NTEK / NTGL
March 17th, 2019 at 10:23:39 PM
permalink
Quote: BozYou were 100% correct Ahigh. No casino accepted the game with a TITO.
Of course you win. Every casino that placed your game accepted it under your terms, absolutely with no TITO. And they all agreed to dedicate a salaried employee as a cashier to provide access to the game, exactly as you envisioned. Silly me thinking it needed a TITO.
Congratulations, I’m glad everything worked out as you planned. Hopefully the residuals are rolling in and more than make up for any hardships your relationship with pieces of s*** like the Foleys caused you.
PS, I found a SF Rush 2049 game recently in Florida and it took my .25. Any chance I can get it back?
What's Rush 2049?
aahigh.com
March 18th, 2019 at 9:43:54 AM
permalink
Excepts from the complaints: Also note how corrupt and stoopid bennie blankenship was with the foley criminal enterprise. It should also be noted that bennie blankenship was already in litigation for other stock scams that he promoted with his promotion company BIG. bennie stupidity is highlighted in red.
SEC Charges Nine Individuals and Companies for Roles in Microcap Scheme
Litigation Release 24419 / March 12, 2019
Securities and Exchange Commission v. River North Equity LLC, Edward M. Liceaga, Michael A. Chavez, NanoTech Entertainment, Inc., NanoTech Gaming, Inc., David R. Foley, Lisa L. Foley, Jeffrey A. Foley, and Bennie L. Blankenship , No. 19-cv-01711 [N.D. IL, filed March 11, 2019]
On March 11, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against nine individuals and companies in a multi-million dollar stock distribution and market manipulation scheme involving two microcap companies, NanoTech Entertainment, Inc. and NanoTech Gaming, Inc.
<snip>
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”), alleges as follows:
Nature of the Case
1. This case involves an illegal stock distribution and market manipulation scheme
orchestrated by defendant David R. Foley, the founder of defendant NanoTech Entertainment,
Inc. (“NTEK”) and defendant NanoTech Gaming, Inc. (“NTGL”). NTEK and NTGL are
microcap or penny stock companies quoted on OTC Link, an electronic inter-dealer quotation
system that displays price quotes from broker-dealers for many over-the-counter securities.
2. Between February 2014 and October 2016, David Foley sold 1.1 billion shares of
NTEK stock, and 19.1 million shares of NTGL stock, to defendant River North Equity LLC
(“River North”), a securities trading company based in Chicago, Illinois, in a series of
unregistered transactions. Subsequently, River North and its president, defendant Edward M. Liceaga, sold these shares to the public. The scheme involved several steps.
23. NanoTech Gaming, Inc., f/k/a NanoTech Gaming Labs, is a Nevada corporation involved in the development of gaming technology with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Its main product was a skill-based pinball game, but the product was never
licensed and NTGL earned no revenue. NTGL operated as a division of NTEK until February 2015, when it became a separate corporation. At all relevant times, NTGL’s stock was quoted on OTC Link. NTGL filed quarterly and annual disclosures on the OTC Markets website for the periods ending December 2014 through March 2016. NTGL’s securities have never been registered with the SEC.
5. Third, David Foley hired defendant Bennie L. Blankenship, the owner of a stock promotion company, to help him boost the price of and market for NTEK and NTGL stock. David Foley paid Blankenship for his efforts in cash and NTEK stock.
6. David Foley spent $500,000 to purchase 6.5 million shares of NTEK in the public market, at prices which were substantially higher than the prices at which he could have acquired shares through his own convertible notes. Blankenship used Twitter and YouTube to promote NTEK and NTGL, and encouraged potential investors, including the members of an investor
group that he had cultivated, to buy both companies’ stock.
27. Bennie L. Blankenship, age 47, is a resident of Springfield, Ohio. Blankenship founded Big Investment Group LLC, which promoted NTEK and NTGL stock. Blankenship promoted NTEK stock through an investor internet chat group and on Twitter and in YouTube
videos.
G. David Foley and Blankenship Manipulated the Market for Shares of NTEK and NTGL
87. In December 2013, David Foley and Blankenship agreed to artificially support the market price and volume of NTEK and NTGL stock during the time David Foley planned to sell stock to River North. David Foley offered to give Blankenship shares of NTEK stock under a purported consulting agreement with Royal Capital in exchange for Blankenship’s promotional efforts and “secondary” trading support for NTEK and NTGL.
88. Blankenship owned a stock promotion company, named Big Investment Group LLC, through which he could promote NTEK stock. Beginning in January 2014, pursuant to his agreement with David Foley, Blankenship used Big Investment Group to promote NTEK on social media through Twitter and YouTube videos.
89. Around that same time, in early 2014, David Foley began trading NTEK stock in Jeff Foley’s E-Trade account, as well as in David Foley’s personal E-Trade account. Between January 15, 2014 and September 15, 2014, David Foley placed over 2,000 limit orders in the two accounts in order to purchase over 6.5 million shares of NTEK for a total cost of approximately $500,000 (a weighted average share price of $.0771 per share).
90. During this same time period, David Foley could have acquired the same number of shares of NTEK stock at substantially lower prices of either $0.0001 or $0.001 by converting a small portion of his remaining convertible promissory notes.
