Update on Eros International v. Short sellers litigation

It has now been eight months since Eros International (EROS) sued a large number of short sellers for defamation after they publicly criticized the company. Anyone can see the court docket and download files for free at the New York County Supreme Court website (the case is 653096/2017). So far a not much has been decided in the case, with the majority of the defendants having responded having filed motions to dismiss and Eros attempting to move to discovery. The plaintiffs and defendants (specifically,  the Mangrove Defendants, the GeoInvesting Defendants, and the ClaritySpring Defendants) wrote to the judge (read the letter) on May 4th, 2018 to argue whether it was proper to move to discovery prior to the judge considering the motion to dismiss. The judge has not yet decided those issues.

A number of subpoenas were served on third parties by Eros’ counsel to attempt to ascertain the identity of John Doe defendants and this has taken up a lot of time. On February 22nd the judge ruled that Eros had until June 1st to properly serve remaining John Doe defendants. See doc 161 (pdf) for ruling.

On February 14th, 2018 the judge granted Eros’ motion for default against Manuel Asensio and Mill Rock Advisors for failing to respond to the complaint. See doc 160 (pdf) for ruling.

A copy of the docket (direct-linking to documents at the court website) is below:

Page:  1 2 3 >> Last
To view details, click on the Doc # link
Doc # Document Type
Information
Status Received Date
Filing User
View
 1 SUMMONS WITH NOTICE 
Summons with Notice
Processed 06/06/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 2 SUMMONS – SUPPLEMENTAL (PRE RJI) 
Supplemental Summons
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 3 COMPLAINT 
Complaint
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 4 EXPARTE ORDER (PROPOSED)  (Motion# 001) 
(Proposed) Ex Parte Order to Extend Time to Serve John Doe Defendants Nos. 1-20
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 5 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP  (Motion# 001) 
Affirmation in Support of Motion to Extend Time to Serve John Doe Defendants Nos. 1-20
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 6 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 001) 
Original Summons with Notice
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 7 EXHIBIT(S)   – B  (Motion# 001) 
Supplemental Summons with Notice
Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 8 RJI -RE: OTHER EX PARTE APPLICATION  (Motion# 001) Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 9 ADDENDUM – COMMERCIAL DIVISION (840C)  (Motion# 001) Processed 09/29/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 10 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 11 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 12 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 13 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 14 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 15 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/03/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 16 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION  (Motion# 001) Processed 10/06/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 17 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/10/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 18 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/10/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 19 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/10/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 20 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and Notice of Comm(..)
Processed 10/10/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 21 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit Of Service Of Notice Of Commencement, Summons With Notice, and Supplemental Summons And Co(..)
Processed 10/11/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 22 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit Of Service Of Notice Of Commencement, Summons With Notice, and Supplemental Summons And Co(..)
Processed 10/11/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 23 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of Notice of Commencement of Action Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing, Sum(..)
Processed 10/13/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 24 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavit of Service of Notice of Commencement of Action Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing, Sum(..)
Processed 10/13/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 25 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Supplemental Affidavit of Service of the Supplemental Summons, Summons with Notice, Complaint, and N(..)
Processed 10/13/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 26 STIPULATION – OTHER – ( REQUEST TO SO ORDER ) 
Stipulation Extending the Time to Respond to the Complaint
Processed 10/23/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 27 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (POST RJI) 
Patrick L. Rocco for ClaritySpring, Inc., ClaritySpring Securities LLC and Nathan Z. Anderson
Processed 10/27/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 28 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (POST RJI) 
Susan M. Davies for Defendants ClaritySpring, Inc., ClaritySpring Securities LLC and Nathan Z. Ander(..)
Processed 10/27/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 29 STIPULATION – SO ORDERED Processed 10/30/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 30 STIPULATION – OTHER – ( REQUEST TO SO ORDER ) 
Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Complaint
Processed 10/30/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 31 STIPULATION – SO ORDERED Processed 11/06/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 32 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 002) 
For pro hac vice admission of Stephen Ryan, Jr.
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 33 Deleted
 34 AFFIRMATION 
Affirmation of Susan M. Davies
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 35 STIPULATION – OTHER 
Stipulation to Admission Pro Hac Vice
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 36 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 002) 
Affidavit of Stephen Ryan, Jr.
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 37 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 002) 
Affirmation of Susan M. Davies
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 38 STIPULATION – OTHER  (Motion# 002) 
Stipulation to Pro Hac Vice Admission
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 39 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 003) 
Proposed Order to Show Cause for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Bryan A. Wood
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 40 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 003) 
Affidavit of Bryan A. Wood
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 41 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 003) 
Affirmation of Susan M. Davies
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 42 STIPULATION – OTHER  (Motion# 003) 
Stipulation to Pro Hac Vice Admission
Processed 11/16/2017
Davies, S.
Confirmation Notice
 43 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
Affidavits of Service re: ClaritySpring Securities LLC
Processed 11/17/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 44 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION  (Motion# 002) Processed 11/27/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 45 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION  (Motion# 003) Processed 11/27/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 46 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE 
Letter requesting page limit enlargement
Processed 11/28/2017
Wise, T.
Confirmation Notice
 47 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 005) Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 48 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 005) Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 49 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP  (Motion# 005) 
Affirmation of Jessica A. Fitts in Support of Defendants Mangrove Partners’ and Nathaniel H. August'(..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 50 EXHIBIT(S)   – 1  (Motion# 005) 
October 30, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 51 EXHIBIT(S)   – 2  (Motion# 005) 
November 10, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 52 EXHIBIT(S)   – 3  (Motion# 005) 
November 13, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 53 EXHIBIT(S)   – 4  (Motion# 005) 
November 20, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 54 EXHIBIT(S)   – 5  (Motion# 005) 
October 23, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 55 EXHIBIT(S)   – 6  (Motion# 005) 
October 26, 2015 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 56 EXHIBIT(S)   – 7  (Motion# 005) 
October 23, 2015 article
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 57 EXHIBIT(S)   – 8  (Motion# 005) 
“Alpha Exposure” tweets through September 29, 2017
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 58 EXHIBIT(S)   – 9  (Motion# 005) 
August 14, 2017 report
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 59 EXHIBIT(S)   – 10  (Motion# 005) 
Complaint
Processed 11/30/2017
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 60 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 004) 
Proposed Order to Show Cause to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1),(7)
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 61 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP  (Motion# 004) 
Affirmation of Michael de Leeuw In Support Of Order To Show Cause To Dismiss The Complaint Pursuant (..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 62 EXHIBIT(S)   – 1  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 1 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 63 EXHIBIT(S)   – 2  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 2 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 64 EXHIBIT(S)   – 3  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 3 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 65 EXHIBIT(S)   – 4  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 4 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 66 EXHIBIT(S)   – 5  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 5 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 67 EXHIBIT(S)   – 6  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 6 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 68 EXHIBIT(S)   – 7  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 7 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 69 EXHIBIT(S)   – 8  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 8 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 70 EXHIBIT(S)   – 9  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 9 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 71 EXHIBIT(S)   – 10  (Motion# 004) 
Exhibit 10 to de Leeuw Affirmation
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 72 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 004) 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Order to Show Cause to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a(..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 73 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 006) 
for Dismissal of All Causes of Action Against ClaritySprings, Inc., ClaritySprings Securities LLC an(..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 74 AFFIRMATION  (Motion# 006) 
Affirmation of Susan M. Davies re Briefing Schedule
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 75 EXHIBIT(S)   – 1  (Motion# 006) 
Davies Exhibit 1 (Order Entered 11/6/2017 NYSCEF 31)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice

Page: 1 2 3 >> Last

Page:  << 1 2 3 >> Last
To view details, click on the Doc # link
Doc # Document Type
Information
Status Received Date
Filing User
View
 76 EXHIBIT(S)   – 2  (Motion# 006) 
Davies Exhibit 2 (Order Entered 10/30/2017 NYSCEF 29)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 77 AFFIDAVIT  (Motion# 006) 
Affidavit of Stephen Ryan, Jr.
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 78 EXHIBIT(S)   – 1  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 1 (ClaritySpring Inc. Twitter Page)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 79 EXHIBIT(S)   – 2  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 2 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 3/9/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 80 EXHIBIT(S)   – 3  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 3 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 3/17/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 81 EXHIBIT(S)   – 3A  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 3A (ValueWalk Article “GeoInvesting Now Says Eros Facing ‘Very Real Liquidity Crisis'”)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 82 EXHIBIT(S)   – 4  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 4 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 3/31/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 83 EXHIBIT(S)   – 4A  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 4A (“Quoth the Raven” Tweet)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 84 EXHIBIT(S)   – 5  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 5 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 6/26/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 85 EXHIBIT(S)   – 6  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 6 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 7/21/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 86 EXHIBIT(S)   – 7  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 7 (ClaritySpring Inc. Tweet 7/27/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 87 EXHIBIT(S)   – 8  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 8 (Hindenburg Research Article “Eros Earning Review: An Abundance of Red Flags”
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 88 EXHIBIT(S)   – 9  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 9 (Hindenburg Research Article “Eros’s Latest Buyout Rumors Seem Suspect”
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 89 EXHIBIT(S)   – 10  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 10 (Hindenburg Research Article “Eros International: New Receivables Accounting Red Fl(..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 90 EXHIBIT(S)   – 11  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 11 (Hindenburg Research Tweets 8/1/2017)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 91 EXHIBIT(S)   – 12  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 12 (Hindenburg Research Tweet 8/4/2017 at 10:32 am)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 92 EXHIBIT(S)   – 12A  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 12A (Article “Film Artists Working Abroad Shown as Exports to Evade Tax: CAG”)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 93 EXHIBIT(S)   – 13  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 13 (Hindenburg Research Tweet 8/4/2017 at 10:18 am)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 94 EXHIBIT(S)   – 13A  (Motion# 006) 
Ryan Exhibit 13A (Document from Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 95 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 006) 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion To Dismiss All Causes of Action Against ClaritySpring Inc., C(..)
Processed 11/30/2017
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 004) Processed 12/01/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 97 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 005) Processed 12/01/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 98 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 007) 
(Proposed)Order To Show Cause
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 99 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT  (Motion# 007) 
Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgments Against Defendants Manuel P.(..)
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 100 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP  (Motion# 007) 
Affirmation Of Michael J. Bowe In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgments Against Defenda(..)
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 101 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 007) 
Asensio Nail and Mail Affidavit of Service
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 102 EXHIBIT(S)   – B  (Motion# 007) 
Asensio Doorman Affidavit of Service
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 103 EXHIBIT(S)   – C  (Motion# 007) 
Asensio & Co SOS Affidavit of Service
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 104 EXHIBIT(S)   – D  (Motion# 007) 
Mill Rock SOS Affidavit of Service
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 105 EXHIBIT(S)   – E  (Motion# 007) 
CPLR_3215(g) Aff.
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 106 EXHIBIT(S)   – F  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.20 Asensio Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 107 EXHIBIT(S)   – G  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.22 Tountas Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 108 EXHIBIT(S)   – H  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.22 Asensio Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 109 EXHIBIT(S)   – I  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.24 Bowe Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 110 EXHIBIT(S)   – J  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.24 Tountas Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 111 EXHIBIT(S)   – K  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.25 Asensio Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 112 EXHIBIT(S)   – L  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.28 Asensio Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 113 EXHIBIT(S)   – M  (Motion# 007) 
2017.11.29 Cantor Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 114 EXHIBIT(S)   – N  (Motion# 007) 
2017.10.20 Sorkin Email
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 115 EXHIBIT(S)   – O  (Motion# 007) 
2017.10.05 Alpha Exposure Tweets
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 116 EXHIBIT(S)   – P  (Motion# 007) 
2017.10.05 Asensio Tweet
Processed 12/01/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 117 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (POST RJI) Processed 12/03/2017
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 118 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 007) 
Affidavit in Opposition to Proposed OSC
Processed 12/03/2017
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 119 EXHIBIT(S)   – 1  (Motion# 007) 
November 20, 2017 email
Processed 12/03/2017
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 120 EXHIBIT(S)   – 2  (Motion# 007) 
June 12, 2016 Letter
Processed 12/03/2017
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 121 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 006) Processed 12/04/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 122 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 007) Processed 12/06/2017
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 123 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE  (Motion# 007) Processed 12/08/2017
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 124 STIPULATION – ADJOURNMENT OF MOTION – BEFORE JUDGE  (Motion# 007) Processed 01/12/2018
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 125 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE 
Letter to Justice Bransten requesting leave to file an omnibus opposition that does not exceed 60 pa(..)
Processed 01/16/2018
Tountas, S.
Confirmation Notice
 126 LETTER/CORRESPONDENCE – SO ORDERED Processed 01/17/2018
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 127 STIPULATION – ADJOURNMENT OF MOTION -IN SUBMISSIONS PART -RM 130  (Motion# 007) Processed 01/22/2018
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 128 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION  (Motion# 005) 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to The Mangrove Defendants’ Order to Show Cause
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 129 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 005) 
Affirmation of Michael J. Bowe in Opposition to The Mangrove Defendants’ Order to Show Cause
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 130 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 005) 
Bloomberg News Feed
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 131 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION  (Motion# 004) 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to The GeoInvesting Defendants’ Order to Show Cause
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 132 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 004) 
Affirmation of Michael J. Bowe in Opposition to The GeoInvesting Defendants’ Order to Show Cause
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 133 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 004) 
Letter from Tountas to Anderson
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 134 EXHIBIT(S)   – B  (Motion# 004) 
Bloomberg News Feed
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 135 EXHIBIT(S)   – C  (Motion# 004) 
GeoInvesting Mar. 8, 2017 Article
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 136 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION  (Motion# 006) 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to The ClaritySpring Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the C(..)
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 137 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 006) 
Affirmation of Michael J. Bowe in Opposition to The Clarity Spring Defendants’ Order to Show Cause
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 138 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 006) 
Letter from Tountas to Anderson
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 139 EXHIBIT(S)   – B  (Motion# 006) 
Hindenburg SA Profile
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 140 EXHIBIT(S)   – C  (Motion# 006) 
Bloomberg News Feed
Processed 01/23/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 141 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Processed 02/01/2018
Tountas, S.
Confirmation Notice
 142 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )  (Motion# 008) 
Plaintiff Eros International PLC’s Order to Show Cause to Extend Time
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 143 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP  (Motion# 008) 
Affirmation In Support Of Eros Second Motion To Extend Time To Serve John Doe Defendants Nos. 1-5 & (..)
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 144 EXHIBIT(S)   – A  (Motion# 008) 
Summons with Notice
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 145 EXHIBIT(S)   – B  (Motion# 008) 
Supplemental Summons
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 146 EXHIBIT(S)   – C  (Motion# 008) 
Decision and Order
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 147 EXHIBIT(S)   – D  (Motion# 008) 
Part 1
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 148 EXHIBIT(S)   – D  (Motion# 008) 
Part 2
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 149 EXHIBIT(S)   – E  (Motion# 008) 
StockTwits Subpoena Duces Tecum
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 150 EXHIBIT(S)   – F  (Motion# 008) 
Scribd Subpoena Duces Tecum
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice

