nothing filed prior to June 29th, 2018. The only SEC forms filed so far are forms 3 and 4.

The SEC describes the use of these forms (emphasis mine):

Corporate insiders – meaning a company’s officers and directors, and any beneficial owners of more than ten percent of a class of the company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 – must file with the SEC a statement of ownership regarding those securities.

New Concept Energy (GBR)

First I want to look at New Concept Energy (GBR). As of its most recent SEC Form 10-Q/A, GBR showed 2,131,935 shares outstanding as of May 11, 2018.

Here is a more zoomed-in view showing each date:

The stock first spiked on June 28th, gapping up big on no apparent news (a form SC-13D had been filed after the previous day’s close by Realty Advisors, Inc but that disclosed no new information — all the info in it was available in the June 21st, 2018 8-k filed by GBR). The stock then closed at $1.7201, well below the open price of $3.02. On July 29th GBR gapped down a tiny bit to $1.69 before spiking big and closing at $4.22. At 6:39 pm (all times Eastern) MintBroker filed an SEC Form 3 showing direct ownership of 1,073,713 shares with the “date of event requiring statement” being 06/29/2018.

The following trading day, July 2nd, GBR opened at $5.90 and hit a high of $12.75 before closing at $8.90. On July 3rd the stock gapped up again, opening at $12.00 and then dropping to close at $4.11. A form 4 filed by MintBroker at 11:14am on July 3rd revealed that the company had sold 114,576 shares on July 2nd at an average price of $11.32 and still owned 959,137 shares.

The following day the market was closed for the July 4th Independence Day holiday. On July 5th, GBR gapped up, opening at $5.03 and closing at $4.95. At 11:51am on July 5th MintBroker filed another form 4 showing that it had sold 959,137 shares on July 3rd at an average price of $8.682 and no longer owned any shares.

It is easy to guess at MintBroker’s profits with this information. I added up the total sales of stock to get $9,624,227.75 ($8.9635 per share). If we assume it paid an average of $4.22 (the close on July 29th), which is almost certainly higher than the price it actually paid, then it paid $4,531,068.86 for those shares and profited $5,093,159. Of course there is lots of information I don’t have so this is just an educated guess.

MER Telemanagement Solutions ltd (MTSL)

As of it most recent Form 20-F from December 31, 2017, MER Telemanagement Solutions (MTSL) reported 3,120,684 shares outstanding. Below is the daily candlestick chart of MTSL:

On July 10th, 2018 MTSL spiked from an open of $1.10 to close at $2.73. The next day it gapped up to $4.00 and closed at $2.19. The following day, July 12th at 1:56pm, MintBroker filed a form 4 showing that it had acquired 147,716 shares at an average price of $4.6189 on 7/11/2018 and had sold 446,911 shares at an average price of $3.603 on the same day. MintBroker has not filed any other SEC forms on MTSL.

Obviously the number of shares on that form 4 don’t match and it wasn’t a form 3 indicating that it wasn’t the first acquisition of MTSL shares by MintBroker. My opinion given that information is that MintBroker likely bought the other 299,195 shares on July 10th. Assuming that those shares were purchased at an average of $2.73 (the closing price on July 10th), the average purchase price of the total 446,911 shares would be $3.3543. That gives me an estimate of ‘only’ $111,146 in profits.

Avalon Holdings (AWX)

Avalon Holdings is the most recent stock for which MintBroker has filed a Form 3 or Form 4. As of May 4th (per the company’s May 10th Form 10-Q) Avalon Holdings reported 3,191,100 shares outstanding. Below is the daily candlestick chart of AWX:

Starting on July 24th, AWX started spiking on no news. It traded thrice the shares outstanding on each of the following two days. On July 27th, 2018 at 5:47pm MintBroker filed an SEC Form 3 showing direct ownership of 1,922,095 shares with the “date of event requiring statement” being 7/27/2018.

In premarket trading AWX hit a high of $36.00 but since 8:30am has dropped a lot and as I write this the stock is at $7.80. I eagerly await a future MintBroker Form 4 on AWX.

Final Results: AWX

This section was added on August 2nd after MintBroker filed the expected Forms 4 showing that they sold all of their shares. Following are the dates/details of the Forms 4.