91. Instead, by purchasing shares in the open market, David Foley attempted to increase the prices at which he could sell shares to River North, and at which River North and Liceaga could sell all of their NTEK and NTGL shares. As part of this effort, on May 29, 2014
David Foley advised Liceaga and Chavez that “I spent $50k in the last two days ensuring that your sale price never got below 15% of your purchase price.” In August of 2014, David Foley advised Liceaga that “I’m buying up to bring it back, and I have more support coming on Tuesday,” and “I’ve been buying to support”.
92. After receiving these emails, River North and Liceaga purchased additional shares of NTEK stock from David Foley, including 7,500,000 NTEK shares on July 28, 2014 and 9,000,000 NTEK shares on August 14 and 28, 2014.
93. In early 2014, David Foley had agreed to give Blankenship 7.58 million shares of NTEK stock as partial payment for his promotions of NTEK’s stock. However, in an April 3, 2014 email exchange, David Foley and Blankenship agreed that they would represent that Blankenship’s deposit of these shares into his brokerage account was the result of a “private placement” for $250,000,
rather than as payment for supporting NTEK stock.
94. David Foley and Blankenship did not complete this transaction until March 2015. At that time, David Foley created a fake convertible promissory note, issued from NTEK to Blankenship, and backdated it to April 1, 2014. David Foley also placed Jeff Foley’s electronic signature on NTEK board minutes and consents, without Jeff Foley’s knowledge or permission. Blankenship then used these bogus documents to obtain a legal opinion stating that the NTEK shares did not have to be registered.
95. Blankenship also created a phony check, backdated to March 26, 2014, purportedly as payment by Blankenship for the 7.58 million NTEK shares, in the amount of $250,000. Blankenship then endorsed the fake check with a forged bank stamp and provided it to his broker – along with the false representation that NTEK already had deposited the check into its own bank account.
96. Throughout 2014 and the first half of 2015, David Foley and Blankenship worked together to purchase shares of NTEK stock on the open market and to place bids for additional shares of NTEK.
97. In addition, Blankenship promoted NTEK and NTGL stock and sent emails encouraging an investor group he had cultivated on social media to buy shares of NTEK and NTGL stock at specific times throughout the relevant time period. Blankenship documented his own purchases of NTEK shares in numerous emails to David and Lisa Foley, and included the number of shares purchased by members of his investor group as evidence of his successful stock promotion efforts.
98. Blankenship pressured the members of his investor group to buy NTEK and NTGL shares during the same times that David Foley and Blankenship were supporting the stock. Blankenship did not tell the members of his investor group that he was being
compensated to promote NTEK and NTGL. The members of Blankenship’s investor group who purchased NTEK and NTGL based on his recommendations eventually suffered substantial losses on their investments.
99. Blankenship also promoted NTEK through social media in YouTube videos throughout 2014 and on Twitter during 2014 and 2015. None of Blankenship’s tweets and videos disclosed that he was being compensated by David Foley, in cash and stock.
100. During the 18 months when David Foley was in prison, from June 2015 through December 2016, he was not able to support the market for NTEK and NTGL stock through his own trading. So David Foley paid Blankenship to provide artificial “primary” support for NTEK and NTGL, and asked Lisa Foley to find someone else to provide “secondary” support.
101. Lisa Foley used advances provided by River North to pay an individual to support the trading in NTEK and NTGL shares, but that person ultimately did not make any trades. However, Blankenship continued to support the market for NTEK’s and NTGL’s stock during David Foley’s incarceration. Blankenship provided evidence of his NTEK and NTGL stock purchases to Lisa Foley in exchange for cash payments and additional shares of NTEK stock.
102. Between March 2015 and February 2017, David and Lisa Foley issued more than 28 million shares of NTEK stock to Blankenship, and also paid him $25,000 for supporting the market for NTEK and NTGL stock. Blankenship deposited these NTEK shares in his brokerage account and immediately began selling them in the open market.
103. Between May and August 2014, David Foley, Blankenship, and Blankenship’s investor group purchased more than 25 million shares of NTEK in the open market, and sold more than 17 million shares. Between December 2015 and February 2016, these same individuals purchased more than 4 million shares of NTGL in the open market, and sold 2 million shares. This trading activity created the appearance of a liquid and active market for NTEK and NTGL stock, and increased the trading volume of NTEK and NTGL stock.
SEC Charges Nine Individuals and Companies for Roles in Microcap Scheme
Litigation Release 24419 / March 12, 2019
Securities and Exchange Commission v. River North Equity LLC, Edward M. Liceaga, Michael A. Chavez, NanoTech Entertainment, Inc., NanoTech Gaming, Inc., David R. Foley, Lisa L. Foley, Jeffrey A. Foley, and Bennie L. Blankenship , No. 19-cv-01711 [N.D. IL, filed March 11, 2019]
On March 11, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against nine individuals and companies in a multi-million dollar stock distribution and market manipulation scheme involving two microcap companies, NanoTech Entertainment, Inc. and NanoTech Gaming, Inc.
<snip>
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”), alleges as follows:
Nature of the Case
1. This case involves an illegal stock distribution and market manipulation scheme
orchestrated by defendant David R. Foley, the founder of defendant NanoTech Entertainment,
Inc. (“NTEK”) and defendant NanoTech Gaming, Inc. (“NTGL”). NTEK and NTGL are
microcap or penny stock companies quoted on OTC Link, an electronic inter-dealer quotation
system that displays price quotes from broker-dealers for many over-the-counter securities.
