Thread Rating:

sammydv
sammydv
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 558
May 16th, 2019 at 9:59:31 AM permalink
Update regarding nanotechs ongoing fraud and stock manipulation lawsuit with the SEC. River North has shown to be a bad actor in other fraud cases with nanotech as one of them.
More can be found with a free pacer account. The SEC can not put anyone in jail itself, but will hand off the case to the DOJ if warranted.
It has become standard sentencing with the 'without admitting or denying the accusations' sentence.

Excerpt:

PE Firm Says SEC Can’t Call It A ‘Dealer’ Over Stock Scheme

By Dean Seal

Law360 (May 13, 2019, 5:27 PM EDT) — Private equity firm River North Equity LLC and its sole manager want out of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, saying the agency has not shown that the firm was a “dealer” in connection to an alleged stock manipulation scheme.

Edward M. Liceaga, president of River North, told an Illinois federal judge Friday that the SEC has not found that he engaged in any fraud related to the market manipulation scheme conducted through penny stock companies NanoTech Entertainment Inc. and NanoTech Gaming Inc.

The SEC has not claimed that Liceaga knew of the illegal scheme when River North bought and sold shares of the microcap entertainment companies, he argued. Instead, the agency is trying to cast the firm as an unregistered dealer of those shares when it was no more than a “self-interested market participant,” he said.

“After engaging in a lengthy investigation into River North’s and Mr. Liceaga’s activities and finding no fraudulent conduct, the commission is now attempting to use this court to reverse its longstanding public policy against taking enforcement actions against ‘traders,’ who simply buy and sell securities for their own benefit and self-interest but who are not in the business of providing services to third-parties,” according to River North and Liceaga’s dismissal bid.

The SEC asserted securities claims against River North and its president in March — along with the NanoTech companies and their founder David R. Foley — claiming that Foley sold NanoTech stock to River North, had co-defendant and stock promoter Bennie L. Blankenship boost the price of and market for NanoTech stock, and then misled the investing public with falsified documents about the companies.

Without admitting or denying the accusations, Blankenship consented to a penny stock bar and disgorgement earlier this month and has been dropped from the case.

After Foley pled guilty to fraud in two unrelated cases in 2015, he had his wife create three companies that were used to continue the scheme in which NanoTech stock was sold to River North, which in turn sold the stock to the public, reaping profits for both NanoTech and River North, the agency claims.

Foley, his wife and the NanoTech companies asked the court on Friday for more time to respond to the SEC’s complaint.

But the SEC’s claims fail to delineate how River North was acting as anything more than a trader of securities, especially without any evidence that the firm knew of the illegal stock promotion scheme, Liceaga said Friday.

The enforcement action does not say that River North held itself out as a continuous buyer and seller of NanoTech securities, otherwise made a market for those securities, held money for third parties in any security, lent money, or even gave advice, the firm said in its dismissal bid. It is only accused of trading for its own account, it said.

Without performing any of the duties of a dealer as stipulated in securities law, the SEC’s attempt to hold River North and Liceaga liable for registration violations in buying and selling NanoTech stock would improperly expand requirements for registration, according to the dismissal bid.

“If the commission’s attempt in this matter is successful, then every day trader, hedge fund, or other market participant who purchased and sold securities for a profit would be acting as an unregistered dealer and subject to sanctions,” River North said. “Such an outcome is unjust on its face because Congress, and not the federal courts, is the proper forum for the commission to engage in rulemaking.”

The SEC and counsel for River North, Liceaga and the NanoTech defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The SEC is represented in-house by Daniel J. Hayes, Robert M. Moye, Richard G. Stoltz and Christine B. Jeon.

River North and Liceaga are represented by Mark David Hunter of Hunter Taubman Fischer & Li LLC.

The NanoTech defendants are represented by Robert A. Shipley of Shipley Law Group Ltd.

The case is SEC v. River North Equity LLC et al., case number 1:19-cv-01711, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

–Editing by Adam LoBelia.
https://www.law360.com/privateequity/articles/1158939/pe-firm-says-sec-can-t-call-it-a-dealer-over-stock-scheme-
sammydv
sammydv
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 558
May 22nd, 2019 at 9:29:15 AM permalink
While the above information about bennie blankenship was not from the courts directly, the below links are from the courts about David Foleys brother Jeffery. Jeff got the same wrist slap as Bennie. Foley and his wife will also likely get the same SEC sentence. But they may face further criminal cases.

Jeff Foleys SEC final:

https://i.ibb.co/JxZW8jS/Screen-Shot-2019-05-22-at-8-11-33-AM.png
https://i.ibb.co/rHN2bJT/Screen-Shot-2019-05-22-at-8-14-01-AM.png
https://i.ibb.co/bKTV0Wr/Screen-Shot-2019-05-22-at-8-13-11-AM.png
https://i.ibb.co/0KNw9Sm/Screen-Shot-2019-05-22-at-8-12-34-AM.png
sammydv
sammydv
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 558
June 12th, 2019 at 9:26:44 AM permalink
Please see link for free download or read for complete court docs of DAvid Foley response and defense submitted Monday. It doesn't look good for the two companies and their stock ought to be halted or revoked soon.


Also a MP3 of the last BK attempt from the Foley's as well.

https://ufile.io/pwl1xqnw

No. 1:19-cv-1711

Plaintiff,
v.RIVER NORTH EQUITY LLC, EDWARD M.
LICEAGA, MICHAEL A. CHAVEZ, Judge Durkin
NANOTECH ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
NANOTECH GAMING, INC., DAVID R. FOLEY,
LISA L. FOLEY, JEFFREY A. FOLEY,
BERNIE L. BLANKENSHIP,
Defendants.

