Thomas,
It has been many years now with this ongoing global lock for SFIO.
I imagine any shareholders or SFIO followers still left after all these years probably would like to know what your opinions are of the DTC global lock and of the company and/or the job George Roth is doing (or lack thereof). Can you post a reply to this post with your opinions and thoughts about the future of SFIO or if it even still has any potential future?
Are you still in contact with the current CEO?
What have you heard, if anything?
My own assessment of SFIO at this point is that there is no capital and no possibility for raising capital for an operating budget because the stock is in a global lock, is this a correct assessment?
Why was Mr Roth able to issue himself 1 million preferred shares on the day of the global lock and why would he execute such an issuance?
What is the reason for the global lock?
Why did you sign a plea agreement end of May 2011 and the stock during that same time began climbing up to 52 week highs and then proceed to pull in a historic number of investors, new shareholders and new capital for another month before the SEC litigation announcement was made public at the end of June 2011? Why were shareholders only notified as to the legal issues happening in the company only after the SEC litigation was publicly announced?!
First of all I would like to make my opinion as to the SEC investigation known to be an utter witch hunt and entrapment in order for a few in the agency to put heads on the wall to further their careers and attempt to prove that their positions are worth the public keeping.
I would like for you to take note that in fact shareholders, of any company, OWN the company, the shareholders act of buying shares and buying into the company via the purchase of the common shares means that they are real true investors who are supporting the company with the purchasing power of the bid, keeping the share price afloat. To say that the common shareholders are worthless and they are not investors is entirely untrue and a fallacy. Especially when one considers a company not yet in a positive cash flow position and with only losses and debt on the balance sheet, the "paid-in capital" from shareholders directly supports the debt and losses on the balance sheet of the company! Typically in any deal with "investors" to raise capital via a funding agreement, the common stock is usually used as a form of liquidity and payment back to the investor, which directly takes value away from the shareholders of common stock via dilution, therefore, it is a fact that any owner of common stock is an owner of the company, an owner of the debt and their capital gains or losses are directly attributable to the capital in the company and on the balance sheet. They are indeed real investors. Certainly retail investors purchase shares from broker-dealers but this obfuscates the point. The real fact is that so long as the broker-dealers keep a proper accounting of the freely trading float and there is never any counterfeiting going on (naked short selling, etc) then the O/S should remain at the known and proper level and the shares are a representation of percentage ownership of the capital/assets of the company! Your perception of holders of the common share pool is entirely inaccurate and it is rather alarming that after a very public incident regarding breaking of securities laws which thereby put investors and shareholders in an extremely bad financial situation, your perception of shareholders is that they never put a dime into the growth of the company and instead it was all due to your personal capital whilst being a victim of the SEC. In my opinion, your musings are entirely without merit and absolutely in no way shows any remorse or sorrow for the financial ruin of shareholders who lost their capital investing into this company on no fault of their own! Frankly, I find such notions to be appalling and I am in disgust of such a selfish conception and twisting of reality to your own faulty perceptions. You were fined $5,000 and a slap on the wrist, or rather a slap on the ankle! Meanwhile, shareholders saw their investment go from 2 cents a share down to under par value and no ability to purchase or sell shares for over three years and it continues. For you to even insinuate that none of this was the fault of your illegal actions but instead it is not the place of shareholders to demand answers and retribution is shameful and weak. What is more is that such conduct is UN-AMERICAN. After all of this, immediately after completing the house arrest, the nerve to peddle new ideas for products and fish for more investor capital by way of sniffing around among the old SFIO shareholder base. How embarrassing, how embarrassing, the dark side I sense in you.
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
It has been many years now with this ongoing global lock for SFIO.
I imagine any shareholders or SFIO followers still left after all these years probably would like to know what your opinions are of the DTC global lock and of the company and/or the job George Roth is doing (or lack thereof). Can you post a reply to this post with your opinions and thoughts about the future of SFIO or if it even still has any potential future?
Are you still in contact with the current CEO?
What have you heard, if anything?
My own assessment of SFIO at this point is that there is no capital and no possibility for raising capital for an operating budget because the stock is in a global lock, is this a correct assessment?
Why was Mr Roth able to issue himself 1 million preferred shares on the day of the global lock and why would he execute such an issuance?
What is the reason for the global lock?
Why did you sign a plea agreement end of May 2011 and the stock during that same time began climbing up to 52 week highs and then proceed to pull in a historic number of investors, new shareholders and new capital for another month before the SEC litigation announcement was made public at the end of June 2011? Why were shareholders only notified as to the legal issues happening in the company only after the SEC litigation was publicly announced?!
First of all I would like to make my opinion as to the SEC investigation known to be an utter witch hunt and entrapment in order for a few in the agency to put heads on the wall to further their careers and attempt to prove that their positions are worth the public keeping.
I would like for you to take note that in fact shareholders, of any company, OWN the company, the shareholders act of buying shares and buying into the company via the purchase of the common shares means that they are real true investors who are supporting the company with the purchasing power of the bid, keeping the share price afloat. To say that the common shareholders are worthless and they are not investors is entirely untrue and a fallacy. Especially when one considers a company not yet in a positive cash flow position and with only losses and debt on the balance sheet, the "paid-in capital" from shareholders directly supports the debt and losses on the balance sheet of the company! Typically in any deal with "investors" to raise capital via a funding agreement, the common stock is usually used as a form of liquidity and payment back to the investor, which directly takes value away from the shareholders of common stock via dilution, therefore, it is a fact that any owner of common stock is an owner of the company, an owner of the debt and their capital gains or losses are directly attributable to the capital in the company and on the balance sheet. They are indeed real investors. Certainly retail investors purchase shares from broker-dealers but this obfuscates the point. The real fact is that so long as the broker-dealers keep a proper accounting of the freely trading float and there is never any counterfeiting going on (naked short selling, etc) then the O/S should remain at the known and proper level and the shares are a representation of percentage ownership of the capital/assets of the company! Your perception of holders of the common share pool is entirely inaccurate and it is rather alarming that after a very public incident regarding breaking of securities laws which thereby put investors and shareholders in an extremely bad financial situation, your perception of shareholders is that they never put a dime into the growth of the company and instead it was all due to your personal capital whilst being a victim of the SEC. In my opinion, your musings are entirely without merit and absolutely in no way shows any remorse or sorrow for the financial ruin of shareholders who lost their capital investing into this company on no fault of their own! Frankly, I find such notions to be appalling and I am in disgust of such a selfish conception and twisting of reality to your own faulty perceptions. You were fined $5,000 and a slap on the wrist, or rather a slap on the ankle! Meanwhile, shareholders saw their investment go from 2 cents a share down to under par value and no ability to purchase or sell shares for over three years and it continues. For you to even insinuate that none of this was the fault of your illegal actions but instead it is not the place of shareholders to demand answers and retribution is shameful and weak. What is more is that such conduct is UN-AMERICAN. After all of this, immediately after completing the house arrest, the nerve to peddle new ideas for products and fish for more investor capital by way of sniffing around among the old SFIO shareholder base. How embarrassing, how embarrassing, the dark side I sense in you.
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