7/30/2018 4:58pm Form 4 —  192,340 shares sold at $15.5054 (incorrectly showed “A” in box 4 which would mean ‘acquired’).
7/31/2018 1:34pm Form 4 — 719,885 shares sold at an average price of $8.175
8/1/2018 11:19am Form 4 — 799,720 shares sold at average price of $4.1506
8/1/2018 11:42am Form 4 — 202,642 shares sold at average price of $3.911 (zero shares held after this)
8/1/2018 1:41pm Form 4/A — correcting 7/30 form 4 to show 192,340 shares sold at $15.504 on 7/27

This adds up to an average sale price of $6.779 on 1,914,587 shares. Note that this does not quite add up to the number of shares shown in the form 3 (1,922,095) — in fact it is 7,508 shares less. But that is not important compared to the total number of shares traded by MintBroker so I will ignore the difference.

If I were to use the same very conservative estimate I used on GBR and MTSL to guess the purchase price of all those AWX shares I would use the closing price on 7/27, which was $10.25. This would have resulted in a MintBroker loss of $6.65 million dollars. However, most of the spike on AWX on 7/27 came at the end of the day and for most of the day it traded under $7.00. In fact, as of the close on 7/27 the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) of AWX was only $7.282 (see intraday chart with VWAP). If that is the price that MintBroker paid then it only lost $963,037 on the trade. Obviously if Mintbroker bought below the vwap or had acquired some portion of the shares on a prior day at a lower price it is still possible that they made money on the trade — there is no way for us to know just by looking at their filings.

Who/What is MintBroker?

MintBroker International, Ltd has its address listed as

ELIZABETH AVE. & BAY STREET
NASSAU C5 N-8340

in its SEC filings. This is the same address given by Suretrader for “Swiss America Securities Ltd” the company that runs it. It appears that MintBroker International Ltd is the successor to Swiss America Securities or the parent company of it because the Suretrader website shows the copyright as “Copyright 2008 – 2018 MintBroker International, Ltd”

To remove any doubt, MintBroker is owned by Guy Gentile, as he describes in his recent lawsuit, Mint Bank International, LLC and Guy Gentile Nigro v. Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of
Puerto Rico et al. ((3:18-cv-01441) US District Court, District of Puerto Rico) (See docket on CourtListener.com).

21. Gentile is the current beneficial owner of a group of financial institutions located in the United States and other foreign countries (“Group”). The Group consists of MintBroker International, Limited in the Bahamas and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, MintBroker International Limited in U.K. The Group is involved in various areas of the financial markets including, but not limited to, holding accounts of clearing firms and maintaining custody of funds.
22. The SureTrader division of MintBroker has enjoyed significant success.

Besides being known for owning Suretrader, Guy Gentile was also the subject of an engaging article in Bloomberg in early 2017, “‘Bro, I’m Going Rogue’: The Wall Street Informant Who Double-Crossed the FBI.”

[Edit 8/2/2018]: Bloomberg had a nice story on the run-up in Avalon Holding Coporation (AWX) shares in which they talked to the CEO of Avalon and to Guy Gentile. Today Matt Levine of Bloomberg analyzed the situation:

His brokerage firm announced stakes in three tiny companies, including $13 million waste-management firm Avalon Holdings Corp., whose prices all “skyrocketed and then dropped.” The fun part is Gentile’s explanation:

“This is no pump-and-dump scheme,” Gentile, chief executive officer of MintBroker, said over the phone. “We were going to try to do a hostile takeover of the company.”

Ah. But here’s what Avalon said:

In response to inquiries regarding a potential change in control, Mr. Ronald Klingle, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, holds approximately 67% of the voting power in Avalon, and has advised the Company that he has no present plans to divest any of his holdings.

What … happened here? Did Gentile not know that the company’s stock was controlled by its CEO? (It’s easy to find out!) Did he know that but think that he could do a hostile takeover anyway? (By, like, calling up the CEO and being real hostile on the phone until he agreed to sell?) Was it a pump-and-dump scheme, but Gentile was too lazy to make up a plausible cover story?

Note: Timestamps on SEC filings come from Acquire Media NewsEdge V8. Screenshot.