Page: << 1 2 3 >> Last

Sort By:  Page:  << 1 2 3
To view details, click on the Doc # link
Doc # Document Type
Information
Status Received Date
Filing User
View
 151 EXHIBIT(S)   – G  (Motion# 008) 
Twitter Subpoena
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 152 EXHIBIT(S)   – H  (Motion# 008) 
LinkedIn Subpoena
Processed 02/01/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 153 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  (Motion# 008) Processed 02/05/2018
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 154 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY  (Motion# 006) Processed 02/07/2018
Rocco, P.
Confirmation Notice
 155 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY  (Motion# 004) 
Reply In Further Support of Order to Show Cause By Defendants GeoInvesting, LLC, Christopher Irons, (..)
Processed 02/07/2018
Deleeuw, M.
Confirmation Notice
 156 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY  (Motion# 005) 
Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants Mangrove Partners’ and Nathaniel H. August'(..)
Processed 02/07/2018
Asaro, M.
Confirmation Notice
 157 STIPULATION – ADJOURNMENT OF MOTION – BEFORE JUDGE  (Motion# 007) Processed 02/14/2018
Cantor, M.
Confirmation Notice
 158 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE  (Motion# 005) 
Letter to the Honorable Eileen Bransten from Joseph L. Sorkin dated 2/15/2018
Processed 02/15/2018
Sorkin, J.
Confirmation Notice
 159 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE 
Letter to Justice Bransten, dated February 16, 2018, from Michael J. Bowe, in response to Defendant(..)
Processed 02/16/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice
 160 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION  (Motion# 007) Processed 02/26/2018
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 161 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION  (Motion# 008) Processed 02/26/2018
Court User
Confirmation Notice
 162 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE 
Joint Letter to Justice Bransten dated May 4, 2018 requesting Preliminary Conference
Processed 05/04/2018
Bowe, M.
Confirmation Notice

 

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.

Penny Stock attorney Diane Dalmy sentenced to 3 years in prison

Yesterday attorney Diane Dalmy was sentenced to three years in prison for her work on behalf of penny stock companies and insiders.

From the DoJ press release:

According to court documents and statements made in court, DALMY, an attorney, performed securities-related legal work on behalf of several public companies, including Mammoth Energy Group, Inc., a company that later became known as Strategic Asset Leasing Inc.; and Fox Petroleum, Inc. (the “Subject Companies”).  Between approximately January 2009 and July 2016, DALMY conspired with others, including William Lieberman, of Boca Raton, Florida, and Christian Meissenn, of Suffield, Connecticut, to defraud investors through a stock “pump and dump” scheme.  During the course of the conspiracy, DALMY acted largely at Lieberman’s direction.

Finally, between February 2015 and July 2016, DALMY laundered a portion of the proceeds of the scheme on behalf of the co-conspirators.  DALMY helped Lieberman to incorporate and open bank accounts for a private company, Queen Asia Pacific Ltd. (“Queen Asia”), which was controlled by Lieberman.  These bank accounts were used to receive proceeds of the scheme from a brokerage account in Queen Asia’s name. DALMY periodically received money in Queen Asia’s bank accounts, transferred those funds to her IOLTA, and then transferred the funds again to Lieberman, Meissenn, and their network of stock promoters.  In total, DALMY laundered approximately $825,000 on behalf of the co-conspirators through Queen Asia’s bank accounts and her IOLTA.

Dalmy has been prohibited from representing companies trading on OTCMarkets since September 2009:

Compared to how much money she made, Dalmy is being fined a lot:

DALMY’s total gain from her participation in this conspiracy, and related legal work for the Subject Companies, was approximately $30,000.

Judge Meyer ordered DALMY to pay $2 million in restitution.

On February 6, 2018, DALMY pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy.

The lesson we can learn from this: don’t commit serious crimes for small amounts of money, especially if you are an attorney.

Dalmy has less than one more month of freedom. She has been ordered to report to prison on June 14, 2018.

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.

USA v. Delaney Equity Group LLC

I just saw that Delaney Equity Group LLC (a small broker and OTC market maker) has been criminally charged in an ongoing ‘shell factory’ investigation. See the Palm Beach Post story. Below I have downloaded the court docket and linked all the documents currently available. I intend to post updates to this occasionally (at least for important filings). Read the complaint. The SEC had filed civil charges against Delaney back in 2015.

Excerpt from the complaint:

7. DELANEY EQUITY GROUP LLC, lndividual A, and Ian C. Kass would prepare Forms 211 on behalf of the issuers and submit them to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) so that shares of the issuers could be quoted and traded over-the-counter. These forms falsely and fraudulently represented that the companies were executing their business plans and were operating under the direction of the straw CEO.

The allegations go on, but the fact that the forms 211 are mentioned is a big deal for OTC Markets in my opinion– this could scare off market makers from filing these forms for any sketchy company in the future.

U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cr-20336-CMA All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Delaney Equity Group LLC Date Filed: 04/26/2018

Assigned to: Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
Defendant (1)
Delaney Equity Group LLC represented by Ryan Dwight O’Quinn 
DLA Piper LLP (US)
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
305-423-8553
Fax: 305-675-0807
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDElan Abraham Gershoni 
DLA Piper LLP (US)
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
305.423.8500
Fax: 305.675.0527
Email: [email protected]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pending Counts Disposition
18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY SELL UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
(1)
Highest Offense Level (Opening)
Felony
Terminated Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None
Complaints Disposition
None

Plaintiff
USA represented by Jerrob Duffy 
United States Attorney’s Office
99 N.E. Fourth Street
4th Floor
Miami, FL 33132
305-961-9273
Fax: 305-536-5321
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/26/2018 1 INFORMATION as to Delaney Equity Group LLC (1) count 1 and FORFEITURE COUNT. (wc) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
04/26/2018 2 NOTICE of Similar Action by USA as to Delaney Equity Group LLC (Duffy, Jerrob) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
04/26/2018 3 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Ryan Dwight O’Quinn appearing for Delaney Equity Group LLC . Attorney Ryan Dwight O’Quinn added to party Delaney Equity Group LLC(pty:dft). (O’Quinn, Ryan) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
04/26/2018 4 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Elan Abraham Gershoni appearing for Delaney Equity Group LLC . Attorney Elan Abraham Gershoni added to party Delaney Equity Group LLC(pty:dft). (Gershoni, Elan) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

 

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.

SEC fines Aegis Capital Corporation after it admits to failing to file SARs

On March 28, 2018 the SEC announced in a press release that Aegis Capital Corporation (a broker and investment bank) had settled with the SEC following accusations of failing to file suspicious activity reports (SARs) that brokers are required to file.

From the press release:

Broker-dealers are required to file SARs for certain transactions suspected to involve fraudulent activity or have no business or apparent lawful purpose.  The SEC’s order found that Aegis failed to file SARs on suspicious transactions that raised red flags indicating the transactions were potentially related to the market manipulation of low-priced securities.

“Aegis failed to meet its AML obligations to report suspicious activity, including when it was faced with specific information alerting the firm to suspicious transactions,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director and head of the Broker-Dealer Task Force of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.  “Given the critical importance of SARs to the regulatory and law enforcement community, brokerage firms must comply with their SAR reporting obligations.”

The SEC’s order found that Aegis willfully violated an SEC financial recordkeeping and reporting rule.  Aegis agreed to pay a $750,000 penalty and retain a compliance expert.  FINRA also announced a settlement with Aegis today that includes an additional $550,000 penalty. 

In addition to the fines against the company, two Aegis employees settled with the SEC and agreed to fines and a third is defending himself against the SEC’s charges:

In a separate settled order, Aegis’ former anti-money laundering (AML) compliance officer Kevin McKenna was found to have aided and abetted the firm’s violations.  Aegis CEO Robert Eide was found to have caused them.  Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Eide and McKenna agreed to pay penalties of $40,000 and $20,000, respectively.  McKenna also agreed to a prohibition from serving in a compliance or AML capacity in the securities industry with a right to reapply.     

In a litigated order, the Enforcement Division alleges that another former Aegis AML compliance officer, Eugene Terracciano, failed to file SARs on behalf of Aegis.  Terracciano is alleged to have aided and abetted and caused Aegis’ violations.  The matter pertaining to Terracciano will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge, who will prepare an initial decision stating whether the Enforcement Division has proven the allegations in the order and what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate. 

 

SEC Press Release
FINRA Press Release
SEC Order on Aegis Capital (PDF)
SEC Order on Kevin McKenna and Robert Eide (PDF)
SEC Order on Eugene Terracciano (PDF)

 

The SEC orders have lots of great details, some of which I have excerpted below. While firms and clients and stocks are not named, I was able to determine two of the stocks given as examples in the orders (Issuers A and F).

First, some details about Aegis’ business from the SEC order on Aegis (emphasis mine):

RESPONDENT
Aegis is a dually-registered investment adviser and broker-dealer with multiple branches and is headquartered in New York, NY. For its fiscal year 2014, Aegis had revenues of approximately $123 million and, for its fiscal year 2015, revenues of approximately $98 million. During those fiscal years, Aegis had revenues of approximately $250,000 and $270,000 from its low-priced securities business. Aegis’ business consists of investment banking, venture capital,
and debt market services as well as full-service retail and institutional advisory and brokerage services. Aegis’ CEO is also the firm’s founder and 100% owner.

FACTS
A. Aegis’ Low Priced Securities Business
1. During the relevant period, Aegis had various brokerage customers who transacted in low-priced securities. Several of these customers did so through DVP/RVP accounts. In
DVP/RVP accounts held at Aegis, the customer deposited their shares at another firm in a custodial account, and the sale transactions were effected through Aegis. During the
relevant period, Aegis had relationships with various clearing firms that assisted in effecting low-priced securities transactions.

2. Aegis had customers at their branch offices who transacted in low-priced securities.
Several of these customers were foreign financial institutions that effected transactions on
behalf of their underlying customers, all of whom were unknown to Aegis.

So Aegis penny stock business was very small relative to the size of its business overall and it appears that much of the low-priced securities (penny stock) business was with foreign financial firms. One such client (“customer A”) is described as well as its trading in “Issuer A” (quote from the Order on Aegis; emphasis mine):

Illustrative Examples of Transactions in which Aegis Failed to File SARs
i. Customer A
23. Between October 17 and December 27, 2012, an Aegis customer – Customer A – sold approximately 2.1 million shares of Issuer A, which traded on OTC Link (previously
“Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (“OTC Link”). Customer A held a DVP/RVP account at Aegis and is a private Swiss bank that traded significant volumes of low-priced securities through an omnibus arrangement with Aegis on behalf of the Swiss bank’s underlying clients who were unknown to Aegis.

24. At the same time Customer A was selling shares of Issuer A, a stock promotion touting the company’s prospects was underway. Coinciding with the promotional campaign,
Issuer A’s share price fluctuated from a low of $0.51 to a high of $0.93 on average daily volume of 558,792 shares. In the two months prior to October 17, 2012, no shares of
Issuer A traded at all. Thus, Customer A’s trading in Issuer A occurred during a period of a sudden spike in price and volume – which were specific AML red flags identified in
Aegis’ written supervisory procedures.

25. Prior to Customer A’s trading in Issuer A, Issuer A had undergone several name changes – again a specific AML red flag identified in Aegis’ written supervisory procedures. Moreover, contrary to the rosy picture of Issuer A painted by the above described promotional campaign, Issuer A’s Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2012 reported that Issuer A had no revenues, a net loss of $143,345, and a “going concern” statement from its management.

 

After doing a search on Edgar Pro I discovered that the only company with a net loss of $143,345 in that quarter was Graphite Corp (GRPH at the time) that was a pump and dump at the time (and multiple times since). Therefore Graphite Corp is Issuer A. Here is a screenshot of the results of my search:

And a screenshot of the 10-Q in question:

 

 

Another stock traded by Customer A was also a purported graphite company undergoing a pump and dump campaign (Issuer B). From the order on Aegis:

In addition to the suspicious trading noted above, there were other indicia that Issuer B likely was the subject of market manipulation. For example, Issuer B reported in 2013 that it was a world-class graphite company, yet two years earlier it had been a Malaysian publishing company that operated under a different name. Recent changes in an issuer’s name and business was one of the specific AML red flags identified in Aegis’ written supervisory procedures.

“Customer B” is also interesting:

37. Customer B is a British Virgin Islands company based in China that offers consulting and advisory services.
38. In an approximately one month period beginning in April 2013, Customer B sold approximately 200,000 shares of Issuer C through Aegis for proceeds of $2.3 million, or
over $10 per share. Issuer C was listed on NASDAQ.

“Customer D” was yet another foreign company:

55. Another Aegis customer – Customer D – engaged in suspicious low-priced securities transactions for which Aegis did not file a SAR. Customer D was a foreign financial
institution with a DVP/RVP account at the firm and traded on behalf of underlying customers who were unknown to Aegis.
56. Over an approximately six-month period beginning in late May 2013, Customer D sold approximately 457,000 shares of Issuer F for proceeds of approximately $2.8 million. Issuer F traded on OTC Link. Just prior to the trading – and coinciding with a promotional campaign – Issuer F’s share price climbed from $3.90 to $9.39 on
substantially increased volume.
57. Customer D was not the only Aegis customer who traded suspiciously in Issuer F. Starting approximately two months before Customer D’s trading, Customers A and E sold a substantial amount of Issuer F shares for substantial proceeds. Customer E was yet another foreign financial institution with a DVP/RVP account at the firm and traded on behalf of underlying customers who were unknown to Aegis; it was incorporated in New Zealand and operated from Switzerland

Based solely on the description of the stock price and volume, I believe that “Issuer F” is Octagon Resources (OCTX), about which I wrote a blog post. In addition to “Customer D” selling shares of “Issuer F”, “Customer A” and “Customer E” also sold many shares:

Starting approximately two months before Customer D’s trading, Customers A and E sold a substantial amount of Issuer F shares for substantial proceeds. Customer E was yet another foreign financial institution with a DVP/RVP  account at the firm and traded on behalf of underlying customers who were unknown to Aegis; it was incorporated in New Zealand and operated from Switzerland.
58. In particular, Customer A sold approximately 638,000 shares of Issuer F for proceeds of approximately $3.7 million while Customer E sold approximately 494,000 shares of Issuer F for proceeds of approximately $3.3 million. Thus, together Customers A and E sold over one million shares of Issuer F for proceeds of approximately $7 million.

 

I am late to reporting this and I apologize for that (I did previously tweet about it on the day it was announced).

 

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.

FINRA reaches decision against penny stock broker Wilson-Davis & Co

While searching for another FINRA decision I came across an extended hearing panel decision from February 27, 2018 by FINRA that lays out in detail many things that penny stock traders have guessed or suspected about broker and market maker Wilson-Davis Co and Anthony Kerrigone. That FINRA decision is against Wilson-Davis & Co, James C. Snow (President and Chief Compliance Officer), and Byron B. Barkley (Head of Trading). Do note that this decision has been appealed to the FINRA appeals panel. Until the appeal is resolved the suspensions will not take effect and the fines will not have to be paid. It is possible that the respondents will win the appeal and face lesser sanctions or no sanctions.

I previously wrote about Wilson-Davis and Kerrigone a little over a year ago when the SEC fined Wilson-Davis for Reg SHO violations.

The penalties are (all quotes in this post are from the decision):

Respondent Wilson-Davis & Co. is fined $1,170,000 and ordered to disgorge $51,624 for improper short sales. For its failure to supervise and implement adequate AML procedures, Wilson-Davis is fined an additional 300,000,
while Respondents James Snow and Byron Barkley are fined $140,000 and $115,000, respectively, and both are suspended for one year and ordered to requalify before re-entering the industry.

The really interesting things in the decision all concern Anthony Kerrigone:

Wilson-Davis hired registered representative Anthony Kerrigone (“Kerrigone”) as a trader in September of 2008. Although Kerrigone maintained a small number of retail customers, his primary business was trading in one of the Firm’s proprietary accounts as a market maker in various securities. Kerrigone’s “niche” as a market maker was the markets of penny stock companies that traded in high volume following promotional or touting campaigns. Kerrigone researched stocks to find those that were experiencing a run up in price because “they were being promoted and touted,” even though the securities were “generally worthless” and “had zippo, no value.” Because the promoters “managed to figure out how they’d get a lot of people to buy” these “worthless” stocks, they presented a “trading opportunity” for Kerrigone.

Once Kerrigone identified a suitable “trading opportunity,” his activity in the security followed a consistent pattern. Kerrigone entered the market of an actively promoted stock by first selling the security short, on the assumption that once the market impact of promotional activity dissipated the stock would lose value. Although Kerrigone typically posted both “bid” and “ask” quotes as a market maker when he was first active in a stock, during this early period his “bid” quotes were generally not competitive with other market quotes, minimizing the possibility that he would actually purchase any significant quantities of the stock from the market as he shorted.

Later, as the effect of the promotional activity dissipated and value of the stock began to fall, Kerrigone moved his “bid” to a competitive level and executed market purchases of the stock sufficient to cover his short positions. During this latter stage, his “ask” quotes were typically away from the “inside” and not competitive with other market quotes, minimizing the possibility that he would sell additional stock and increase his diminishing short position. After fully covering his short position, he exited the market of the security. His trading in each security was brief, typically only a few trading days. By starting out as a net seller of the promoted stocks, accumulating his short position, and then buying to cover the stock he shorted, Kerrigone effectively piggy-backed the trajectory of potential “pump and dump” schemes to sell stock to the public while it was artificially inflated.

Kerrigone and his superiors at Wilson-Davis knew that Regulation SHO generally required a seller to borrow a security before selling the security short. But the Firm made no effort to do so before Kerrigone’s short selling. Instead, the Firm assumed that its trading fell within an exemption to the borrow requirement provided to Firms who engage in “bona-fide market making.” Kerrigone’s strategy was lucrative for both himself and Wilson-Davis. Kerrigone, who worked on a commission based on his trading profits, made in excess of $15 million between 2011 and 2013. During this time the Firm similarly made “tens of millions of dollars in profit.” The strategy is illustrated by Kerrigone’s trading in four penny stocks—Preventia, Inc. (“PVTA”), PM&E, Inc. (PMEA”), China Teletech Holdings (“CNCT”), and Lot 78, Inc. (“LOTE”).

My previous blog post about the SEC fine against Wilson-Davis for Reg SHO violations covers most of what FINRA alleges in this decision. More interesting is the description of the short squeeze in LOTE (Lot 78 Inc).

The decision describes Kerrigone’s trading in LOTE:

Like the other companies, Lot 78 was a penny stock whose market saw little or no activity before Kerrigone decided to trade the stock. Kerrigone began trading in LOTE on April 24, 2013. Unlike the other stocks, Kerrigone’s trading did not start immediately after promotional activity—instead, the promotion began on March 10, 2013, more than a month before Wilson-Davis entered the market. Kerrigone’s trading varied slightly from his typical pattern. He briefly accumulated a long position by purchasing LOTE stock at the market open on April 24, before changing direction less than an hour later placing a sale transaction of more than 1.1 million shares, resulting in a net short position of approximately 476,000 shares.

Similar to the other stocks, Wilson-Davis did not borrow the securities it sold short. Kerrigone continued to increase his short position to approximately 1 million shares by the end of the trading day.95 Kerrigone’s last purchase of the day was at a price of $2.45 per share. The next day, Kerrigone began purchasing stock to cover his short position, but found that unlike the price trajectory of the other stocks, the price of LOTE continued to increase.

After a single purchase of 256,878 shares at $3.34 per share, Kerrigone stopped making substantial efforts to cover and traded in only small volumes of LOTE as the stock price continued to rise throughout the day. Kerrigone’s last trade of the day was at $4.05 per share. Despite the fact that Kerrigone’s net short position decreased by approximately 250,000 shares as a result of his purchase, the value of his outstanding LOTE short position increased from approximately $2.4 million to $2.9 million as a result of the rising price of the stock.

On the third day after Kerrigone entered the market, the price of LOTE continued to rise. That morning, Kerrigone purchased another 199,132 shares to reduce his short position to approximately 544,576 shares, this time at a price of $4.81 per share. Kerrigone again traded only small volumes of the stock, with his last trade of the day at $6.05 per share. Despite the fact that his short position was again reduced, the increased share price meant that the value of the outstanding position that Kerrigone still needed to cover had increased to over $3.2 million.

Despite the rising price of LOTE, Firm policy required Kerrigone to cover his short position quickly. Kerrigone finally covered his net short position on the fourth trading day. He did so by executing a purchase of 545,388 shares at a price of $7.89 per share. After that fourth day, Kerrigone never traded in LOTE again. In total, Kerrigone executed at least 102 trades in LOTE during his trading, including 51 short sales.109 Because LOTE’s stock price did not follow Kerrigone’s anticipated trajectory and he had to purchase his covering shares at prices substantially higher than where he shorted, his trading in the stock resulted in a loss to WilsonDavis of more than $4.2 million.

Shortly thereafter, Wilson-Davis required Kerrigone to reimburse the Firm for its LOTE losses, and asked him to leave the Firm.

Kerrigone’s posted market maker quotations for LOTE during the period of his trading were once again more consistent with his effort to execute his trading strategy than actually providing general liquidity to the market as a market maker. During the early part of the trading when Kerrigone was accumulating his short position, Wilson-Davis’ posted bid was significantly away from the inside bid (82 percent of the time), ensuring that his bid would usually not result in market purchases. Indeed, even when Kerrigone purchased a large quantity of stock before building his short position, he did so by initiating transactions with other brokers at prices higher than Wilson-Davis’ own quoted bid price.

Later, when Kerrigone was attempting to cover, he ensured that Wilson-Davis’ posted sell quotes would not increase his short position by moving those posted quotes to levels significantly away from the inside ask (approximately 55 percent of the time). Moreover, during this later period, Wilson-Davis’ posted bid quotes were also almost always significantly away from the inside bid (approximately 92 percent of the time), as Kerrigone sought to avoid buying as well in light of the increasing price of LOTE stock, providing little liquidity to the market in either direction.

This provides clarity about a short squeeze that traders at the time saw happen in real time. As the decision states, “He briefly accumulated a long position by purchasing LOTE stock at the market open on April 24, before changing direction less than an hour later placing a sale transaction of more than 1.1 million shares, resulting in a net short position of approximately 476,000 shares.” As I remember it (I was trading the stock at the time although in very small size), the full size of that sell order was shown to the market. After the price of the stock declined in reaction to the large sell order, the order was filled completely and the stock quickly bounced. The trading and short squeeze in LOTE was first reported by Promotion Stock Secrets.

According to FINRA Brokercheck, Anthony Kerrigone is no longer employed by BMA Securities; his last day there was reportedly April 9, 2017. He is not currently registered as a broker.

Disclaimer. No position in any stock mentioned and I have no relationship with anyone mentioned in this post except that I am a subscriber to Promotion Stock Secrets and have been for a few years. 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.

UMF Group (UMFG) Pump and dump appears over

I apologize to my dear readers: I have not had much time for blogging recently. Unfortunately that has led to me failing to blog about several interesting stock promotions and a couple stories that are very interesting and inflammatory that require a lot of work. One recent pump and dump that did surprisingly well is UMF Group (UMFG).