2. Between February 2014 and October 2016, David Foley sold 1.1 billion shares of
NTEK stock, and 19.1 million shares of NTGL stock, to defendant River North Equity LLC
(“River North”), a securities trading company based in Chicago, Illinois, in a series of
unregistered transactions. Subsequently, River North and its president, defendant Edward M. Liceaga, sold these shares to the public. The scheme involved several steps.
23. NanoTech Gaming, Inc., f/k/a NanoTech Gaming Labs, is a Nevada corporation involved in the development of gaming technology with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Its main product was a skill-based pinball game, but the product was never
licensed and NTGL earned no revenue. NTGL operated as a division of NTEK until February 2015, when it became a separate corporation. At all relevant times, NTGL’s stock was quoted on OTC Link. NTGL filed quarterly and annual disclosures on the OTC Markets website for the periods ending December 2014 through March 2016. NTGL’s securities have never been registered with the SEC.
5. Third, David Foley hired defendant Bennie L. Blankenship, the owner of a stock promotion company, to help him boost the price of and market for NTEK and NTGL stock. David Foley paid Blankenship for his efforts in cash and NTEK stock.
6. David Foley spent $500,000 to purchase 6.5 million shares of NTEK in the public market, at prices which were substantially higher than the prices at which he could have acquired shares through his own convertible notes. Blankenship used Twitter and YouTube to promote NTEK and NTGL, and encouraged potential investors, including the members of an investor
group that he had cultivated, to buy both companies’ stock.
27. Bennie L. Blankenship, age 47, is a resident of Springfield, Ohio. Blankenship founded Big Investment Group LLC, which promoted NTEK and NTGL stock. Blankenship promoted NTEK stock through an investor internet chat group and on Twitter and in YouTube
videos.
G. David Foley and Blankenship Manipulated the Market for Shares of NTEK and NTGL
87. In December 2013, David Foley and Blankenship agreed to artificially support the market price and volume of NTEK and NTGL stock during the time David Foley planned to sell stock to River North. David Foley offered to give Blankenship shares of NTEK stock under a purported consulting agreement with Royal Capital in exchange for Blankenship’s promotional efforts and “secondary” trading support for NTEK and NTGL.
88. Blankenship owned a stock promotion company, named Big Investment Group LLC, through which he could promote NTEK stock. Beginning in January 2014, pursuant to his agreement with David Foley, Blankenship used Big Investment Group to promote NTEK on social media through Twitter and YouTube videos.
89. Around that same time, in early 2014, David Foley began trading NTEK stock in Jeff Foley’s E-Trade account, as well as in David Foley’s personal E-Trade account. Between January 15, 2014 and September 15, 2014, David Foley placed over 2,000 limit orders in the two accounts in order to purchase over 6.5 million shares of NTEK for a total cost of approximately $500,000 (a weighted average share price of $.0771 per share).
90. During this same time period, David Foley could have acquired the same number of shares of NTEK stock at substantially lower prices of either $0.0001 or $0.001 by converting a small portion of his remaining convertible promissory notes.
91. Instead, by purchasing shares in the open market, David Foley attempted to increase the prices at which he could sell shares to River North, and at which River North and Liceaga could sell all of their NTEK and NTGL shares. As part of this effort, on May 29, 2014
David Foley advised Liceaga and Chavez that “I spent $50k in the last two days ensuring that your sale price never got below 15% of your purchase price.” In August of 2014, David Foley advised Liceaga that “I’m buying up to bring it back, and I have more support coming on Tuesday,” and “I’ve been buying to support”.
92. After receiving these emails, River North and Liceaga purchased additional shares of NTEK stock from David Foley, including 7,500,000 NTEK shares on July 28, 2014 and 9,000,000 NTEK shares on August 14 and 28, 2014.
93. In early 2014, David Foley had agreed to give Blankenship 7.58 million shares of NTEK stock as partial payment for his promotions of NTEK’s stock. However, in an April 3, 2014 email exchange, David Foley and Blankenship agreed that they would represent that Blankenship’s deposit of these shares into his brokerage account was the result of a “private placement” for $250,000,
rather than as payment for supporting NTEK stock.
94. David Foley and Blankenship did not complete this transaction until March 2015. At that time, David Foley created a fake convertible promissory note, issued from NTEK to Blankenship, and backdated it to April 1, 2014. David Foley also placed Jeff Foley’s electronic signature on NTEK board minutes and consents, without Jeff Foley’s knowledge or permission. Blankenship then used these bogus documents to obtain a legal opinion stating that the NTEK shares did not have to be registered.
95. Blankenship also created a phony check, backdated to March 26, 2014, purportedly as payment by Blankenship for the 7.58 million NTEK shares, in the amount of $250,000. Blankenship then endorsed the fake check with a forged bank stamp and provided it to his broker – along with the false representation that NTEK already had deposited the check into its own bank account.
96. Throughout 2014 and the first half of 2015, David Foley and Blankenship worked together to purchase shares of NTEK stock on the open market and to place bids for additional shares of NTEK.
97. In addition, Blankenship promoted NTEK and NTGL stock and sent emails encouraging an investor group he had cultivated on social media to buy shares of NTEK and NTGL stock at specific times throughout the relevant time period. Blankenship documented his own purchases of NTEK shares in numerous emails to David and Lisa Foley, and included the number of shares purchased by members of his investor group as evidence of his successful stock promotion efforts.
