A class action attorney must sue IHUB and its foun
Post# of 14350
Posted On: 10/04/2012 5:40:23 PM
A class action attorney must sue IHUB and its founders for allowing or not having the. Controls in place to PROTECT paying and non-paying members from this illegal activity. THEY must be held accountable. The ILL-GOTTEN belongs to the shareholders that were harmed by tHis illegal activity, NOT the SEC. IHUB should be sued by investors who were victims due to this crmininal activity.
"In addition, prosecutors cited the substantial harm that Mr. Brown and others inflicted on investors. In one instance, they caused a stock to rise by more than 150 per cent in hours, and sold shares worth $747,609. The government also pointed out that the judge could have ordered Mr. Brown to forfeit as much as $9.4-million, or twice the total proceeds of the scheme. Judge Robinson, in deciding for the prosecution, simply said that she did not have jurisdiction to alter her earlier forfeiture order. Presumably, this means that Mr. Brown's only option is to appeal the order to a higher court. Brown's indictment Federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Brown on May 21, 2009, in the District of Delaware. They claimed that he and others dumped hundreds of millions of shares in manipulated pink sheets companies in 2006 and 2007. While the overall investigation included four stocks, the specific charges against Mr. Brown were limited to two companies. The first was an anti-aging promotion called GH3 International Inc. In 2006, he and others received millions of GH3 shares through improper Rule 504 offerings, prosecutors claimed. In December of that year, they carried out a series of prearranged trades that coincided with misleading news."
"In addition, prosecutors cited the substantial harm that Mr. Brown and others inflicted on investors. In one instance, they caused a stock to rise by more than 150 per cent in hours, and sold shares worth $747,609. The government also pointed out that the judge could have ordered Mr. Brown to forfeit as much as $9.4-million, or twice the total proceeds of the scheme. Judge Robinson, in deciding for the prosecution, simply said that she did not have jurisdiction to alter her earlier forfeiture order. Presumably, this means that Mr. Brown's only option is to appeal the order to a higher court. Brown's indictment Federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Brown on May 21, 2009, in the District of Delaware. They claimed that he and others dumped hundreds of millions of shares in manipulated pink sheets companies in 2006 and 2007. While the overall investigation included four stocks, the specific charges against Mr. Brown were limited to two companies. The first was an anti-aging promotion called GH3 International Inc. In 2006, he and others received millions of GH3 shares through improper Rule 504 offerings, prosecutors claimed. In December of that year, they carried out a series of prearranged trades that coincided with misleading news."
(0)
(0)