As you can see from the chart there were two separate pump phases of UMFG. The first pump was accompanied by emails and a landing page at http://dailystocktraders.com/UMFG2/ (that page has since been removed). Thanks to Tim Lento for blogging about the pump and capturing an image of the first pump page (click below to enlarge). Make sure to follow Tim’s blog. The second phase of the promotion (after the landing page was removed and unaccompanied by any emails that I received) was in January and impressively resulted in the stock breaking out to new highs before crashing again. Perhaps UMFG was promoted by a boiler room in January?

As is common with promoted stocks that slowly uptick for many days in a row, I see a very strong probability (>95%) that the stock was manipulated and I could even describe how.

Disclosed budget: not mentioned
Promoter:  DailyStockTraders.com
Paying party: not mentioned
Shares outstanding: 121,221,878
Previous closing price: $0.556
Market capitalization: $67 million

 

Disclaimer. No position in any stock 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.

Vilacto Bio (VIBI) Landing page stock promotion

I had seen the chart but it wasn’t until I was castigated on Twitter for not blogging about Vilacto Bio (VIBI) that I bothered to look into the promotion pushing it up. As is usual with promoted garbage stocks, the company has little in the way of assets ($135,000 per most recent 10-Q), no revenues, and negative book value.

There is a landing page promoting VIBI at: http://dailystocktraders.com/VIBI/

Disclosed budget: $2,000,000
Promoter: Dheise Oliveira / DailyStockTraders.com
Paying party: not mentioned
Shares outstanding: 90.000.000
Previous closing price: $1.67
Market capitalization: $150 million

Disclaimer from the landing page (emphasis mine):

Disclaimer: Information about many publicly traded companies, including Vilacto Bio Inc. and other investor resources can be found directly from the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as from its website, www.sec.gov. It is recommended that any investment in any security should be made only after consulting with your registered investment advisor and only after reviewing all publicly available information, including the statements of the company. Do not base any investment decisions upon any material found in this advertisement. The information contained herein has been prepared for informational purposes only and is not intended in any way to be used as a complete source of information on any particular company, including Vilacto Bio Inc. This publication does not purport to provide a full analysis of any company’s financial position. Any public company’s financial position and all other information regarding the company should be verified directly with the company and its regulatory disclosures. Dheise Oliveira has been paid $4,000 to be a spokesperson in this advertisement. An individual should not invest in the securities of Vilacto Bio Inc. based solely on information contained in this advertisement. Investing in securities is speculative and carries significant risk, including the total loss of principal. This advertisement is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, an offer to buy or sell nor a solicitation to buy or sell securities, nor should it be construed as the provision of any investment related advice nor services tailored to any particular individual’s financial situation or investment objective(s). The publisher distributes general content offering impersonalized entertainment to readers and/or prospective readers and is not an investment advisor or broker-dealer registered with either the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission nor with any state securities regulatory authorities. The publisher is neither licensed nor qualified to provide financial advice. As such, the publisher rely upon the “publisher’s exclusion” as provided under Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and its corresponding state securities laws. Do not invest in this company unless you can afford to possibly lose your entire investment. The company featured herein appears as paid advertising, paid by a third party to provide public awareness for Vilacto Bio Inc. The publisher understands that in an effort to enhance public awareness of Vilacto Bio Inc. and its securities through the distribution of this online advertisement, if successful, the advertisement will increase investor and market awareness, which could result in increased numbers of shareholders owning and trading the common stock of Vilacto Bio Inc., and/or increase trading volumes, and/or possibly increased share price of the common stock of Vilacto Bio Inc. The publisher and marketing vendors will be managing a total budget of two million dollars, provided for all online advertising and marketing efforts; and will retain any amounts over and above the cost of production, advertising, copywriting services, mailing and other distribution expenses, as a fee for their services. The publisher has not undertaken to determine if paying parties are, or intend to be, directly or indirectly, a shareholder of Vilacto Bio Inc. This publication is based exclusively on information generally available to the public and does not contain any material, non-public information. The information on which it is based is believed to be reliable; nevertheless, the publisher cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. The information contained herein contain forward-looking information within the meaning of section 27a of the Securities Act and section 21e of the Securities Exchange Act including statements regarding expected growth of Vilacto Bio Inc. In accordance with the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the publisher notes that statements contained herein that look forward in time, which include everything other than historical information, involve risks and uncertainties that may affect the Company’s actual results of operations. Factors that could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to, the size and growth of the market for the company’s products and services, the company’s ability to fund its capital requirements in the near and long term, pricing pressures and other risks detailed in the company’s filed reports with SEC. To the fullest extent of the law, we will not be liable to any person or entity for the accuracy, quality, completeness, reliability, or timeliness of the information provided herein, nor for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental special or punitive damages that may arise out of the use of information we provide to any person or entity (including, but not limited to, lost profits, loss of opportunities, trading losses, and damages that may result from any inaccuracy or incompleteness of this information).

PDF copy of landing page

 

 

Disclaimer. No position in any stock 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.

Tactical Services (TTSI) Stock promotion: emails and boiler room

Note: When I published this on 11/15/2017 Tactical Services was trading as LUADD. It is now trading as TTSI. 

The new stock promotion on the block is Tactical Services (LUADD). It isn’t completely new — it has been going on since October 26th. However, while I tweeted about it, I didn’t blog about it because volume was low and it looked like it was failing quickly. Also, I couldn’t sign up for the promoter’s email list. However, with the recovery in the stock price and hearing that there is a boiler room promoting the stock I decided to blog about it. Keep in mind that boiler room pumps usually result in the biggest dumps. The last big boiler room pump and dump was Homie Recipes (HOMR; now trading as STVA Stevva Corp), which quickly dropped from $1.80 to $0.20 in two days. I traded it horribly (shorting at $1.90 and covering my short at $0.80) and still made decent money. It now trades at $.002.

Here is the STVA daily candlestick chart — trading in it was suspended for two weeks by the SEC on October 5th.

The LUADD stock chart does not appear nearly as well controlled / manipulated as STVA/HOMR did, but it has been slowly upticking on pretty decent volume for the last 7 days.

Below is a screenshot of an email promoting LUADD. Thanks to @TheReal666 for posting this on Twitter. Unfortunately the disclaimer is too small for me to read.

Other reliable sources have confirmed the Stock Callers promotion of LUADD:

I tweeted about the LUADD stock promotion on October 31, pointing out that the number of shares outstanding was a lot higher than many thought:

According to TheOTC.today, the StockCallers promotion group is comprised of the following websites:

ActiveWallStreet.com
EquityResearchDaily.com
GlobalStockAdvantage.com
Stock-Callers.com

The top three of those websites no longer exist and I cannot sign up for the Stock-Callers.com email list.

As of 11/17/2017 Tactical Services has begun trading as TTSI.

Update 3/8/2018: I finally got around to updating the chart of TTSI/LUADD. The first big down day (11/16/17) was as LUADD and the following day it began trading as TTSI.

Disclaimer. I am currently short LUADD and may add to my short or cover it at any time. No position in any other stock 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.

Lexington Biosciences Landing page stock promotion

Starting sometime in October (volume started on October 2nd), TechStockInsider.com started promoting Lexington Biosciences (LXGTF) at the landing page: http://techstockinsider.com/the-wearable-tech-thats-disrupting-an-industry-worth-billions/

TechStockInsider is owned by Midam Ventures LLC which is also behind the promotion of Liberty One Lithium (LRTTF).

Disclosed budget: $100,000
Promoter: TechStockInsider.com / Midam Ventures LLC / Midam Investor Relations
Paying party: Ellis Stewart, LLC
Shares outstanding: 30,745,901
Previous closing price: $0.42
Market capitalization: $12.9 million

Short disclaimer (shown on the landing page):

TechStockInsider.com is owned by Midam Ventures, LLC has been compensated $100,000.00 by Ellis Stewart, LLC for a period beginning October 1, 2017 and ending November. 1, 2017 & Midam Ventures, LLC has been compensated an additional $150,000.00 by Ellis Stewart, LLC for a period beginning November 1, 2017 and ending December. 1, 2017 to publicly disseminate information about (LXGTF). We may buy or sell additional shares of (LXGTF) in the open market at any time, including before, during or after the Website and Information, provide public dissemination of favorable Information. We own zero shares. Click Here For Full Disclaimer.

Full disclaimer:

Who owns and controls the website located at http://TechStockInsider.com

The website located at http//www.techstockinsider.com (the Website) is owned by MIDAM Ventures LLC., a Florida corporation. The Website, its owner, affiliates, control persons, directors, officers, employees and agents are hereafter collectively referred to as the “Publisher”, “we”, “us” or “ours”.

What do we do?

We are paid advertisers, also known as stock touts or stock promoters who disseminate favorable information (the “Information”) about publicly traded companies (the “Profiled Issuers”).

How is the Information published?

We publish the Information on the Website, in newsletters, audio, and live interviews featured reports message boards and email communications for specific time periods that are agreed upon between us and the Profiled Issuer. Our publication of the Information is known as a “Campaign”.

Will everyone receive the Information at the same time?

No. The Information may be sent to potential investors at different times that are minutes, hours, days or even weeks apart.

How is a potential investor impacted if they receive the Information later than other investors?

If the trading volume and price of a Profile Issuer’s securities increases after the Information is provided to an earlier group of investors, then subsequent investors will pay inflated prices for any securities of the Profiled Issuers that they purchase. This will likely result in the Profiled Issuers having trading losses.

What will happen when the Campaign ends?

Most, if not, all of the Profiled Issuers are penny stocks that are illiquid and whose securities are subject to wide variations in trading price and volume. During the Campaign the trading volume and price of the securities of each Profile Issuer will likely increase significantly. When the Campaign ends, the volume and price of the Profiled Issuer will likely decrease dramatically. As a result, investors who purchase during the Campaign and hold shares of the Profiled Issuer when the Campaign ends will likely lose most, if not, all of their investment.

Why do we publish only favorable Information?

We only publish favorable information because we are compensated to only publish favorable information.

Why don’t we publish negative information?

We don’t publish negative information because we are not paid to publish negative information. We are paid to publish only favorable information.

Is the Information complete, accurate, truthful or reliable?

The Information is a snapshot that provides only positive information about the Profiled Issuers. The Information consists of only positive content. We do not and will not publish any negative information about the Profiled Issuers; accordingly, investors should consider the Information to be one sided and not balanced, complete, accurate, truthful or reliable.

What we do not do.

We do not publish negative information about the Profiled Issuers. We do not verify or confirm any portion of the Information. We do not conduct any due diligence or research any aspect of the Information including the completeness, accuracy, truthfulness or reliability of the Information. We do not review the Profiled Issuers’ financial condition, operations, business model, management or risks involved in the Profiled Issuer’s business or an investment in a Profiled Issuer’s securities.

Where does the Information come from?

The Information is provided to us by the Profiled Issuers and/or the person who hires us. We may also obtain the Information from publicly available sources such as the OTC Markets, Google, NASDAQ, NYSE, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Edgar database or other available public sources.

What will happen if an investor relies on the Information?

The Information is neither a solicitation to buy nor an offer to sell securities. The Information should not be used to make an investment decision or for trading or investment purposes. If an investor relies on the Information in making an investment decision it is highly probable that the investor will lose most, if not, all of his or her investment.

Who pays us to publish the Information?

The source of our compensation varies depending upon the particular circumstances of the Campaign. We are compensated by the Profiled Issuers, third party shareholders and other parties related to the Profiled Issuers such as officers and/or directors who will derive a financial or other benefit from an increase in the trading price and/or volume of a Profiled Issuer’s securities.

The nature and amount of compensation we receive for publishing the Information about each Profiled Issuer and our ownership of each Profiled Issuer is set forth below under the heading captioned, “What we are compensated”.

What warranties do we make about the Information?

None. We make no warranty or representation about the Information including its completeness, accuracy, truthfulness or reliability and we disclaim, expressly and impliedly, all warranties of any kind, including whether the Information is complete, accurate, truthful, or reliable and as such, your use of the Information is at your own risk. The Information is provided as is without limitation.

Who is responsible if an investor relies on the Information?

The investor. We are not responsible or liable for any person’s use of the Information or any success or failure that is directly or indirectly related to such person’s use of the Information. A person’s review and/or reliance upon the Information is at their own risk. We are not responsible for omissions or errors in the Information. We will not update the Information and we are not responsible for actions taken by any person who relies upon the Information.

What do we urge potential investors to do?

Investors should conduct their own in-depth investigation of the Profiled Issuers with the assistance of his or her legal, tax and investment advisors. An investor’s review of the Information should include but not be limited to the Profiled Issuer’s financial condition, operations, management, products or services, trends in the industry and risks that may be material to the profiled Issuer’s business and other information you and your advisors deem material to an investment decision. An investor’s review should include, but not be limited to a review of available public sources and information you receive directly from the Profiled Issuers or from websites such as Google, OTC Markets, NASDAQ, NYSE, www.sec.gov or other available public sources.