Disclaimer: I am short 30 shares of AWX and I may close that position or increase it or even go long at any time. I have no position in any other stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above except that one of the trading platforms I use is DAS Trader Pro and it may share common ownership with MintBroker (I am not sure). This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

Two Unrelated stock manipulation schemes foiled by one cooperating witness & the FBI

On July 23rd the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California issued a press release about eight defendants that were indicted in pump and dump schemes. I already blogged about the indictment of Luke Zouvas for “laundering money he believed to be proceeds of stock fraud schemes.”

Besides the Zouvas indictment, there were two other indictments announced in the same press release. The two indictments share no defendants or stocks but both mention a cooperating witness (“CW-1”), described identically in each indictment as “a resident of California, and worked as a stock promoter.” One of the most talented stock scam researchers I know (the anonymous ‘nodummy’) wrote that he believes Michael Forster is the cooperating witness.

The two cases are:

United States v. Gannon Giguiere & Oliver Lindsay (3:18-cr-03071) US District Court, S.D. California
Indictment (thanks to Promotion Stock Secrets for uploading this)
Docket on CourtListener.com

United States v. Andrew Hackett, Annetta Budhu, Vikram Khanna, Kuldeep Sidhu, & Kevin Gillespie (3:18-cr-03072) US District Court, S.D. California
Indictment (thanks to Promotion Stock Secrets for uploading this)
Docket on CourtListener.com

In addition to the two criminal indictments, the SEC filed a civil suit against five of the individuals:

SEC Litigation Release
SEC Complaint (pdf)

The case is:
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gannon Giguiere, Oliver-Barret Lindsay, Andrew Hackett, Kevin Gillespie, & Annetta Budhu (3:18-cv-01530) US District Court, S.D. California
Docket on CourtListener.com

Simply because I cannot easily copy and paste from the indictments due to formatting issues I have quoted relevant parts of the SEC complaint below (emphasis mine):

2. The three fraudulent schemes netted more than $10 million in illicit proceeds.
Scheme #1 – KVMD
3. The first scheme concerned KVMD, a purported medical-device business. Beginning in approximately June 2016, Giguiere, a stock promoter and KVMD’s undisclosed control person, caused KVMD to issue three million shares of its common stock to one of his associates, who in turn sold two tranches of 1.5 million shares to each of two nominee entities he and Lindsay, the owner and operator of a Cayman Islands-based broker-dealer, controlled.
4. Giguiere deposited one tranche of 1.5 million shares into a U.S. brokerage account he opened in the name of his nominee, and Lindsay deposited the second tranche of 1.5
million shares into an account in the name of his nominee at his Cayman Islands broker-dealer.
5. Between November 29, 2017 and January 26, 2018, Giguiere, Lindsay, and an associate conducted a matched trading scheme in KVMD’s stock, whereby they coordinated
Giguiere’s sales of his 1.5 million shares of KVMD to Lindsay, who was buying those shares in his own brokerage accounts and customer accounts at his Cayman Islands broker-dealer.
6. Unbeknownst to Giguiere and Lindsay, the associate with whom they conducted the scheme was a witness cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), who
was recording their phone calls and preserving their encrypted email and text message communications.
7. By January 26, 2018, as a result of their scheme, Giguiere and Lindsay had netted approximately $1.57 million in proceeds and had increased KVMD’s share price from zero to $1.20.
8. Soon thereafter, Giguiere began promoting KVMD’s stock on TheMoneyStreet.com (“TheMoneyStreet”), a stock promotion website he controlled, in anticipation of his and Lindsay’s sales of their second tranche of 1.5 million shares of KVMD into the buying volume generated by the promotion.
9. Giguiere and Lindsay’s plan to liquidate the second tranche of 1.5 million shares was stymied, however, on March 19, 2018, when the Commission suspended trading in KVMD’s securities for a period of ten business days.