98. Blankenship pressured the members of his investor group to buy NTEK and NTGL shares during the same times that David Foley and Blankenship were supporting the stock. Blankenship did not tell the members of his investor group that he was being
compensated to promote NTEK and NTGL. The members of Blankenship’s investor group who purchased NTEK and NTGL based on his recommendations eventually suffered substantial losses on their investments.
99. Blankenship also promoted NTEK through social media in YouTube videos throughout 2014 and on Twitter during 2014 and 2015. None of Blankenship’s tweets and videos disclosed that he was being compensated by David Foley, in cash and stock.
100. During the 18 months when David Foley was in prison, from June 2015 through December 2016, he was not able to support the market for NTEK and NTGL stock through his own trading. So David Foley paid Blankenship to provide artificial “primary” support for NTEK and NTGL, and asked Lisa Foley to find someone else to provide “secondary” support.
101. Lisa Foley used advances provided by River North to pay an individual to support the trading in NTEK and NTGL shares, but that person ultimately did not make any trades. However, Blankenship continued to support the market for NTEK’s and NTGL’s stock during David Foley’s incarceration. Blankenship provided evidence of his NTEK and NTGL stock purchases to Lisa Foley in exchange for cash payments and additional shares of NTEK stock.
102. Between March 2015 and February 2017, David and Lisa Foley issued more than 28 million shares of NTEK stock to Blankenship, and also paid him $25,000 for supporting the market for NTEK and NTGL stock. Blankenship deposited these NTEK shares in his brokerage account and immediately began selling them in the open market.
103. Between May and August 2014, David Foley, Blankenship, and Blankenship’s investor group purchased more than 25 million shares of NTEK in the open market, and sold more than 17 million shares. Between December 2015 and February 2016, these same individuals purchased more than 4 million shares of NTGL in the open market, and sold 2 million shares. This trading activity created the appearance of a liquid and active market for NTEK and NTGL stock, and increased the trading volume of NTEK and NTGL stock.
March 18th, 2019 at 11:50:02 AM
permalink
Here is a link to the pdf of the full complaint.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24419.pdf
Couldn't help but notice Ahigh's name doesn't appear anywhere in there.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24419.pdf
Couldn't help but notice Ahigh's name doesn't appear anywhere in there.
March 18th, 2019 at 12:12:52 PM
permalink
Quote: Dalex64Here is a link to the pdf of the full complaint.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24419.pdf
Couldn't help but notice Ahigh's name doesn't appear anywhere in there.
Really? Which is probably why the post wasn't about that person and no mention was made.
And bringing that up was pretty meaningless and petty.
But thanks for the heads up.
March 18th, 2019 at 12:14:00 PM
permalink
I appreciated that it was pointed out.Quote: sammydvReally? Which is probably why the post wasn't about that person.
And bringing that up was pretty meaningless and petty.
But thanks for the heads up.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
March 18th, 2019 at 12:22:01 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonI appreciated that it was pointed out.
And neither is your name. But what do the last two comments from you and the other have to do with a post about bennie blankenship and foley?
Nothing.
But stirring up trouble.
Of which I won't condone or acknowledge beyond this post.
GL
March 18th, 2019 at 12:53:05 PM
permalink
Good talk.Quote: sammydvAnd neither is your name. But what do the last two comments from you and the other have to do with a post about bennie blankenship and foley?
Nothing.
But stirring up trouble.
Of which I won't condone or acknowledge beyond this post.
GL
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
March 18th, 2019 at 6:10:33 PM
permalink
Quote: sammydvReally? Which is probably why the post wasn't about that person and no mention was made.
And bringing that up was pretty meaningless and petty.
But thanks for the heads up.
You said the SEC was hanging over his head. Is there a separate complaint just for him?
March 19th, 2019 at 9:41:00 AM
permalink
Quote: Dalex64You said the SEC was hanging over his head. Is there a separate complaint just for him?
I wouldn't know. That's usually not how the SEC works. But this thread isn't about one person. I'm posting on the whole of ntek/ntgl failed enterprise since they have effectively stopped anything game related and only have a low quality media app left barely functioning.
Perhaps you should make a separate thread about the person you're interested in.
March 19th, 2019 at 10:30:23 AM
permalink
Quote: sammydvAnd neither is your name. But what do the last two comments from you and the other have to do with a post about bennie blankenship and foley?
Nothing.
But stirring up trouble.
Of which I won't condone or acknowledge beyond this post.
GL
Great!
Quote: sammydvI wouldn't know. That's usually not how the SEC works. But this thread isn't about one person. I'm posting on the whole of ntek/ntgl failed enterprise since they have effectively stopped anything game related and only have a low quality media app left barely functioning.
Perhaps you should make a separate thread about the person you're interested in.
Hmmm . . .
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
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-
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-
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
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
June 5th, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM
permalink
Further update concerning the ceo/owner of ntek & ntgl and his recent trials and tribulations lawsuits with the recent SEC complaint of fraud and stock manipulations. Filed 5-29-2019. Credit to a BeverlyH elsewhere.
https://i.ibb.co/DpxjhhQ/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-04-02-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/2qxMrGp/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-05-20-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/vsrk6tr/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-06-18-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/Ny80vB8/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-07-10-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/x8DdNfF/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-08-18-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/fXfDnvF/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-09-12-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/NmVR5MS/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-10-34-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/DpxjhhQ/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-04-02-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/2qxMrGp/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-05-20-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/vsrk6tr/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-06-18-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/Ny80vB8/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-07-10-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/x8DdNfF/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-08-18-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/fXfDnvF/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-09-12-PM.png
https://i.ibb.co/NmVR5MS/Screen-Shot-2019-06-04-at-7-10-34-PM.png
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
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
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.