Why is this Disclaimer being provided?

We are providing you with this disclaimer because we are publishing advertisements about penny stocks. Because we are paid to disseminate the Information to the public about securities, we are required by the securities laws including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“the “Securities Act”), to specifically disclose our compensation to you as well as other information including that we may hold, as well as purchase and sell the securities of a Profiled Issuer before, during and after we publish the Information about the Profiled Issuer. We may instruct investors to purchase the securities of a Profiled Issuer during the same time that we sell.

The anti-fraud provisions of state and federal securities laws require us to inform you that we will engage in buying and selling of Profiled Issuer’s securities before, during and after the Campaigns.

What we are not.

We are not and do not act in the capacity of any of the following; as such, you should not construe our activities as involving any of the following:

An independent advisor or consultant;
Providing investment advice;
Acting in the capacity of an investment adviser or engaging in activities that would be deemed to be providing investment advice that requires registration either at the federal or state level;
Broker-dealer activities or acting in the capacity of a registered representative or broker;
Stock picker;
Securities trading expert;
Securities researcher or analyst;
Financial planner or financial planning;
Provider of stock recommendations;
Provider of advice about buy and sell or hold recommendations as to specific securities; or
Making an offer or sale of securities or solicitation to purchase securities.
What conflicts of interest do we have in publishing the Information?

We are not objective or independent and have multiple conflicts of interest. The Profiled Issuers and parties hiring us have conflicts of interest.

Our publication of the Information involves actual and material conflicts of interest including but not limited to the following:

We receive monetary and/or securities compensation in exchange for publishing the (favorable) Information about the Profiled Issuers;
We do not publish any negative information whatsoever about the Profiled Issuers;
We may own a Profiled Issuer’s securities that we acquired from the Profiled Issuer, third parties or from our own open market purchases before, during or after the Campaign and we may sell these securities during the Campaign while publishing the (favorable) information that instructs investors to purchase. Our selling of a Profiled Issuer’s securities will likely cause investors to suffer losses;
A short time after we acquire a Profiled Issuer’s securities, we may publish the (favorable) Information about the Profiled Issuer advising others, including you, to purchase; and while doing so, we may sell the Profiled Issuer’s securities we acquired during our public dissemination of the Information causing us to profit while you suffer a loss;
Parties holding a Profiled Issuer’s securities including those who engage our services and/or compensate us will sell their shares of the Profiled Issuer while we are publishing the (favorable) Information.
What are some of the risks that investors should be aware of?

Any investment in the Profiled Issuers involves a high degree of risk and uncertainties and may be subject to extreme volume and price volatility, especially during the Campaigns. Favorable past performance of a Profiled Issuer does not guarantee future results. If you purchase the securities of the Profiled Issuers, you should be prepared to lose your entire investment. Some of the risks involved in purchasing securities of the Profiled Issuers includes, but is not limited to the risks stated below.

The Information is not a solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities and we do not endorse, independently verify or assert the truthfulness, completeness, accuracy or reliability of the Information. We conduct no due diligence or investigation whatsoever of the Information or the Profiled Issuers and we do not receive any verification from the Profiled Issuer regarding the Information we disseminate.
If we publish any percentage gain of a Profiled Issuer from the previous day close in the Information, it is not and should not be construed as an indication that the future stock price or future operational results will reflect gains or otherwise prove to be advantageous to your investment.
The Information may contain statements that a Profiled Issuer’s stock price has increased over a certain period of time which may reflect an arbitrary period of time, and is not predictive or of any analytical quality; as such, you should not rely upon the (favorable) Information in your analysis of the present or future potential of a Profiled Issuer or its securities.
The Information should not be interpreted in any way, shape, form or manner whatsoever as an indication of the Profiled Issuer’s future stock price or future financial performance.
You may encounter difficulties determining what, if any, portions of the Information is material or non-material making it all the more imperative that you conduct your own independent investigation of the Profiled Issuer and its securities with the assistance of your legal, tax and financial advisor.
When the Campaign ends, the securities of a Profiled Issuer will decline dramatically.
If the Information states that a Profiled Issuer’s securities are consistent with the future economic trends or even if your independent research indicates as such, you should be aware that economic trends have their own limitations, including: (a) that economic trends or predictions may be speculative ; (b) consumers, producers, investors, borrowers, lenders and government may react in unforeseen ways and be affected by behavioral biases that we are unable to predict; (c) human and social factors may outweigh future economic trends that we state may or will occur; (d) clear cut economic predictions have their limitations in that they do not account for the fundamental uncertainty in economic life, as well as ordinary life; (e) economic trends may be disrupted by sudden jumps, disruptions or other factors that are not accounted for in such economic trends analysis; in other words, past or present data predicting future economic trends may become irrelevant in light of fully new circumstances and situations in which uncertainty becomes reality rather than of predictive economic quality; or (f) if the trends involve a single result, it ignores other scenarios that may be crucial to make a decision in the event of unknown contingencies.
The Information contains forward looking statements, i.e. statements or discussions that constitute predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, estimates, or projections as indicated by such words as expects, will, anticipates, and estimates; therefore, you should proceed with extreme caution in relying upon such statements and conduct a full investigation of the Information and the Profiled Issuer as well as any such forward looking statements. Any forward looking statements we make in the Information are limited to the time period in which they are made and we do not undertake to update forward looking statements that may change at any time.
The Information is presented only as a brief snapshot of the Profiled Issuer and should only be used, at most, and if at all, as a starting point for you to conduct a thorough investigation of the Profiled Issuer and its securities and to consult your financial, legal or other advisor(s) and avail yourself of the filings and information that may be accessed at www.sec.gov, www.otcmarkets.com or other electronic medium, including: (a) reviewing SEC periodic reports (Forms 10-Q and 10-K), reports of material events (Form 8-K), insider reports (Forms 3, 4, 5 and Schedule 13D); (b) reviewing Information and Disclosure Statements and unaudited financial reports filed with the Pink Sheets or otcmarkets.com; (c) obtaining and reviewing publicly available information contained in commonly known search engines such as Google; and (d) consulting investment guides at www.sec.gov and www.finra.org. You should always be cognizant the Profiled Issuers may not be current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and the OTC Markets and/or have negative signs at otcmarkets.com (See section below titled Risks Related to the Profiled Issuers, which provides additional information pertaining thereto).
We may hire third party service providers and stock promoters to electronically disseminate live news regarding the Profiled Issuers, yet we have no control over the content of and do not verify the information that the Profiled Issuers and/or third party service providers publish. These third party service providers are likely compensated for providing positive information about the Issuer even where such compensation is not disclosed by them.
By reading the Information you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from any liability for any claimed direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages pertaining to your receipt of the Information.
Risks Related to the Profiled Issuers

We do not provide you with all of the risks related to the Profiled Issuers and to understand such risks you must conduct your own due diligence with the assistance of your legal, tax and investment advisor.
Any investment in a Profiled Issuer’s securities is high risk. If you invest in the securities of a Profiled Issuer you could lose your entire investment.
The continued operations and future prospects of a Profiled Issuer may be dependent upon receiving adequate financing which they may be unable to obtain.
If a Profiled Issuer is an SEC reporting company, it could be delinquent (not current) in its periodic reporting obligations (i.e., in its quarterly and annual reports) or OTC Market’s Pink Sheet quoted company may be delinquent in its Pink Sheet reporting obligations as reported by the OTC Markets News Service’s or OTC Markets posting a negative sign pertaining to the Profiled Issuer at www.pinksheets.com, as follows: (i) Limited Information for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or that are unwilling to file required reports with the Pink Sheets; (ii) Pink Sheets – No Information, which indicates companies that are unable or unwilling to provide disclosure to the public markets, to the SEC or the Pink Sheets; and (iii) Caveat Emptor, signifying Buyer Beware that there is a public interest concern associated with a company’s illegal spam campaign, questionable stock promotion, known investigation of a company’s fraudulent activity or its insiders, regulatory suspensions or disruptive corporate actions.
Often the Profiled Issuers are development stage companies with little or no operations, and their securities should be considered extremely speculative for investment purposes.
The Profiled Issuers are negatively affected by the current economic downturn and may have a lack of adequate financing to meet their operating expenses, operational goals and expansion plans.
The Profiled Issuers may have inadequate financing to pursue their operational plans and support their ongoing operations.
Risks Related to buying the securities of the Profiled Issuers

The Information may recommend that investors purchase a Profiled Issuer’s shares while we sell securities of the same Profiled Issuer which will likely cause investors to suffer losses.
We may receive free trading shares as compensation or we may acquire such shares in open market transactions before and during the Campaigns, and we may sell the shares we acquire at any time, even during the Campaigns while publishing the Favorable Information. When we sell the shares of the Profiled Issuers that we hold, the price at which investors can sell their shares will dramatically decrease and will likely cause investors to suffer trading losses.
We may sell securities of the Profiled Issuers for less than target prices set forth in the Information, and we may profit by selling our securities during the Campaigns while investors encounter losses.
The Information may instruct investors to buy a Profiled Issuer’s securities so that the person who hires and compensates us can sell their own shares which may cause you to suffer a loss of part or all of your investment.
When we acquire, purchase or sell the securities of the Profiled Issuers, it may (a) cause significant volatility in the Profiled Issuer’s securities; (b) cause temporary but unrealistic increases in volume and price of the Profiled Issuer’s securities; (c) if selling, cause the Profiled Issuer’s stock price to decline dramatically; and (d) permit us to make substantial profits while investors who purchase during the Campaign experience significant losses.
The securities of the Profiled Issuers are high risk, unstable, unpredictable and illiquid which may make it difficult for investors to sell their securities of the Profiled Issuers.
If we are compensated in improperly free trading securities of the Profiled Issuers, either directly or indirectly from persons who claim to be non-affiliates of such Profiled Issuer, we and the Profiled Issuer or third party could be subject to SEC Enforcement action, including allegations of an illegal distribution in violation of Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.
Are risks in this disclaimer the only risks investors should be aware of?

No. There are numerous risks associated with each Profiled Issuer and investors should undertake a full review of each Profiled Issuer with the assistance of their financial, legal, and tax adviser prior to purchasing the securities of any Profiled Issuer.

What we were paid.

2017
TechStockInsider.com is owned by Midam Ventures, LLC has been compensated $100,000.00 by Ellis Stewart, LLC for a period beginning October 1, 2017 and ending November. 1, 2017 & Midam Ventures, LLC has been compensated an additional $150,000.00 by Ellis Stewart, LLC for a period beginning November 1, 2017 and ending December. 1, 2017 to publicly disseminate information about (LXGTF). We may buy or sell additional shares of (LXGTF) in the open market at any time, including before, during or after the Website and Information, provide public dissemination of favorable Information. We own zero shares.

2016
MIDAM VENTURES, LLC owner and operator of TechStockInsider.com was paid an advertising fee of $225,000 cash & ZERO Restricted Common shares by Life Clips, Inc. (LCLP) for visual sponsorship of TechStockInsider.com and for visual placement Life Clips, Inc. (LCLP) within written materials. FOR A DURATION OF 120 DAYS Beginning 5/4/2016. & ending 8/1/2016

MIDAM VENTURES, LLC owner and operator of TechStockInsider.com was paid an advertising fee of 0 (zero) cash & 500,000 Restricted Common shares by Life Clips, Inc. (LCLP) for visual sponsorship of TechStockInsider.com and for visual placement Life Clips, Inc. (LCLP) within written materials. FOR A DURATION OF 90 DAYS Beginning 8/9/2016. & ending 11/9/2016

MIDAM VENTURES, LLC owner and operator of TechStockInsider.com was paid an advertising fee of $75,000 cash & ZERO Restricted Common shares by iDdriven Inc. (IDDR) for visual sponsorship of TechStockInsider.com and for visual placement iDdriven Inc. (IDDR) within written materials. FOR A DURATION OF 60 DAYS Beginning 6/8/2016. & ending 8/8/2016

PDF copy of landing page

OTCMarkets must have become aware of the stock promotion and asked the company about it because on November 1, 2017 the company put out the following press release (emphasis mine):

Nov 01, 2017
OTC Disclosure & News Service

Lexington Biosciences Comments on Recent Trading Activity

VANCOUVER, BC–(Marketwired – Nov 1, 2017) – Lexington Biosciences, Inc. (CSE: LNB) (CSE: LNB.CN) (CNSX: LNB) (OTCQB: LXGTF) (the “Company” or “Lexington”) is issuing this press release at the request of the OTC Markets Group Inc.