Scheme #2 – ASNT
10. The second fraudulent scheme concerned ASNT, a purported digital media company.
11. In early 2017, Gillespie, ASNT’s chief executive officer, Budhu, a purported adviser to the company, and Hackett, a purported lender to ASNT, began laying the groundwork for a “pump and dump” of ASNT’s stock. [citation omitted]
12. In February 2017, Gillespie caused ASNT to enter into a purported “Advisory Agreement” with Budhu, under which she was paid 200,000 shares of ASNT stock for her
“consulting services.” ASNT issued the stock to Budhu in March 2017, and in August 2017 she sold the shares to Hackett at a significant premium to its then trading price.
13. Gillespie then caused ASNT to issue to Hackett a sham $300,000 convertible promissory note that would allow Hackett to convert the debt into 750,000 shares of ASNT stock. The group planned to have Hackett ultimately sell these 950,000 shares in connection with the pump and dump and then split the proceeds among the group’s members.
14. In October 2017, the group approached the cooperating witness about promoting ASNT’s stock on TheMoneyStreet in connection with their planned pump and dump. Unbeknownst to them, the cooperating witness was recording their phone calls and preserving the encrypted email and text message conversations that they sought to hide from, among others, law enforcement.
15. In December 2017, after he ultimately declined to promote ASNT, the cooperating witness introduced Hackett to an individual claiming to be the ringleader of a network of corrupt stockbrokers who would buy stock that Hackett was selling in the open market in their customers’ accounts—and without their customers’ knowledge—in exchange for a 30% kickback. Unbeknownst to Hackett, the purported ringleader of the corrupt broker network was an undercover FBI agent (“UC”).
16. Hackett agreed, and between December 22, 2017 and January 12, 2018 he sold more than 14,000 shares of ASNT in matched trades with the UC that he coordinated with the
cooperating witness in record ed phone calls and preserved encrypted text messages.

Scheme #3 – ESSI

17. The third fraudulent scheme concerned ESSI, a purported technology company focused on the cannabis industry.
18. Beginning in December 2015, Giguiere, who was acting as the company’s undisclosed control person, arranged for a transfer of control of ESSI to two nominal officers.
19. Giguiere then caused the company to enter into an agreement with one of his nominee entities, under which the nominee entity promoted ESSI’s stock on TheMoneyStreet. In exchange, ESSI paid the nominee entity millions of purportedly free trading shares of ESSI stock that the company issued pursuant to two faulty Form S-8 registration statements.
20. Throughout 2016 and into January 2017, Giguiere liquidated the shares of ESSI stock paid to his nominee entity while he was concurrently promoting ESSI’s stock on
TheMoneyStreet without adequately disclosing to investors his active liquidation of his own shares. As a result of the scheme, Giguiere earned more than $8.5 million in illicit proceeds.
Looking at the sentences I emphasized in the large quoted text above it seems to me like the cooperating witness must be someone who worked for or with Giguiere at TheMoneyStreet.
The second person named in the first indictment, Oliver Lindsay (named as Oliver-Barret Lindsay in the SEC complaint), is described in that complaint as “the principal of CMGT Capital Management (“CMGT”), a Cayman Islands-exempt broker-dealer registered with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.” The Cayman Compass wrote an article about these cases and gives a few more details about Lindsay and CMGT Capital Management. That article also mentions that Lindsay is the “owner of Lindsay Capital Corp. SEZC, an investor relations services firm based in Cayman Enterprise City.”

 

Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above except that I subscribe to Promotion Stock Secrets, which features the writing of ‘nodummy’ and may be owned in part by him. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

SEC Charges Oil Exploration Company Centro Energy (CNTO) and CEO Frederick DaSilva with Lying About the Company’s Prospects and Business Dealings

Yesterday on July 19th, 2018 the SEC announced that it had sued Centor Energy (CNTO) and its CEO Frederick DaSilva “for making materially false and misleading statements to Centor shareholders about Centor’s oil reserves, revenue prospects, and business dealings.” The company its its SEC both settled without admitting or denying the allegations.

SEC litigation release
SEC complaint (pdf)

The penalties seem particularly weak (quote from the litigation release):

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Centor and DaSilva consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining them from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. DaSilva has also agreed to the imposition of penny stock and officer and director bars and to pay disgorgement of $7,500 plus pre-judgment interest of $1,028 and a civil penalty of $22,500. The settlements with Centor and DaSilva are subject to court approval.

I have previously blogged about Centor Energy thrice, when it was first promoted, when it was re-pumped, and when the SEC suspended trading in the stock. The trading suspension was in 2014 and the first promotion was in 2013.