I know everyone hates it when I quote this statistic, but the market cap is currently 5 million.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
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.
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.
September 5th, 2019 at 11:22:34 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI 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.
That quote was from June 12. It's time to pay NTEK another look. Yahoo quotes the price at 0.012. Market cap under a million at $954,598. By way of comparison, the price was 4 cents on June 3.
I think I've asked this before, but how does one know when the fat lady has sung?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 5th, 2019 at 2:35:19 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThat quote was from June 12. It's time to pay NTEK another look. Yahoo quotes the price at 0.012. Market cap under a million at $954,598. By way of comparison, the price was 4 cents on June 3.
I think I've asked this before, but how does one know when the fat lady has sung?
Oh, she's sung. She not only sung, she performed a whole show, locked the doors and then moved out of town. I must say, I did get some good entertainment for my ticket price, but it was a pretty costly ticket.
ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
September 9th, 2019 at 9:23:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardThat quote was from June 12. It's time to pay NTEK another look. Yahoo quotes the price at 0.012. Market cap under a million at $954,598. By way of comparison, the price was 4 cents on June 3.
I think I've asked this before, but how does one know when the fat lady has sung?
When the ceo/owner is under SEC investigation, has 12 active lawsuits against him, banks foreclosing on his home monthly and the only thing running is a phone app on a home server while taking money under false pretenses of offering 4K content when it's only 2K mega manipulated to fake 4K quality.
And oh yes, calling Big Bunny a full length 4K feature. A 3 minute old demo of 2k upgraded to 4K mess is not a feature length movie.
Foley stiffed the fat lady years ago.
Wiz, you need to give up thinking there's something to market cap on a scam pink stock. Please keep in mind, all stock issued by Ntek was issued for free to foley first and then to his family and insiders at a false value before it became a public stock offering.
What you're seeing is wash trading by foley and insiders of ntek. They're the only ones who can move the stock as most retail won't let you sell ntek, but you can buy.
October 2nd, 2019 at 7:01:22 PM
permalink
Quote: sammydvWhat you're seeing is wash trading by foley and insiders of ntek. They're the only ones who can move the stock as most retail won't let you sell ntek, but you can buy.
I thought if someone wants to sell, the highest offer buys. If someone with NTEK wishes to sell, what is the procedure?
Update -- the share price is up to 0.0258. I know you'll have it when I say this, but the market cap is back over a million at 1.306M.
Answer me this. Why is the buy and ask price zero in their summary. I'm including one for MGM Resorts as a comparison.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 2nd, 2019 at 7:06:54 PM
permalink
Because there is no market maker quoting a bid/ask price.Quote: WizardI thought if someone wants to sell, the highest offer buys. If someone with NTEK wishes to sell, what is the procedure?
Update -- the share price is up to 0.0258. I know you'll have it when I say this, but the market cap is back over a million at 1.306M.
Answer me this. Why is the buy and ask price zero in their summary. I'm including one for MGM Resorts as a comparison.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 2nd, 2019 at 7:43:37 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonBecause there is no market maker quoting a bid/ask price.
Then where does the 0.0258 come from?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:38:54 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThen where does the 0.0258 come from?
Isnt that the price that the last trade took place at. ?
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:49:48 PM
permalink
Quote: michael99000Isnt that the price that the last trade took place at. ?
That someone paid 2.58 cents shows it has value.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:54:43 PM
permalink
people pay for sports Picks also.Quote: WizardThat someone paid 2.58 cents shows it has value.
Speaking of Sports Picks.... when will you rid us of that casino sports tout you warned? His name is literally the name of an online Sportsbook and Casino. The annoyingly starts a new thread each time he has a new tip.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 3rd, 2019 at 5:55:15 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI thought if someone wants to sell, the highest offer buys. If someone with NTEK wishes to sell, what is the procedure?
Update -- the share price is up to 0.0258. I know you'll have it when I say this, but the market cap is back over a million at 1.306M.
Answer me this. Why is the buy and ask price zero in their summary. I'm including one for MGM Resorts as a comparison.
It says "at close" for the $.0258.
You took a picture of an "after market hours" screen. Many stocks are not traded at all after hours. You have been told many times that for thinly traded bankrupt stocks like this the real market cap does not approach the simple multiply last price times shares outstanding formula. Because if you try and sell you may sell a small amount at $.0258, but if you try and sell more you won't find a buyer until your price has fallen dramatically. Now that TD Ameritrade charges me zero commission, I will sell my NTEK. I'll bet I will get less than the price listed.
October 3rd, 2019 at 6:31:28 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOIt says "at close" for the $.0258.
You took a picture of an "after market hours" screen. Many stocks are not traded at all after hours. You have been told many times that for thinly traded bankrupt stocks like this the real market cap does not approach the simple multiply last price times shares outstanding formula. Because if you try and sell you may sell a small amount at $.0258, but if you try and sell more you won't find a buyer until your price has fallen dramatically. Now that TD Ameritrade charges me zero commission, I will sell my NTEK. I'll bet I will get less than the price listed.