On October 17, 2017, the Company’s management became aware of certain promotional materials that were published by Techstock Insider that were purportedly paid for by Ellis Stewart LLC. The Company wishes to advise investors that they should only rely on information provided to the market by the Company and does not support or endorse the information in the materials published on this website. For information about the Company investors should go to the Company’s website at www.lexingtonbiosciences.com or review the Company’s public disclosure record available at www.sedar.com. Lexington did not pay for or review the materials published by Techstock Insider and does not have any relationship with Ellis Stewart LLC. The Company notes that the materials are inaccurate in a number of places including describing the Company’s principal product, HeartSentry, as “biometric” and “wearable.” HeartSentry is best described as a “cardiovascular diagnostic medical device.”

The Company has engaged the following groups to provide investor relation and marketing services: Renmark Financial Communications Inc., Hybrid Financial Ltd and Audience Marketing (the “Third Party Service Providers”).

The Company further notes that none of the Company’s management, directors or Third Party Service Providers has sold any shares of the Company in the last 90 days.

At the request of OTC Markets Group the Company confirms that in the last 12 months it has issued the following securities at the following prices: (a) 6,250,000 units (consisting of a share plus one half warrant) at $0.20 per unit; and (b) 2,530,000 units (consisting of a share plus a whole warrant) at $0.25 per unit.

Disclaimer. No position in any stock 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.

 

Reconsidering George Sharp: An Enigmatic penny stock crusader

Motivation is everything. In the penny stock world, most participants’ motivation is plain: greed. The stock manipulators and promoters do what they do so they can get rich quickly. For the most part, their choices are risky and unethical but smart: only some of them pay the ultimate price of going to prison. Many end up paying settlements on only a portion of their fraudulent activity and still end up with a nice profit and a retirement in some sunny locale. On the other hand, the buyers of penny stocks are stupid and greedy: the vast majority will lose most of their money. A few will make nice profits but only those who are cynical, smart, and a little lucky. There are also the regulators: they are motivated by a combination of trying to achieve justice and trying to make themselves look good and advance their careers.

But there is another group involved in penny stocks that many ignore. These are the amateur sleuths, the gadflies, the crusaders against fraud. Some of them are traders, although they are motivated not just by profits — they put effort into research and whistleblower tips to the SEC even when they have no position. But some of the most prolific anti-fraud crusaders don’t even trade penny stocks. There are just a handful of whom I’m aware although I am sure there are others who submit whistleblower complaints to the SEC and never mention things publicly. The most famous is Yolanda Holtzee, who has been doing this for over a decade and seemingly knows every single SEC enforcement agent of note as well as FBI agents and US Attorneys. Janice Shell is also quite well known and she has been posting on investorsHub (primarily on the DD Support Board and Fraud Research Team) for longer than I can remember. The WSJ wrote about her in 2000. Another researcher, known only as ‘nodummy’, has posted on InvestorsHub and then when he saw his research on pump and dumps being used by others to profit from trading those stocks, started a service offering his research (Promotion Stock Secrets, now known as Pennystocks.buzz). I have repeatedly linked to his research, particularly on AwesomePennystocks.

But writing about penny stock frauds and informing regulators about them is one thing. It would be quite another thing to actually do something to directly impede the fraud. That brings me to the most enigmatic penny stock crusader I’ve encountered: George Sharp. The reason to bring him up now is that I just recently came across the news from last June 13th that he had been retained by OTCMarkets.com as a consultant. Before getting into that, I should review what I have previously written about Sharp.

I first became aware of George Sharp (or at least his actions) back in 2011 because of his legal battle with Michael Osborn, a convicted felon at the time who was later convicted of another felony and lost a libel suit brought by Sharp. Also, on May 17th, 2011 George Sharp filed a lawsuit against Writers Film Group (WRIT), an AwesomePennyStocks promotion. This wasn’t even his first lawsuit against a public company. It appears that his first lawsuit was on September 24th, 2010 against Yasheng Eco-Trade Corporation (that suit was filed on 10/19/2009 as 37-2009-00100574-CU-MC-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ). He also acquired some attention by suing Arena Pharmaceuticals (a real biotech; not just a pure pump & dump scam).

If you search for Sharp, George on the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego case locator (in San Diego city only to exclude a few cases that involve a different George Sharp), you can see just how litigious Sharp has been (while I am sure that most of the suits below were filed by Sharp, I have not examined every one and it is possible that one or two of them were filed by a different George Sharp). In chronological order, the public companies that Sharp sued were Yasheng Eco-Trade Corporation (10/19/2009), Arena Pharmaceuticals (ARNA; 9/27/2010), Cuba Beverage Company (CUBV; 4/22/2011), Forex International Trading Corp (FXIT and FXITE; 6/13/2011), IDO Security Inc (IDOI; 7/23/2012), Citadel EFT Inc (CDFT; 2/13/2013), USA Graphite Inc (USGT; 2/20/2013), Xumanii Inc (XUII; 5/13/2013), 3D Eye Solutions Inc (TDEY; 6/24/2013), Clean Enviro Tech Corp (CETC; 6/26/2013), Avis Rent a Car System Inc (this was just a consumer complaint in small claims court; 4/22/2014), America Exploration Resources Inc (AREN; 8/20/2015), and Writ Media Group Inc (WRIT; 7/27/2016). In addition to these lawsuits against public companies (all but Avis and Arena Pharmaceuticals traded over the counter and were allegedly pump and dump scams), Sharp sued LKP Global Law LLP (2/10/2015), which had represented penny stock companies, and Stocktips.com (3/11/2015), a stock promoter. This list is not even exhaustive because Sharp filed other lawsuits in other jurisdictions, including a lawsuit against Writers’ Film Group (WRIT) filed on 9/4/2011 (Los Angeles County Division of California Superior Court Case No. BC461550).

Details on a few of the lawsuits

Note: Most of all of these suits were filed with numerous John Doe defendants whose names were added to the lawsuit once their names became known to Sharp. Rather than show only the names listed in the original complaint for each of the lawsuits I have shown every name listed as a defendant on the list of parties to the lawsuits. In parentheses after each company that was a public company I have included its ticker at the time of the lawsuit.

George Sharp v. Writers’ Film Group (WRIT), Armada International Inc, Christina Kueber, John Diaz, Front Row Networks Inc, Ariella Kapelner, Tal Kapelner, Michael Sullivan, Philip Kueber 

Writers’ Film Group (WRIT) was promoted by Crazypennystocks.com and related websites (a predecessor to AwesomePennyStocks) back in 2011. This is the first lawsuit of Sharp’s I remember seeing. Sharp filed his lawsuit against the company on 9/4/2011 (Los Angeles County Division of California Superior Court Case No. BC461550) and put out a press release about the lawsuit. Defendants Philip Kueber, Christina Kueber, Michael Sullivan, and Armada International were all added as Doe defendants after the suit was filed. Sharp filed for dismissal against defendants Tal Kapelner, Ariella Kapelner, and John Diaz on 2/8/2012. A press release by Writers’ Film Group in 2013 referring to the Kapelners and Diaz states “the settlement stated that they did not engage in any wrongdoing.” Sharp filed for the case against Writers’ Film Group and the remaining defendants to be dismissed on 2/24/2012. In both cases the dismissals were with prejudice (meaning that Sharp could not re-file the suit later). This is one of the most common endings for civil suits and is usually indicative of a settlement of some kind. Unfortunately for bystanders like us, there is no way to know details of such a settlement most of the time — a settlement could be big or small and could favor either side. Sharp litigated the whole case in propria persona (without an attorney). Among Sharp’s suits, this was one of the shortest (lasting about six months).

(Note: the register of parties incorrectly spells the last names of Christina and Philip Kueber as ‘Keuber’. Philip Kueber is best known for pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit stock fraud in the case of Cynk Technology).


However, the settlement was actually made public in George Sharp’s subsequent lawsuit against WRIT Media Group (slightly different name, same corporate shell, same ticker). From that complaint:

On or about February 16, 2012, the remaining parties in the 2011 case
entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby SHARP was to receive $10,000 in cash and ten million free-trading shares of WRIT stock. SHARP received the settlement payment and stock as agreed, thus making SHARP a shareholder of WRIT and entitling him to all the rights and protections afford any shareholder. SHARP remains a shareholder of WRIT to this day.

Perhaps most notable about that settlement is that Sharp did not ever sell those shares. Obviously Sharp is not an idiot and knows how penny stocks work — if he were only in this for the money then the obvious thing to do would be to sell the shares right away. Even for someone who is not just in it for the money, the smart thing to do is sell. But for some reason Sharp did not sell those shares and he was eventually diluted to almost nothing. That brings me to his follow-up suit against the successor company to Writers’ Film Group.

George Sharp v. Writ Media Group (WRIT), Inc & Eric Mitchell

On 7/27/2016 George Sharp filed suit against Writ Media Group, Inc and Eric Mitchell (President & CEO of the company). The case is 37-2016-00025434-CU-FR-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. See the original complaint. Here are a couple excerpts from the complaint (emphasis added by me):

7. On or about May 16, 2011, the Plaintiff filed litigation (“the 2011
case”) against Defendant WRIT and other defendants for Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of California Corporations Code Section 25400 et seq; Violation of California Unfair Business Practices Act – Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and Violation of California Unfair Business Practices Act – Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (LA Superior Court Case No. BC461550).
8. On or about February 16, 2012, the remaining parties in the 2011 case entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby SHARP was to receive $10,000 in cash and ten million free-trading shares of WRIT stock. SHARP received the settlement payment and stock as agreed, thus making SHARP a shareholder of WRIT and entitling him to all the rights and protections afford any shareholder. SHARP remains a shareholder of WRIT to this day.

14. On February 4, 2014 the Defendants executed a one for one thousand reverse split of stock reducing the number of shares outstanding in WRIT from at approximately 5.7 billion shares to approximately 5.7 million shares, effectively wiping out the holdings of small shareholders.
15. From February 4, 2014 to July 24, 2015, the Defendants issued
approximately 455.5 million shares of WRIT.
16. From June 11, 2014 to June 13, 2014 WRIT stock was promoted by various known stock touts who specialize in creating hype for intrinsically worthless penny stocks in order to enable certain insiders to divest themselves of shares. The promotion created an increase in share price and trading volume of WRIT stock. The stock touts usually included a disclaimer within their emails identifying their compensation for services rendered.
17. On July 24, 2015 the Defendants executed a one for five hundred
reverse split of stock reducing the number of shares outstanding in WRIT from at approximately 461.2 million shares to 2,306,061 shares, once again effectively wiping out the holdings of small shareholders

Of the causes of action listed in the complaint, the most interesting to me is the third cause of action, “breach of fiduciary duty”. That cause of action was only asserted because Sharp was a shareholder at the time of the suit. If he had sold his shares after the earlier settlement he would not have been able to assert this cause of action.

On February 28, 2017, Mitchell and Writ Media Group offered to accept judgments of $10,000 each payable to Sharp, with each party paying their own legal costs. These offers were accepted by George Sharp. Those two judgments were quickly paid.

George Sharp v. IDO Security Inc (IDOI), Benchmark Email, Blue House Works Inc, Peter Dunn, Eco-Trade Corporation (BOPT), Emailvision Inc, Empire Post Media Inc (EMPM), EMPRT Group Ltd, Fidelity Ltd, Flaster Knol Ltd, Michael Goldberg, Internacional Publizierende Gruppe Limitada, Lyris Inc, Mendel Mochkin, Mustang Alliances Inc (MSTG), Natti Reach Ltd, Premier Brands Inc (BRND), Promo Kombo Ltd, Irit Pnina Reiner, Henry Shabat, Stand Online Ltd, Leonard Sternheim, Wild Craze Inc (WILD), & Zegal & Ross Capital LLC

This is one of the more interesting and complicated of the suits filed by Sharp. It was also briefly mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article in 2015. This was against a large number of defendants, many of which likely never existed (they were made up companies), promoted by, employed by the promoted companies, or connected to the spam stock promoter that was known most commonly as StockCastle (though they had many names with at least dozens of different websites). See my blog post on some of their pumps. On July 24th, 2012 George Sharp filed a press release about the lawsuit he had just filed. See the complaint. The case lasted for just under two years (until April 8th, 2014 when Sharp requested dismissal). The case was 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. You can find the court documents by searching that case number here. With 377 actions recorded in the case I will not attempt to reproduce the full list here. Below is the list of defendants:

The two causes of action listed in the complaint were “Violations of California Restrictions on Unsolicited Commercial E-mail Advertisers (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5)”, which is a law prohibiting spam email, and “Violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code§ 1750 et seq.)”. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) “applies to deceptive acts intended to result in the sale or lease of goods or services as well as acts that actually result in the sale or lease of goods or services”.

On January 17th, 2013, Sharp filed a press release announcing that he had subpoenaed Luke Zouvas, an attorney who had “contacted him [Sharp] on behalf of a client, in order to settle in advance any future claims that Mr. Sharp may have against that client.” (Luke Zouvas was sued on April 26, 2016 by the SEC for an unrelated “pump and dump scheme”). Unfortunately, I found no mention of Zouvas in the court documents from around January 17, 2013 or in any of the other court documents I read.