Below are some details from the complaint:

8. Centor is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada in 2011 as “Centor, Inc.,” with a stated principal place of business in Winter Park, Florida. Centor is purportedly engaged in the business of shale oil exploration, drilling and extraction in the east central region of the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan known as the “Pasquia Hills.” The Company changed its name to “Centor Energy, Inc.,” effective January 2014. The Commission suspended trading in Centor securities on February 11, 2014, prior to which Centor was quoted on OTC Bulletin Board and was a penny stock as defined under Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1.
9. Frederick DaSilva, age 55, resides in Alberta, Canada. On February 13, 2013, DaSilva became Centor’s Secretary, Treasurer, and Director. DaSilva became Centor’s CFO at some point in late 2013, and became its President and CEO in March 2014.

30. The December Press Release, the Presentation, and the January 8-K were materially false and misleading. As DaSilva knew or recklessly disregarded, the 1.1 billion
barrels of oil estimate was based on the Reserve Report’s estimate of the Conglomerate’s entire Lease Interests, of which Centor only owned 55%. The true number of barrels of oil Centor could realistically expect to recover (even assuming the accuracy of its own projections) was therefore materially lower than 1.1 billion barrels.
31. The Presentation also falsely stated that Centor had entered into an agreement to purchase the remaining 45% of leasehold interests over the Region from the Conglomerate. As DaSilva knew or reckless disregarded, the Purchase Agreement covered only an additional 11.66% (such that Centor could at most hope to acquire 66.66% of the Lease Interests) and there was no other agreement that covered the remaining interests.
32. Nor did Centor or DaSilva disclose in the December Press Release or in the Presentation that the Reserve Report indicated that the study of the Lease Interests was
incomplete, in that no individual connected to the Reserve Report had conducted a field test or even visited the Lease Interests to test some of its assumptions about geological conditions.
33. Indeed, DaSilva, who had not read the Reserve Report, failed to make any attempt to verify the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions made in the Reserve Report, and accordingly had no good faith basis to make any projections about Centor’s prospects purportedly drawn from the Reserve Report.
34. The Presentation was also misleading because it (a) repeated many of the untested favorable assumptions made in the Reserve Report (such as that the Region had low overburden providing easy access to the oil shale); and (b) contained other false statements such as that the Region was located in an area with “established infrastructure” such as roads and railroads.
35. In fact, as DaSilva knew or recklessly disregarded, the favorable assumptions in the Presentation had not been verified and were untested; the nearest small town to the Region was over 71 miles away; and there was no main road or railroad running to the Region.

And the reason for the small settlement? This tweet makes sense to me — the SEC didn’t have a great case and statute of limitations was about to run out:


Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.

Efuel EFN Corp (EFLN) Shows how not to get OTCMarkets Caveat Emptor designation removed

When OTCMarkets designates a stock as Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware), marked by the skull and crossbones, the stock will tend to drop and brokers and clearing firms may restrict deposits of new shares in that stock or at least do more careful due diligence on people depositing new shares of stock. Interactive Brokers will not let any client open new positions in any stocks marked Caveat Emptor. So Caveat Emptor designation is a big deal.

Here is OTCMarkets’ explanation of its policy on Caveat Emptor:

OTC Markets Group designates certain securities as ‘Caveat Emptor’ and places a skull and crossbones icon next to the stock symbol to inform investors that there may be reason to exercise additional care and perform thorough due diligence before making an investment decision in that security.

The Caveat Emptor Designation may be assigned when OTC Markets becomes aware of one or more of the following:

  • Promotion — The security is the subject of stock promotion that may be misleading or manipulative. Promotional activities may include news releases, spam email, and newsletters, whether they are published by the issuer or a third party. See OTC Markets Group’s Policy on Stock Promotion.
  • Investigation of Fraud or Other Criminal Activities — There is an investigation or other indication of fraudulent or other criminal activity involving the company, its securities or insiders.
  • Suspension/Halt  A regulatory authority or an exchange has halted or suspended trading for public interest concerns (i.e. not a news or earnings halt).
  • Undisclosed Corporate Actions — The security or company is the subject of a corporate action, such as a reverse merger, stock split, or name change, without adequate current information being publicly available.
  • Other Public Interest Concern  OTC Markets Group may determine that there is a public interest concern regarding the security. Such concerns may include but are not limited to promotion, spam or disruptive corporate actions even when adequate current information is available.

When Does Caveat Emptor Get Removed?