I never said the market cap was the value of the company. Your argument could also be used about any company.
I'd be interested to know what you get for a little NTEK.
Good comment about the after hours market, thanks.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 3rd, 2019 at 6:44:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI never said the market cap was the value of the company. Your argument could also be used about any company.
I'd be interested to know what you get for a little NTEK.
Good comment about the after hours market, thanks.
Soooo..... I'm obviously not the only one wanting to offload the NTEK stock now that I wont have to pay the $8 commission to sell my $10 worth of stock! NTEK down 50% today.
This move was on a trade of 399 shares. less than a $6 trade cut the 'market cap' in half! Trust me, you can't say that about 'any company'! A billion dollar trade moves AAPL less than 1%.
October 3rd, 2019 at 7:11:02 AM
permalink
I'll trade you for some WolfCoin. It comes with a private dinner with a CEO.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: WizardI thought if someone wants to sell, the highest offer buys. If someone with NTEK wishes to sell, what is the procedure?
Update -- the share price is up to 0.0258. I know you'll have it when I say this, but the market cap is back over a million at 1.306M.
Answer me this. Why is the buy and ask price zero in their summary. I'm including one for MGM Resorts as a comparison.
It says "at close" for the $.0258.
You took a picture of an "after market hours" screen. Many stocks are not traded at all after hours. You have been told many times that for thinly traded bankrupt stocks like this the real market cap does not approach the simple multiply last price times shares outstanding formula. Because if you try and sell you may sell a small amount at $.0258, but if you try and sell more you won't find a buyer until your price has fallen dramatically. Now that TD Ameritrade charges me zero commission, I will sell my NTEK. I'll bet I will get less than the price listed.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 3rd, 2019 at 7:29:53 AM
permalink
Quote: TwoFeathersATLDegenerate gamblers looking for a quick win to recoup their previous losses at craps?
Don't you think this sounds rude? Someone may not like it.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:00:06 AM
permalink
No disrespect Axel, but why is it you can never stay on topic when you join a thread?
Your input here is truly irrelevant.
But thanks for the comedy relief.
GL
Your input here is truly irrelevant.
But thanks for the comedy relief.
GL
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:37:42 AM
permalink
@Wizard
In a penny OTCM stock, that could be brokers clearing a account. They have that right. I'm surprised my brokers haven't cleared off ntek. They cancelled a few recently, zero'd those tickers and probably did a clearing of them.
I'm assuming you do feel market cap is an indicator of company value as it is used loosely by annalists to get an quick value parameter. MC is just a formula indicator to quickly gauge a guesstimation of corporate worth on the market using present stock price times outstanding stock existing. It was never meant to represent the full fundamentals of any corp at all. It can't possibly do that.
@soopoo
If you bought ntek at .05 with 1,000.00 your original cost basis is 1,000.00 and owned 20,000 shares. And lets say you never sold a share yet to this day.
On July 12th ntek pps was .002 est.
Your total ntek stock had a market value of 40.00 (forty dollars) for a loss of roughly 96%?
You will recoup less than zero from selling, but sell it if you can if just to say you were the one to get rid of it.
Then the r/s happened two weeks after foley and blankenship swore a r/s would never never ever happen.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 25.1 split. Ex-date=07/13/2016
You now own only 797 shares.
Plus it could be said that your .05 share is worth about .00005 with the r/s factored in. I could be wrong on the decimal as math isn't my forte.
It opened to trading at .06 on July 13th and because your account value will not change but you had roughly 49.00 from the remaining 797 in the ntek account because of the .06 opening price.
(A reverse split will reduce your share count 'n' amount of shares while maintaining your account value at the pre split price date because the opening price should dictate the amount of shares in your account to match your previous value.)
Ntek has only traded in the pennies because of a false market price due to reverse split mechanics and only due to the foley and friends wash tradings have kept it about a penny all this time.
Before the split, ntek lost over 90% of value in less than two years because there's no real company there. After the split, the loss is a total 100% and actually lower than that if present factored stock price is used. However, the original investment is completely lost. As of today, the pps would need to be roughly 1.26 @ 797 shares to just break even on a investment of 1,000.
And they very worst thing people do is believe averaging down, or buying stock today will somehow even out their loss. That doesn't exist in penny stock either.
GL.
In a penny OTCM stock, that could be brokers clearing a account. They have that right. I'm surprised my brokers haven't cleared off ntek. They cancelled a few recently, zero'd those tickers and probably did a clearing of them.
I'm assuming you do feel market cap is an indicator of company value as it is used loosely by annalists to get an quick value parameter. MC is just a formula indicator to quickly gauge a guesstimation of corporate worth on the market using present stock price times outstanding stock existing. It was never meant to represent the full fundamentals of any corp at all. It can't possibly do that.
@soopoo
If you bought ntek at .05 with 1,000.00 your original cost basis is 1,000.00 and owned 20,000 shares. And lets say you never sold a share yet to this day.
On July 12th ntek pps was .002 est.
Your total ntek stock had a market value of 40.00 (forty dollars) for a loss of roughly 96%?
You will recoup less than zero from selling, but sell it if you can if just to say you were the one to get rid of it.
Then the r/s happened two weeks after foley and blankenship swore a r/s would never never ever happen.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 25.1 split. Ex-date=07/13/2016
You now own only 797 shares.