Of all the parties named in the suit, most of the presumed promoters (the various names they used in their spam emails) were dismissed from the case presumably because they did not actually exist. IDO Security and Mustang Alliances Inc litigated the case and Sharp did not win judgments against them (he likely settled with them — he filed to have both dismissed from the case with prejudice and the dismissal minute order states “Attorney David Harter notifies the Court, case has settled except as to defaulted defendants“).

Empire Post Media litigated and lost. Premier Brands Inc and Wild Craze Inc did not litigate and Sharp won default judgements against them. George Sharp apparently reached a settlement with defendant Blue House Works Inc (see Blue House Works’ earlier first amended answer to the complaint). Blue House Works Inc “provided the MyNewsletterBuilder email marketing service platform from which Plaintiff alleges that he received unsolicited emails.”

On April 8th, 2014 Sharp was awarded a judgment for $30,000 against Empire Post Media (EMPM, one of the promoted companies).

On April 11th, 2014 Sharp was awarded a judgment for $36,080 against Premier Brands Inc (BRND) and $11,300 against Wild Craze Inc (WILD; both companies promoted by the spammers).

Both of these were judgments by default:

Perhaps the most interesting thing I found in all the filings from this case is the following declaration of David J. Harter, George Sharp’s attorney, from a motion to compel IDO Security to produce a PMK (primary most knowledgeable person) to depose. That link also contains the full deposition of Michael Goldberg of IDO Security.

In January 2000, I formed the Law Offices of David J. Harter, APC. My standard hourly rate for litigation cases is between $400.00 and $450.00 per hour depending on the nature of the case. I am billing
Mr. Sharp based on my lowest standard hourly rate for my services in connection with this action.

Hence, the total legal time expended with respect to this motion to compel the deposition totals 10 hours. Based on my lowest standard
hourly rate the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred total $4,000.00.

That is certainly a reasonable rate for an experienced litigator. The point is, with that kind of work required by his lawyer, a not insignificant portion of the settlements Sharp received and judgments he was awarded and able to collect on must have gone to his lawyer. In this case, while Sharp “filed this action in propria persona, he substituted in counsel [David J. Harter] on December 30, 2013 ” (that is from this minute order).

George Sharp filed on 3/24/2014 for dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit against IDO Security et al (and his attorney notified the court that the case had settled except for the defendants that defaulted). On 4/3/2104 Sharp was awarded a judgment by stipulation in the amount of $30,000 ($25,000 in damages plus $5,000 in attorney fees) against Empire Post Media, Inc (EMPM). The case was dismissed without prejudice.

George Sharp v. LKP Global Law LLP, Ahmad Ashari, Deelaw Ashari, Waleed Ashari, Albert T Liou, and Luan K Phan

George Sharp filed a suit against LKP Global Law LLP and some of the lawyers there on 2/10/2015. Below is the list of parties in the suit:

Unlike some of his other suits, Sharp did not file this pro se / in propria persona but was represented by his long-time lawyer David Harter. The case was 37-2015-00004673-CU-NP-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. At the end of 2016 the case was transferred from San Diego to Los Angeles. See the original complaint (pdf). This lawsuit was a complaint for “1) MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 2) ABUSE OF PROCESS” against the law firm representing pump and dump Xumanii (XUII), which had sued Sharp for exposing Xumanii. To quote from Sharp’s complaint:

9. This action arises out of the Ashari Class Action wherein Ashari, LKP, Phan and Liou filed a frivolous class action complaint against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff engaged in market manipulation and fraud concerning the stock of Xumanii, Inc. (“XUII”) in violation of
Corporations Code sections 25400(d) and 25500. The class action was filed in retaliation, among other things, for SHARP’s exposure of the XUII stock manipulation and for his own action against XUII alleging violations of California’s anti-SPAM email statute.
10. In response to the Ashari Class Action, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the Anti-SLAPP Statute. The Court granted the Anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the Ashari Class Action with prejudice finding, among other things, that Ashari and his attorneys had failed to present evidence to establish any element of Ashari’s one and only cause of action. The Court also awarded Plaintiff his fees and costs in the Ashari Class Action in excess of $33,000. True and correct copies of the Notice of Ruling granting the Anti-SLAPP motion and the Notice of Entry of Judgment are attached hereto respectively as Exhibits A & B. The Ashari Class Action was frivolous and filed without probable cause because Ashari and his attorneys had failed to present evidence to establish any element of Ashari’s one and only cause of action and because LPK, Phan and Liou admitted to the Court that they had no evidence to establish any element of Ashari’s one and only cause of action.

Prior to that lawsuit against Sharp, LKP had litigated another lawsuit by a penny stock company against Sharp. That suit was:

known as  Forex International Trading Corp. v. George Sharp, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00092840 (the “Forex Action”). That suit was also dismissed as frivolous pursuant to Plaintiff’s Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court also awarded Plaintiff his fees and costs in the Forex Action in excess of $12,000.

The quote above is again from the complaint against LKP Global Law LLP.

See the San Diego register of actions (click to enlarge):

The case in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, is Case Number: BC583586 GEORGE SHARP VS LKP GLOBAL LAW LLP ET AL. Filing Date: 06/02/2015. See the summary here by searching the case number. The case was dismissed on 6/15/2017. See Sharp’s motions to compel from 4/22/2016, 4/26/2016, and 4/26/2016. There was a settlement conference scheduled for May 10, 2017 and with the case having not gone to trial and being dismissed with prejudice I believe the parties settled (although there is no way for me to know what any settlement entailed).

Below is the register of actions:

06/15/2017 Request and Entry of Dismissal (W/PREJUDICE AND AS TO THE ENTIRE ACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/22/2017 Notice of Change of Address
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/21/2017 Notice-Change of Address
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/19/2017 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES: MSC c.f. 5-10-17 to 9-12-17; FSC c.f. 5-19-17 to 9-21-17; J.T. c.f. 5-30-17 to 10-2-17 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

12/19/2016 Notice of Continuance
Filed by Clerk

11/23/2016 Notice (OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

10/21/2016 Declaration (SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JODY BORRELLI IN SUPPORT OF DEF MOTION TO COMPEL )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/19/2016 Opposition Document (TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERR HRG: 11/1/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/19/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPO TO MTN TO COMPEL FURTHER )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/18/2016 Opposition Document (TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER HRG: 10/31/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/18/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL HRG: 10/31/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/17/2016 Reply/Response
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

10/13/2016 Opposition Document (CORRECTED OPPOSITION TO PLTF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPON TO REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOCU/ DECL OF JODY BRRELLI )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/13/2016 Opposition Document (NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: OPPOSTION TO PLT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES/SEPARATE STATEMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/13/2016 Statement of Facts (CORRECTED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPO TO PLTF MTN TO COMPEL FURTHER HRG: 10/24/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/11/2016 Opposition Document (TO PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RES TO PROD OF DOC )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/11/2016 Opposition Document (TO MTN TO COMPEL FURTHER RESP TO REQ FOR PRODU DECL OF J. BORRELLI/SEP STATE IN OPPO )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/27/2016 Notice of Association of Attorneys
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/26/2016 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FROM 4-13-17 TO 4-20-17; [NOTE: MSC WAS CONTINUED PREVIOUSLY FROM 10-5-16 TO 4-13-17 PER STIP. AND ORDER OF 6-23-16])
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/23/2016 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE FROM 11-14-16 AND 11-4-16, RESPEC- TIVELY, TO 5-30-17 AND 5-19-17, RESPECTIVELY; MSC SET FOR 4-13-17; DISCOVERY/MOT. CUT-OFFS EXTENDED)
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/10/2016 Response (TO DEFEF’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/03/2016 Notice-Related Cases
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

04/26/2016 Motion to Compel (FURTHER RESPONSES HRG 10/31/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/26/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE RE: FORM INTERROGATORIES )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/26/2016 Motion to Compel (FURTHER RESPONSES HRG: 11/1/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/26/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE RE REQUESTS FRO ADMISIONS, SET ONE, )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/22/2016 Motion to Compel (FURTHER RESPONSES )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/22/2016 Statement of Facts (separate statement in dispute )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/22/2016 Motion to Compel (FURTHER RESPONSES HRG: 10/24/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/18/2016 Notice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

04/18/2016 Declaration (NOTICE OF TERMNATION OR MODIFICATION OF STAY )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/18/2016 Request to Enter Default (IS REJECTED AS ASHARI #28. )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/13/2016 Opposition Document (TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/13/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/04/2016 Statement-Case Management (HRG: 3/29/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

03/21/2016 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/15/2016 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

01/26/2016 Statement of Facts (SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL HRG: 4/22/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

01/26/2016 Motion to Compel (FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

01/12/2016 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/08/2016 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

01/04/2016 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

10/09/2015 Notice (OF ERRATA RE NTC OF CMC )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

10/09/2015 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

10/09/2015 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/14/2015 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/08/2015 Notice (TAKING MOTION TO QUASH OFF CALENDAR 2/8/16 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/08/2015 Notice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO STAY AND QUASH DEPOSTITION SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/04/2015 Answer to Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/03/2015 Answer to Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

07/27/2015 Joinder (TO NONPARY TO MOTION TO STAY )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/24/2015 Statement of Facts (for pumpsanddumps. com )
Filed by Attorney for Real Pty in Interest

07/24/2015 Motion to Quash
Filed by Attorney for Real Pty in Int

07/21/2015 Motion to Quash (DEPOSITION )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/21/2015 Statement of Facts
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO SCOTTRADE, INC.) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA/ (ISSUE TO FMR, LLC) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION/ ISSUED TO TRADEKING GROUP, )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP.) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO OMGEO, LLC) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORP.) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO PROFESSIONAL TRADING SOLUTIONS, INC.) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS CORP) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO TD AMERITRADE, INC. )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/20/2015 Objection Document (TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (ISSUED TO TRADE STATION GROUP, INC.) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/06/2015 Amendment to Complaint (DOE 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/30/2015 Substitution of Attorney
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

06/23/2015 Notice
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/18/2015 Notice (of cmc )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/12/2015 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

06/09/2015 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Court Attendant

06/08/2015 Affidavit of Prejudice–Peremptory (DEFT LUAN K PHAN’S MTN FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE AND DECL OF JANET LY IN SUPP THEREOF )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

06/02/2015 Complaint

06/02/2015 Summons Filed
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/02/2015 Notice-Stay (AUTMOATIC STAY CAUSED BY A FILING IN ANOTHER COURT FILED 4/7/15 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/02/2015 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/02/2015 Notice of Incoming Case Transfer
Filed by Clerk

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

06/15/2017 at 09:45 am in Department 74, Joseph R. Kalin, Presiding
Court Order – Case Dismissed/Disposed

05/01/2017 at 08:30 am in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Order Re: Related Cases – Completed

10/24/2016 at 09:00 am in Department 74, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding
Motion to Compel – Motion Denied

10/05/2016 at 09:30 am in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Mandatory Settlement Conference ([c.t. 4-13-17 per stip. and orderof 6-23-16]) – Matter continued

04/22/2016 at 09:00 am in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Motion to Compel – Off Calendar

03/29/2016 at 01:30 pm in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Conference-Case Management ((c.f. 1-14-16)) – Trial Date Set

01/14/2016 at 09:00 am in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Conference-Case Management ((c.f. 9-29-15)) – Matter continued

09/29/2015 at 01:30 pm in Department 74, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Presiding
Conference-Case Management – Matter continued

06/11/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 34, Michael P. Linfield, Presiding
Affidavit of Prejudice – Granted

 

The Other Side: Leslie Howard & First Microcap Report

Back in early 2012 I started noticing ads on Pumpsanddumps.com for FirstMicrocapReport.com which was run by Leslie Howard. The service started out free and purported to identify stocks that were likely to undergo promotion. I wasn’t a huge fan of the service because by its very nature trying to identify and buy stocks pre-pump will lead to trading illiquid stocks and if the pump doesn’t happen then the stock can drop big. (That being said, I did trade a number of the picks, buying quickly and selling to slower traders for over $1500 in total profits.) FirstMicrocapReport acquired a bit of a following and then in late May 2012 Leslie Howard released a paid stock promotion of the Biostem US Corporation (ticker:HAIR and unrelated to current ticker HAIR, Restoration Robotics). For this promotion, Leslie disclosed payment of $15,000 and ownership of the stock. After this stock promotion was over, Leslie Howard continued to release uncompensated picks and did not promote any other stocks for money.