Facts and circumstances may differ, however generally, OTC Markets Group will remove the Caveat Emptor designation once the company meets the qualifications for Pink Current Information, has verified the information on its company profile on www.otcmarkets.com, and demonstrates that there is no longer a public interest concern. The Caveat Emptor designation is typically not removed within the first 30 days. During the time it is labeled Caveat Emptor, any stock that is not in Pink Current Information will also have its quotes blocked on www.otcmarkets.com.

 

A June 1st, 2018 petition to terminate its SEC trading suspension (pdf) by Efuel EFN (EFLN) gives some details about the company’s attempt to have its Caveat Emptor designation removed. The statements made by Efuel EFN’s President are rather comical for their bad English. For example:

11. On September 15, 2017 OTC Markets designate Efuel as a Caveat Emptor. All financial statements are true and correct. There were NO perpetrated reports. Efuel is small micro cup company which we represent as true, real, stable, genuine, dedicated and committed. Efuel was using “Research Report” to file more information regarding company activities. Efuel made many attempts to reach upon OTC regarding CE status, to reveal to the company relevant factor for action.

[14.] d. Efuel states no new shares were issued since 2013, which are restricted shares exchanged for acquired property.

The SEC enforcement brief against Efuel’s motion to terminate the trading suspension gives a fair amount of detail (far more than OTCMarkets provides) about why Efuel EFN received Caveat Emptor designation in the first place:

II. OTC Markets Designates Efuel as a Caveat Emptor Issuer
On September 25, 2017, OTC Markets designated Efuel as a “Buyer Beware” or “Caveat Emptor” issuer. (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶11) The designation was due to concerns about Efuel’s public disclosures, financial statements, and purported “Research Reports.” These documents were public as they were filed on OTC Market’s website under Efuel’s listing.  [Note by Michael Goode: Previous sentence was in footnote 2. Included in quote for clarity.] OTC Market’s concerns were based, among other things, on documents Efuel filed on OTC Market’s website, including:

(a) a May 21, 2017 “Research Report” titled “EFUEL CORPORATION HAS BEEN AUDITED BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE;”
(b) a May 5, 2017 “Research Report” titled “Euro-American Finance Network [sic] Inc. and [sic] Stefanovic Family Plan [$160 million] to Invest in Efuel EFN Corporation Projects;” and
(c) multiple balance sheets that did not balance, and did not include “cash” as an “asset.”

(May 21 Enright Aff. ,¶12) On January 2, Efuel sent a letter to OTC Markets, requesting that the Caveat Emptor designation on Efuel be removed. (Efuel Petition, Ex. A)

Efuel EFN then responded to OTCMarkets in an attempt to get Caveat Emptor designation removed:

III. Efuel Files Its 2017 Annual Statement on OTC Markets’ Website
On January 8, 2017, Efuel filed its purported financial statement with OTC Markets, claiming that the company had been audited by Mr. Stefanovic himself, through his firm EuroAmerican Financial Network, Inc. (“Euro-American”). (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶13)

IV. Efuel Sends an Attorney Opinion Letter to OTC Markets
On February 8, Efuel’s attorney, Mark E. Pena, sent a letter to OTC Markets regarding certain prior financial statements. (June 18 Enright Aff. Ex. 0). This letter is referenced in Efuel’s Petition, but is not attached to it as an exhibit. The Division includes it as an exhibit to the June 18 Enright Aff. for completeness of the record. [Note by Michael Goode: Previous sentence was in footnote 3. Included in quote for clarity.] The letter states that Mr. Pena has personally reviewed and discussed the financial statements with Mr. Stefanovic, and that Efuel’s 2017 financial statement complies with “Pink OTC Markets Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information.” Mr. Pena’s letter further states that: (i) the financial statement was internally prepared by the company in accordance with GAAP, with “auditing consultation” provided by Euro-American; (ii)he had the financial statement reviewed by an unidentified “local independent accounting firm specializing in public disclosure;” and (iii) that Efuel’s financial statement reports assets of over $519 million, with liabilities of approximately $3.7 million. The financial statement (which is only four pages) does not provide specific information as to what constitutes the $519 million in assets – only that Efuel supposedly has $15.1 million in “Property: Land, Building” and $500 million in “Land, Minerals, and Gold Deposit.” (June 18 Enright Aff. Ex. E, pg. 9) The financial statement does however, specifically state that it contains “audited results.” (June 18 Enright Aff. Ex. E, pg. 10) Efuel’s Petition (page 2) elaborates slightly by stating “Efuel holds 2905 acre land with 21 gold mining claims with minerals. Efuel is a small micro cup [sic] company which we represent as true, real stable, genuine, dedicated, and committed.” In its Petition, Efuel repeats the representation that it has over $519 million in assets, and only $3.7 million in liabilities. (Efuel Petition, pg. 3)