Plus it could be said that your .05 share is worth about .00005 with the r/s factored in. I could be wrong on the decimal as math isn't my forte.
It opened to trading at .06 on July 13th and because your account value will not change but you had roughly 49.00 from the remaining 797 in the ntek account because of the .06 opening price.
(A reverse split will reduce your share count 'n' amount of shares while maintaining your account value at the pre split price date because the opening price should dictate the amount of shares in your account to match your previous value.)
Ntek has only traded in the pennies because of a false market price due to reverse split mechanics and only due to the foley and friends wash tradings have kept it about a penny all this time.
Before the split, ntek lost over 90% of value in less than two years because there's no real company there. After the split, the loss is a total 100% and actually lower than that if present factored stock price is used. However, the original investment is completely lost. As of today, the pps would need to be roughly 1.26 @ 797 shares to just break even on a investment of 1,000.
And they very worst thing people do is believe averaging down, or buying stock today will somehow even out their loss. That doesn't exist in penny stock either.
GL.
October 3rd, 2019 at 1:32:03 PM
permalink
Sammy... I bought around $1500 total of NTEK in two separate accounts. Worth between $15 and $20. I don't remember how many shares I originall had. Just that at $15 I'm down around 99%.
I put in a sell order today for .022. I'll check to see if it executed. Doubtful. There were other orders to sell at .02 ahead of me.
I put in a sell order today for .022. I'll check to see if it executed. Doubtful. There were other orders to sell at .02 ahead of me.
October 4th, 2019 at 2:24:18 PM
permalink
Soooo...... Last trade (before I put in my MASSIVE sell order) was .02. TWO cents a share. I put in an order to sell ALL OF MY SHARES (279) at .025. I woke up from my nap to see that there was no one who wanted my entire position..... But.... Someone bought 100 of my shares! Someone shelled out $2.50 to buy a portion of my holding. The price which was listed at .02 now went up TWENTY FIVE percent to 0.25!
Mike...... TWO and a half dollars manipulated the price 25%!
Mike...... TWO and a half dollars manipulated the price 25%!
October 4th, 2019 at 2:28:17 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOSoooo...... Last trade (before I put in my MASSIVE sell order) was .02. TWO cents a share. I put in an order to sell ALL OF MY SHARES (279) at .025. I woke up from my nap to see that there was no one who wanted my entire position..... But.... Someone bought 100 of my shares! Someone shelled out $2.50 to buy a portion of my holding. The price which was listed at .02 now went up TWENTY FIVE percent to 0.25!
Mike...... TWO and a half dollars manipulated the price 25%!
Why don’t you a mike just keep trading 100 shares back and forth at higher and higher prices ? Get it up to 10 cents, it’ll start showing up on day traders radars, then boom it’s a buck and you unload
October 4th, 2019 at 2:35:48 PM
permalink
. I think that's illegal? I like my freedom?Quote: michael99000Why don’t you a mike just keep trading 100 shares back and forth at higher and higher prices ? Get it up to 10 cents, it’ll start showing up on day traders radars, then boom it’s a buck and you unload
October 4th, 2019 at 3:04:38 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOSoooo...... Last trade (before I put in my MASSIVE sell order) was .02. TWO cents a share. I put in an order to sell ALL OF MY SHARES (279) at .025. I woke up from my nap to see that there was no one who wanted my entire position..... But.... Someone bought 100 of my shares! Someone shelled out $2.50 to buy a portion of my holding. The price which was listed at .02 now went up TWENTY FIVE percent to 0.25!
Mike...... TWO and a half dollars manipulated the price 25%!
Why do you think somebody paid 2 cents a share? Don't they say that something is worth what you can get somebody else to pay for it?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 4th, 2019 at 6:48:53 PM
permalink
I don't understand why anyone is buying it for anything.
October 4th, 2019 at 7:33:07 PM
permalink
Quote: Dalex64I don't understand why anyone is buying it for anything.
I don't understand at what point a stock just quits trading. Don't these exchanges have some policy about when to call a stock dead?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 4th, 2019 at 9:37:30 PM
permalink
Because you and most everyone else keeps mistaking real companies on a real exchange with real products and earned income with the OTCM penny and sub penny non exchange, non regulated by any known government agencie in any capacity whose companies make up billions of shares of stock daily out of the thin air.
Because they can. It's called pink sheet shit for a reason. That's why ntek and ntgl is still listed on otcm and trading a buck for trash. OTCM is a paid listing service, mostly for stock that couldn't even get listed on a real exchange.
And Wiz, in the pink sheet world of the internet created scams, they lie. About everything including lying to you it's worth a buck a share. Because, you'd believe them and pay it. Or they'd like you to.
And like this website, penny and sub penny trading is all about GAMBLING, not investing. Invest in Microsoft or Samsung, at least with real companies you can get audited financials that they have to be accountable for. No company on the OTCM website is held accountable for anything except when the fees are due to OTCM.
And seriously, drop the mentioning of MC in the same sentence as ntek. That is a direct insult to anyone with 3 months of trying to trade pennies.
Because they can. It's called pink sheet shit for a reason. That's why ntek and ntgl is still listed on otcm and trading a buck for trash. OTCM is a paid listing service, mostly for stock that couldn't even get listed on a real exchange.
And Wiz, in the pink sheet world of the internet created scams, they lie. About everything including lying to you it's worth a buck a share. Because, you'd believe them and pay it. Or they'd like you to.
And like this website, penny and sub penny trading is all about GAMBLING, not investing. Invest in Microsoft or Samsung, at least with real companies you can get audited financials that they have to be accountable for. No company on the OTCM website is held accountable for anything except when the fees are due to OTCM.
And seriously, drop the mentioning of MC in the same sentence as ntek. That is a direct insult to anyone with 3 months of trying to trade pennies.
October 4th, 2019 at 9:39:59 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI don't understand at what point a stock just quits trading. Don't these exchanges have some policy about when to call a stock dead?
There is a point yes, but it's with the SEC and Finra. And with ntek and it's investigations by the SEC and soon the DOJ, they will shut the stocks down. Finra regulates the ticker names and will be the ones to delist ntek.
The government runs very slowly sometimes.
And once again, the OTCM is not an exchange or regulated by any government regulator. The OTCM is a private company that charges companies a fee so they can have their non filing, non registered and not allowed to have their companies stock listed on a real exchange because they do not meet regulatory guideline filing requirements with Finra and SEC, the REAL OFFICIAL governing bodies for corporate entity stock issuance. Nor do these scams like ntek WANT to file as it would reveal what corrupt scums these ceo's really are. In ntek's case, so many lies were published that the ceo and pals lost total track of them.
One is the lie of income. Millions and millions were alleged to be made selling non existent media boxes over the years. When official documents were submitted to the SEC, ALL mention of revenue of ntek/ntgl were listed as no income ever. Foley even claims numerous times that there was never any income to pay his salaries. Or anyones.
And just the other day, Longside asked for the FIFTH time to compel foley to turn in court mandated data about their almost 2 million dollar lawsuit that longside won years ago and can't collect.
Are you starting to understand what you're trying to ... figure out?
Last edited by: sammydv on Oct 4, 2019
October 5th, 2019 at 5:12:29 AM
permalink
Thank you for your help. Let's step back and lower the temperature for now.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 5th, 2019 at 6:26:02 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardWhy do you think somebody paid 2 cents a share? Don't they say that something is worth what you can get somebody else to pay for it?
Mike, let me give you an example. Let's say someone offered to sell you a 1000 books called "The easiest guaranteed way to beat Roulette!" for $10 each. You do some research and find out that on Amazon it sells 100 books a week consistently for $20. So do you buy the books because others MISVALUE it, or do you consider the value ZERO, which it should be.
I think sammy's point is that since at one point NTEK had value, there exists a bunch of people who own it. And some just see a numbers thing, like they believe others will,say, prop it up to 2cents and they can sell, and re buy at 1.4 cents. Nothing at all to do if the stock actually has any value.
Same for bitcoin, actually. Just instead of 2 cents its $10,000!
October 5th, 2019 at 6:33:14 AM
permalink
So an update on my 'sale'! I checked my statement, and it shows I sold 100 shares of NTEK for $2.50. I now can trade commission free on TD. Except..... they show a commission of $2.49 and a 'reg fee' of $0.01! So I netted zero. I'll call on Monday and I'm sure I'll get the commission reversed, and I'll try and find out what the penny 'reg fee' is. I've made multiple other trades since the change and had no commission and no 'reg fee'.
October 5th, 2019 at 9:52:32 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOMike, let me give you an example. Let's say someone offered to sell you a 1000 books called "The easiest guaranteed way to beat Roulette!" for $10 each. You do some research and find out that on Amazon it sells 100 books a week consistently for $20. So do you buy the books because others MISVALUE it, or do you consider the value ZERO, which it should be.
Good point. I stand by the something is worth what you can get someone else to pay for it. So, to be consistent, I would have to say that these books carry some economic value. However, they contain no intrinsic value. I'd compare it to the Pet Rock fad, they had value because people thought they had value.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 5th, 2019 at 10:33:44 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardGood point. I stand by the something is worth what you can get someone else to pay for it. So, to be consistent, I would have to say that these books carry some economic value. However, they contain no intrinsic value. I'd compare it to the Pet Rock fad, they had value because people thought they had value.
I think we can now agree to agree. Why don't you try and purchase a small amount of NTEK as an exercise, then try and sell it some time later. Buy 10,000 shares ($200ish). See how difficult it would be to sell it.
October 5th, 2019 at 11:18:14 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOI think we can now agree to agree. Why don't you try and purchase a small amount of NTEK as an exercise, then try and sell it some time later. Buy 10,000 shares ($200ish). See how difficult it would be to sell it.
I'll see if I can some for fun with my Fidelity account. If I would have trouble selling thousands of shares, then that would show they don't have much value. In other words, I'll accept that the person who bought your 2-cent shares maybe was doing it for reasons other than making money on those shares.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 9th, 2019 at 10:43:23 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI'll see if I can some for fun with my Fidelity account. If I would have trouble selling thousands of shares, then that would show they don't have much value. In other words, I'll accept that the person who bought your 2-cent shares maybe was doing it for reasons other than making money on those shares.
Wellllll...... I sold the rest(179 shares) of my NTEK from that account, at a price of a little over 2 cents a share. I didn't read the really small print on my 'free' trades with TD, which do NOT include 'pink sheet' trades. So the $3+ I got for the sale was negated by a $3+ commission, and the same thing happened on my first NTEK sale. So I got zero in my sale. My punishment for buying NTEK is still not complete. I own a few hundred shares in a separate TD account, but I guess I'll keep them.