Here is the disclaimer from the first email I received (May 24, 2012) promoting Biostem US Corporation (HAIR):

After this I gave little thought to ‘Leslie Howard’. It wasn’t until October 2013 that I came across a lawsuit George Sharp had filed against Biostem US Corporation (HAIR). It became clear reading the lawsuit that Leslie Howard was the alter ego of George Sharp. I was a bit puzzled about the lawsuit and why Sharp had promoted a company like Biostem US Corp but I really didn’t give it any further thought. I finally have reason to revisit this case (as I will get into below) so I looked back into it and it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

See the first complaint by George Sharp (and his company Market Broadcast, LLC) against Biostem et al. Below are a series of allegations from Sharp’s third amended complaint (emphasis added by me):

32. On or about May 9, 2012, Defendants ELCO, LONDON and MAZUR, with the consent and participation of BIOSTEM entered into a contract with the Plaintiff MARKET,
entitled “Engagement Agreement for Marketing Services” (“AGREEMENT”). A true and correct copy of that agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by
reference. The AGREEMENT required the Plaintiff MARKET to be provided 300,000 freetrading shares at the time that the investor awareness program began. The AGREEMENT
further provided that Defendants to disclose all known material facts to the Plaintiff MARKET regarding BIOSTEM. The AGREEMENT required Plaintiff MARKET to be kept informed of key developments regarding BIOSTEM.

34. On or about May 24, 2012, Defendants breached the AGREEMENT by failing to provide the stock when required under the AGREEMENT.
35. Defendants further breached the AGREEMENT by failing to inform the Plaintiff of all known facts and failing to keep Plaintiff informed of key developments as required under the AGREEMENT, including but not limited to failing to inform Plaintiff that the equity financing agreement between Defendants BIOSTEM and ELCO that was announced on May 24, had not been consummated and would not be consummated

41. In that April 12, 2012 meeting Defendants MAZUR and Ari Kaplan made the following false statements to Plaintiffs: (1) that BIOSTEM was a reputable and viable business in the hair restoration industry, (2) that BIOSTEM had reached and consummated an equity financing agreement for $5,000,000 with Defendant ELCO, (3) that BIOSTEM had entered into
a medical affiliate agreement with Pizarro Hair Restoration Clinics, and (4) that there was an increasing market demand for BIOSTEM shares.

45. The facts were that BIOSTEM was a sham business and it had no equity financing agreement for $5,000,000 or any other amount and had no medical affiliate agreement with Pizarro Hair Restoration Clinics which was in fact an actual reputable company in the hair restoration industry.

71. As a further result of this fraud, most subscribers to the newsletters retained by MARKET to bring investor awareness to BIOSTEM and who purchased the common stock of
BIOSTEM, lost a significant portion, if not all of their investment, and MARKET has since been unable to retain additional paying clients for investor awareness programs.
72. SHARP was further damaged in reliance on these false statements in that he was induced to purchase additional shares of BIOSTEM stock on the open market. Sharp made 23 separate purchases of BIOSTEM stock during the relevant period all to his damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial

73. As a further result of this fraud, the reputation of SHARP as a forthright and credible source of information and as a crusader against stock fraud was compromised, causing damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial

A few things from the above allegations strike me as odd. First, it seems odd that a stock promoter would specify in his contract that his client “disclose all known material facts” about the company and “be kept informed of key developments.” The typical promoter just parrots whatever the pump and dump mastermind wants him to say or makes up his own puffery. He does his sales job and doesn’t worry about the details of the company. Second, Sharp made 23 open market purchases of Biostem stock — again I have only rarely heard of a stock promoter buying stock in the open market in an ongoing paid pump & dump scheme. Also odd was that Sharp filed the suit seven months after the arrest of most of the participants in the pump and dump scheme — obviously he wouldn’t have a chance of collecting any damages from any of the defendants except maybe Crocs (yes, that Crocs — the executives of Biostem had come from Crocs), and Crocs as a defendant seems to me a very long-shot.

Sharp and his company dropped the suit on October 1st, 2014 after filing a notice on September 22nd, 2014 stating that the case had been settled. Crocs had filed a demurrer that was then sustained by the court on August 7th, 2014 so it was not part of the settlement. The order sustaining the demurrer essentially stated that Sharp had failed to prove that Crocs was sufficiently involved in the alleged conspiracy.

Even among promoted stocks, Biostem US Corp was a total disaster — in early 2013 the FBI arrested fourteen people for market manipulation in Biostem and four other companies. The case was USA v. Sherman Mazur et al and is Case 2:13-cr-00062-SVW in the US District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. Read the indictment. I have not had time to read through everything in the case but it looks like the FBI messed up in a very big way. See the transcript of the proceedings in the application by Sherman Mazur’s lawyer for review/reconsideration of order setting conditions of release/detention (docket 460 from 4/16/2014). The charges against Mazur and the other defendants were dropped in late March, 2014 “because of problems with a wiretap application”.

What does this all mean? Was it just a coincidence that the first (and only) stock George Sharp promoted later resulted in a number of arrests and criminal prosecutions (criminal prosecutions of pump and dump schemes are rare). Did he get involved to try to assist the already ongoing investigation? I really don’t know but that wouldn’t surprise me.

George Sharp, helping to put promoter scum in prison?

Sharp took partial credit for the indictment of Jamie Boye and Eric Cusimano. See update on Cusimano’s guilty plea. Presumably that is because he obtained information relevant to the prosecution and sent it to the authorities, but of course there is no way to confirm or disprove this with access only to public records.

George Sharp working for OTC Markets

For the following few years George Sharp continued to periodically sue penny stock companies and promoters. Other than that, I paid him little thought. I figured that he had just gotten greedy and that in his lawsuits he was looking for quick settlements. In the case of a promoted stock, many of which have management in on the scam, it is good business to settle quickly to get someone like Sharp to go away rather than risk going to discovery and having the whole scheme revealed. Despite that logic, many of Sharp’s lawsuits were long and drawn-out affairs.

I did not reconsider any of this until I saw the news this summer that Sharp had been hired by OTCMarkets.com as a consultant. Below is the full text of the press release:

OTC Markets Group Inc. (OTCQX: OTCM), operator of financial markets for 10,000 U.S. and global securities, today announced it has retained well known, market analyst George Sharp, as a consultant. Mr. Sharp will assist OTC Markets as we develop compliance processes to bring more timely and actionable data to the OTC market.

“George’s expertise in tracking small and microcap market activity makes him a valuable asset as we improve market transparency.” said Matthew Fuchs, Executive Vice President of Market Data and Strategy at OTC Markets Group. “Our goal is to use data to bring greater transparency to the market, arming investors, issuers and market participants with information they need to make informed decisions and identify unusual activity.”

“I am pleased to work with OTC Markets Group as they take a proactive approach to improve the small and microcap market by providing more information to investors,” stated George Sharp. “Information availability and investor education are key elements of a trusted, efficient markets.”

Obviously I had to reconsider my earlier opinion that Sharp was mostly in it for the money. I can’t imagine that OTC Markets Group pays fabulously well and if Cromwell Coulson considered Sharp to be just a pro-se ambulance chaser and stock promoter then he would not have hired Sharp. I do believe that Coulson is a man of good faith and has worked to reduce the prevalence of scams that trade on OTC Markets (although I don’t think he has done nearly enough). At the end of the day, of course Sharp likes the money he wins in his lawsuits. But he is suing many bad people (although I’m sure at least some of the CEOs of promoted companies in his suits were not involved in any promotion) and I no longer doubt that he does consider himself a crusader against penny stock fraud. Maybe he uses his lawsuits to gather useful information (during discovery) about penny stock companies that he then uses in other ways. I can’t know for sure. Two things are certain: George Sharp will keep suing people and the world is a better place as a result of his lawsuits. I can only hope that his anti-scam fervor spreads throughout the OTC Markets organization and that he really does as much behind the scenes to inform regulators as he has claimed (such as in his tweets about Cusimano).

 

 

 

Appendix: George Sharp’s lawsuits against other penny stock companies

In the near future I aim to add a brief description of all the lawsuits mentioned above including the outcome of each suit. This post is being published before this is complete because frankly this is an exhausting task. I may never get around to posting all the lawsuits.

George Sharp v. Stocktips.com, Alkame Holdings Inc (ALKM), Amerada Corp, Aweber Communications, Aweber Systems Inc, Robert Bandfield, Coastal Integrated Services Inc (COLV), Ecrypt Technologies Inc (ECRY), Empire Stock Transfer Inc, Harold Gewerter, Laluna Services Inc, Quicksilver Stock Transfer LLC, Telupay International Inc, Adrian Herman Thomas, Tiger Oil and Energy Inc (TGRO), & Well Power Inc (WPWR)

George Sharp filed case 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego on 3/11/2015 and dismissed on August 15, 2017. (Read the first amended complaint filed May 27, 2016.) I cannot find any evidence of the case being settled and Sharp requested dismissal of the case a few days before a hearing on an order to show cause (OSC).

Following are some of the documents from the case:

37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-110_08-05-16_Minute_Order_1509378411802
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-137_10-07-16_Minute_Order_1509378411880
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-142_10-06-16_Request_for_Dismissal_with_Prejudice_Party_1509378411974
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-147_10-27-16_Request_for_Dismissal_with_Prejudice_Party_1509378412083
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-162_11-04-16_Minute_Order_1509378412161
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-169_12-02-16_Minute_Order_1509378412224
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-180_08-04-17_Notice_of_Hearing_SD_1509405496917
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-181_08-15-17_Request_for_Dismissal_with_Prejudice_Entire_Acti_1509378412333
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-179_08-04-17_Minute_Order_1509405496839 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-44_01-08-16_Minute_Order_1509378410708 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-45_01-19-16_Order_to_Show_Cause_Sanctions_SD_1509378410817 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-53_01-29-16_Minute_Order_1509378410911
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-55_01-29-16_Minute_Order_1509378410989
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-65_03-26-16_Order_Other_1509378411098
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-91_05-27-16_Amended_Complaint_1509378411208
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-92_05-20-16_Amendment_to_Complaint_Cross_Complaint_naming_Doe_1509378411333

37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-99_06-20-16_General_Denial_1509378411458
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-101_06-20-16_General_Denial_1509378411552
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL_ROA-106_08-09-16_Demurrer_1509378411630
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL ROA -89 05-25-16 Motion to Compel Discovery from COLV
37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL — Subpoena to Aweber (dated 8-31-2015)

George Sharp v Xumanii (XUII), African Copper Corporation (ACCS), Amwest Imaging Inc (AMWI), John Babikian, De Groupa Tenner Morales Media Corp, Goff Corporation (GOFF), Harbor Island Development Corp (HIDC), Intertech Solutions Inc (ITEC), Pacific Clean Water Technologies Inc (PCWT), Pacwest Equities Inc (PWEI), Pharmagen Inc (PHRX), Pub Crawl Holdings Inc (PBCW), Red Giant Ventures Inc (REDG), Swing Plane Ventures Inc (SWVI), Taglikeme Corp (TAGG), Victory Mark Corp Ltd, Vumee Inc (VUME), & World Moto Inc (FARE)

George Sharp filed suit against Xumanii and other companies promoted by Awesomepennystocks and Victory Mark Corp on 5/13/2013. The case is 37-2013-00048310-CU-MC-CTL, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

See the judgment won by Sharp. All the judgments in this case were default judgments. I know at least in the case of his judgment against Goff the judgment has not been collected.

Default judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff George Sharp and against Defendants Vumee, Inc., Intertech Solutions, Inc. fka Amwest Imaging, Inc , Goff Corporation, and Excelsis Investments, Inc..
Plaintiff George Sharp to recover from Defendant Vumee, Inc. the total amount of$19,700, consisting of statutory damages in the amount of $18,000 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,700.
Plaintiff George Sharp to recover from Defendant Intertech Solutions, Inc. fka Amwest Imaging, Inc. the total amount of $43,220, consisting of statutory damages in the amount of$41,000 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,220.
Plaintiff George Sharp to recover from Goff Corporation the total amount of $57,450, consisting of statutory damages in the amount of $55,000 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,450.
Plaintiff George Sharp to recover from Defendant Excelsis Investments, Inc. the total amount of $19,700, consisting of statutory damages in the amount of $18,000 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,700.

George Sharp v America Exploration Resources Inc (AREN), Agrieuro Corp (EURI), Aweber Systems, & iContact LLC

George Sharp filed suit against America Exploration Resources on 8/20/2015. The case is 37-2015-00028270-CU-BT-CTL in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Sharp posted the original complaint to Scribd. See his subpoena to iContact from 8/31/2015.

George Sharp v. Citadel EFT (CDFT), Buzzbahn LLC, Diane Dalmy, Gary Deroos, & Nancy Figueiredo

See George Sharp’s press release about his lawsuit against Citadel EFT. The case (37-2013-00034768-CU-FR-CTL) was filed on February 13, 2013 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

Appendix 2: Further Info

George Sharp’s Scribd profile
George Sharp’s blog

Disclaimer: No position in any stocks mentioned and other than being a subscriber to Pennystocks.buzz and having interacted with all of the anti-fraud crusaders mentioned above I have no business or close 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.