The SEC then gives OTCMarkets’ response detailing why it was not removing Caveat Emptor designation:

V. OTC Markets Declines to Remove the Caveat Emptor Designation
On February 23, 2018 OTC Markets sent a letter to Efuel stating “[w]e have completed our review of your December 31, 2017 Annual Report and related Attorney Letter and have determined that the information contained in these documents does not comply with OTC Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines, therefore we are unable to remove the caveat emptor flag at this time. (May 21 Enright Aff. ,¶14 (Italics added)) OTC Markets’ letter further states that: “[i]n past reviews we have identified similar deficiencies to you and you continue to submit disclosure that does not resolve these deficiencies.” OTC Markets directed Efuel to submit revised financial reports and disclosure documents, a new attorney letter, and a letter from a U.S.-registered CPA certifying that the company’s financial reports were GAAP-compliant. (Id.) As of March 21, the date of the issuance of the trading suspension, Efuel had not submitted revised filings to OTC Markets in accordance with OTC Markets’ instructions. (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶15)

What can we conclude from this? OTCMarkets’ explanation of when it applies the Caveat Emptor designation and when it removes it is fairly complete at least when it comes to a company’s failures in disclosure. However, this does not provide clarity on the question of stock promotion and when that leads to the Caveat Emptor designation — I have seen some promoted stocks get designated Caveat Emptor and others not.

Trading in Efuel EFN (EFLN) stock was suspended by the SEC on March 21, 2018 (pdf). On May 7th, 2018 the SEC issued an order requesting additional submissions (pdf) stating that Efuel EFN was challenging the trading suspension and asking the company for more information. At the time I write this it appears that the administrative proceeding has not been decided. All relevant documents can be found on the administrative proceeding page for 3-18420.

I believe it unlikely that the SEC will grant Efuel EFN’s petition to remove the trading suspension given that the company is alleged by the SEC to have posted a false PR saying that the company was in compliance with OTCMarkets and the caveat emptor designation would be removed:

VI. Efuel Issues Materially False Press Releases and Twitter Statements
On March 19, 2018, Efuel drafted and disseminated a press release, which purports to be a letter from OTC Markets, and which states in relevant part, “[w]e have completed our review of your December 31, 2017 Annual Report and related Attorney Letter and have determined that the information contained in these documents complies with the OTC Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines, therefore we are able to remove the Caveat Emptor flag at this time.” (Italics added) (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶6) The letter is a doctored version of the real February 23 letter from OTC Markets, which stated that Efuel’s filings “do not comply” with OTC Markets’ OTC Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines, and that OTC Markets was “unable” to remove the Caveat Emptor designation. (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶14) Efuel released the doctored letter via Globe Newswire, and posted it on the company’s Twitter account (@aEfuelEFNCorp). (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶17) As of March 21, the letter remained viewable on Twitter and Yahoo Finance. (Id) As of March 21, 2018, Efuel’s Twitter feed touted the company’s stock, discussed purported stock repurchases in the open market, and described claimed shorting activity in Efuel stock. (May 21 Enright Aff. ¶18)

In Efuel EFN’s petition it also asked the SEC to tell OTCMarkets to remove the Caveat Emptor designation from its stock. This was the SEC’s response:

There is no provision in the Commission’s Rules of Practice for the additional remedies Efuel seeks – namely, an order from the Commission to OTC Markets requiring the removal of the Caveat Emptor designation on Efuel’s common stock that OTC Markets imposed in September 2017.

The Commission is not an arbiter of disputes between issuers and registered broker-dealers or alternative trading systems.

Disclaimer: I have no position in any stock mentioned above. I have no relationship with any parties mentioned above. This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference into this post; you can find all my disclaimers and disclosures there as well.