NANOTECH ENTERTAINMENT, INC., NANOTECH GAMING, INC., DAVID R.
FOLEY and LISA L. FOLEY ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Bk audio source here. Judge called everything a fantasy and what universe does the defendant operate in.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AJL5Bg6akgFWCom0WEmz0UD2UBDGJC9A/view
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1194
  • Posts: 19931
June 12th, 2019 at 2:21:21 PM permalink
I see the stock price has quadrupled since April 29. Wow.

I know everyone hates it when I quote this statistic, but the market cap is currently 5 million.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
sammydv
sammydv
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 558
June 13th, 2019 at 9:13:00 AM permalink
No hate at all Wiz, or even perturbed. You're a straight on numbers guy. It's not a crime that you may not be a big financial or business type personality. I don't doubt if you cared that much you'd put your mind to it and become proficient at stocks and such. It's just doesn't seem to be in your realm of interest at this time. I don't know why people are so quick to jump on people on this website. I know where you're coming from. Look again today and it's heading right back down after a recent failed paid pump. Well, some people made money on the pump.

But the writings on the wall with David Foley and his family. David knowingly tried to profit from stock manipulation and dishonest tricks and has gotten caught AGAIN. Sadly, he may bring down or has already, everyone within in his sphere of influence. Influencer is a catch phrase now in social circles, actually starting to be passe', but being in the circle of influencer Foley is a baaaad thing. Ask one of your members here how that worked out.

Most companies that operate in United States usually by law have to have a business license in the states they operate in or at least where they are domiciled, or called incorporated. Nanotech has no licenses anywhere in this country for ntek or ntgl. Businesses which portent to make an income usually have offices or places of business, even a ups address for virtual mailbox. Nanotech has nothing. Almost two years ago Nanotech was sued for non rent payments and has been evicted from the last known office space in California.

The only thing that is owned, for now, is a low quality mobile media streaming app with literally under 100 users which can actually be maintained and operated on one 5Tb drive server and a residential broadband connection. Really. That's it.

In those links above, foley admits that nanotech has had no income for years. From the looks of the court docs, and the judges comments in foleys BK attempt, about foley being from another universe and would take 300 years to pay everything back if using foleys plans, the chances of ntek and ntgl being BK'd by receivership is very high. Wonder what the over and under would be on that.

So, you see Wiz, there is really no company there to justify ANY market cap. It's all just a numbers indicator created by the market movers to get a quick grasp on a companies worth just by looking at the instant pps at the moment. In the pink sheets, this indicator is absolutely worthless for real value. In real exchanges, a MC could give a trader a sliver of an idea of a company's worth at that moment.
Mainly because in the real market exchanges companies have to file official audited financial information to the public and SEC and other agencies AND have to substantiate those numbers in many ways. Thus on an exchange, a trader can look at a companies earnings and stock and see the MC is close. Even on exchanges, the MC isn't a real indicator of the actual companies net worth. On the pink listing service = otcm, there are NO requirements of any kind because the pink sheets are NOT an exchange and governed by any government agencies. Pink sheets is a private listing service only, and otcm does not vet any company filings, and companies again, are not obligated to file ANYTHING to anyone if they are not a SEC registered company. Nanotech and all foley companies have never been SEC filers. Never.

Of course there was Enron and all that, so even big exchange companies may not be submitting the truth. But the odds are much better that a exchange company would have accurate info, whereas a pink sheet doesn't need to and almost always uses the otcm to pump false numbers and info.

So, Wiz, keep that in mind when you're playing with the MC numbers, big exchange, high odds the info from financials are real, pink sheet, almost 100% odds the number info is false.

Hope this helps.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1194
  • Posts: 19931
June 13th, 2019 at 11:13:12 AM permalink
Thanks sammy. That was such a good post that I have no argument with it.

In 2009 I got a hot stock tip on a company called Xpedior. If you click "max" on the stock price, I was one of the fools who bought at that spike in 2009. When that ship sank, it just sank. It simply quit being listed. People following it on bulletin boards argued over how to declare the loss on their incomes taxes, because it just dropped off all radars. I am surprised that graph gives a value of 0.0001 as late as 2015. On what exchange is it based on?

I'm not sure what my point is. I guess it is that is the experience I'm used to and seeing any value at least gives an impression to the amateur that the heart is still beating.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
sammydv
sammydv
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 558
June 13th, 2019 at 4:25:42 PM permalink
All I can find at the moment about xpedior is from 1999 through 2002? Can't find much about it around 2009 however. Can't make a judgement if it was shaky or not.
From the 1999 ipo and stuff, xpdr was supposed to have over 150 employees. Would you happen to have link to that chart. I could not locate anything yet.
Your tip appears to be the kind that means well, but even the tipster may have taken the loss. You're only guilty of not taking the time to double check. If you felt your source was straight and solid, can one honestly call you a fool for trusting them?

https://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/company/xpedior-inc-68339-2975

https://www.cnet.com/news/xpedior-expedia-in-trademark-dispute/

This is odd, another company with the exact same name posted as founded in 2007? No familiar names from the above expedior inc. Could this be the private company that is left after the blow out? Perhaps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/XPDR:US

The stock no longer trades on nastaq, nor anywhere else. They either were delisted/revoked or they took it private themselves.

https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/xpdr/after-hours

It looks like the dot-com bubble blast plus the trademark lawsuit took them out.

xepdior looks to be a legit corp that fell on bad times and management and were no where near the scam of n-t-ek.

  • Jump to: