Wednesday 1 September 2010

xG Document Archive

Hello Chaps,

You'll notice to the right a new widget called "xG Document Archive". This is intended as a repository of interesting original xG documents which will be added as and when time permits. First up are some of the various court documents I had on the hard drive. You'll need a (free) Gmail account to view them.

Lots of fascinating reading - (especially for the new shareholders out there). Unauthorised Icelandic shares...a Dominion Group court-case (Ricks previous company)...Chimay's being sued by the world...xG's original share cert to Falt (and the underhand cancellation of the company to make it invalid)...

But most, most, fascinating of all is to read the original court docs of the iDigi affair. xG really is just a continuation of the last scam. Incompetence. Overstated performance. Proprietary equipment that wasn't. Same old, same new, shit that they try to pull on investors.

If anyone's got some documents they want put on the archive drop me a line.

48 comments:

  1. There you go Drunk, bring back the past because your future looks like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Marc. Got anything to add to the archive? I've got a few things with your name on it that will be in there soon. Send me what you got.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok, good idea douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow! I knew iDigi was a fiasco, but judging by that document "LN vs iDigi", it was a total clusterf*ck. Absolutely incredible in so many ways. Orders of magnitude worse than I had thought.

    And from what I've been able to glean from xG's regulatory filings and PR announcements, I have a hard time believing their situation is any different from iDigi's. I would love to hear what the people at NGW, Gama, Telefonica, and Townes have to say about their experience dealing with xG.

    Please post whatever you have. This is all interesting reading. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Drunk, looks like you added another retard to your crew of meat puppets...congrats. Jackson you fucked up moron, suck on this document. Who the fuck needs corporations when Governments are the true owners of business. You fucktards couldn´t get any dumber if you fell on your head from 300 feet up. Keep sucking it, losers! Bwhahahahahaha. Jackson, your birth was a bigger fiasco than anything else!

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VC3W6Y6uuVsJ:www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum/meeting_files/07272010/UnlicensedWorkplan_Draft.doc+xmax+white+space+congress&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

    Buddy, the US Congress is involved!
    Suck
    My
    Dick
    !



    The Subcommittee’s evaluation will also include a thorough review of the pertinent FCC Dockets. In addition to ET Docket No. 04-186 “Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands,” ET Docket No. 02-380 “Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, and the FCC’s White Space Second Report and Order, the Subcommittee will conduct a thorough review of the 2010 FCC and public filings as well as the most pertinent of the over 35,280 filings that have occurred since the 5/14/2004 notice of proposed rulemaking. In particular, the subcommittee will carefully review the technical and operational aspects discussed in the following comments:
    • Media Access Project’s comments filed in support of unlicensed for opportunistic use and its ability to ease congestion experienced by licensees and ultimate end-users of licensed spectrum.
    • Phillips Electronics’ comments in support of utilizing spectrum-sensing in addition to geolocation databases to avoid interference with licensed services and unregistered wireless microphones.
    • MSTV’s comments in support of a narrow expansion of part 74 eligibility to allow limited wireless microphone usage in the core TV band.
    • xMax’s comments regarding its mobile VoIP and data system operating in the unlicensed 900MHz band (902-928MHz) under Part 15 of the Commission's Rules.
    • Congresswoman Berkley and Senators Kerry and Snowe’s comments supporting white space licensing and discussing the potential for congressional action.
    • The dissenting statement of Commissioner Tate in response to the white space “Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,” as well as the negative responses of other public and private sector leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Drunk, I see you erased my comment. Have fun jerking off with your other psycho retarded buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you have the final judgement in the iDigi case? I understand the decision was favourable to xG and that the salacious allegations were dismissed? Why have you not posted it or is it on its way?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ny the way that last post was from me, a different Anonymous from MD.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous 1,

    I have never deleted a comment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous 2,

    There never was any judgment. Mooers was sued for Fraud by LN and settled up out of court. $30 million of investors money was lost in iDigi (check with Gerald A McHale - the court appointed administrator...,) all lost in a tangled wed of different companies (all with Mooers as beneficiary).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Want to know more before you request a quote or make a booking? Why not read up on the latest reviews and find out what others think about a document archive facility or document archive provider? You can read the most recent document archive reviews, or add a document archive review of your own.

      Delete
  11. Hey Marc,

    Gmail tells me you did vomit a comment here. Apparently it was deleted as the URL you gave was too large. Here it is without the URL:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "xG Document Archive":

    Hey Drunk, looks like you added another retard to your crew of meat puppets...congrats. Jackson you fucked up moron, suck on this document. Who the fuck needs corporations when Governments are the true owners of business. You fucktards couldn´t get any dumber if you fell on your head from 300 feet up. Keep sucking it, losers! Bwhahahahahaha. Jackson, your birth was a bigger fiasco than anything else!

    Buddy, the US Congress is involved!
    Suck
    My
    Dick
    !



    The Subcommittee’s evaluation will also include a thorough review of the pertinent FCC Dockets. In addition to ET Docket No. 04-186 “Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands,” ET Docket No. 02-380 “Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, and the FCC’s White Space Second Report and Order, the Subcommittee will conduct a thorough review of the 2010 FCC and public filings as well as the most pertinent of the over 35,280 filings that have occurred since the 5/14/2004 notice of proposed rulemaking. In particular, the subcommittee will carefully review the technical and operational aspects discussed in the following comments:
    • Media Access Project’s comments filed in support of unlicensed for opportunistic use and its ability to ease congestion experienced by licensees and ultimate end-users of licensed spectrum.
    • Phillips Electronics’ comments in support of utilizing spectrum-sensing in addition to geolocation databases to avoid interference with licensed services and unregistered wireless microphones.
    • MSTV’s comments in support of a narrow expansion of part 74 eligibility to allow limited wireless microphone usage in the core TV band.
    • xMax’s comments regarding its mobile VoIP and data system operating in the unlicensed 900MHz band (902-928MHz) under Part 15 of the Commission's Rules.
    • Congresswoman Berkley and Senators Kerry and Snowe’s comments supporting white space licensing and discussing the potential for congressional action.
    • The dissenting statement of Commissioner Tate in response to the white space “Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,” as well as the negative responses of other public and private sector leaders.



    Posted by Anonymous to xG Technology is a Scam at 4 September 2010 08:45

    You think that the FCC are going to gift the whole of the 902-928 band to these fraudsters? In preference to Blue chip companies like Philips? You are deluded.

    Mooohahahaha.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've shortened the URL for you. It's no surprise:

    http://tinyurl.com/38c3qj7

    ReplyDelete
  13. You suck blue chip dick?
    Do you even know what a blue chip is you wannabe?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Other Anonymous here again, Mr Prescott. I think you are wrong in sayng there was no judgment. There certainly were court findings and they rule out any question of fraud or illegality I believe. The court had to approve any arbitrated agreement so why don't you locate and post the court's approval of the agreement since you seem to be so asiduous in posting everything you can find. Fraud is a criminal matter and if the court had detected any evidence of that the matter would have had to be referred for ciminal scrutiny and prosecution regardless of any civil agreement between the parties. It looks as if you are not presenting the full story here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous, if there are court findings, they would be publicly available. Out of court settlements, on the other hand, are usually sealed. More often than not when a case is settled out of court there is no public record. The case appears to outsiders simply to stop and only the people involved really know the details. But if there is a judgment or court findings, there is a public record.

    If you are so sure there were court findings exonerating iDigi, please post the public record. Expecting someone to disprove your unproven allegations is tantamount to expecting someone to disprove the existence of Santa Claus.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If there had been any substance to a fraud allegation it would have been impossible for this to have been stopped simply by an agreement between parties. Faud is a CRIMINAL offence and if it had been detected then the authorities would have been obliged to prosecute. The very fact that this did not happen clearlyshows the court was satisfied that there was no fraud. John Prescott fails to draw out this point. The question must also be raised as to how an extensive DD process prior to the company floating on AIM would not have looked at these matters, yet the NOMAD's conclusion was unqualified. XG is pretty clearly a busted flush from an investor point of view but that doesn't mean these allegations of historic fraud have any substance or are made in good faith. So why is Prescott going to such lengths on this blog to dig this stuff up and misrepresent it? That is the question that really needs asked. Information about XG is public property. Let's hear a little more about the originator of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Anonymous 2,

    Just for you I've made a links section on the RHS of the page under the search. Have a look at the first three links there. You'll see the case was settled out of court. There was no judgement. I am misrepresenting nothing. If you think all three reports are wrong, you can also check online in the US courts system for a modest fee. I have. There is no judgement. xG were sued for fraud and settled. FACT.

    Ask yourself why if the technology was so marvelous why didn't they fight the case? Answer - they couldn't. If the technology was so wonderful, where is it now? If it were so wonderful why couldn't they get another investor?

    Incidentally, Fraud is also a Civil as well as a Criminal offence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous 2 here. If the technology was fraudulent and those suing xG knew this then why would they accept equity in XGT by way of settlement which I understand was the situation? And why would they have tried to get their hands on the technology if they believed it to be fraudulent? Fraud a civil offence? WHere do you get that? I have no doubt that if someone was defrauded they could make a civil claim about the matter but the fraud charge would have to be criminally investigated independently. And how did they manage to sail through their DD at the time of the IPO and manage to escape censure by any professional body if they were guilty of fraud?

    As to why they are struggling to find investment now? I think it is clear at this stage that the claims made for the tech were hugely overblown and that certainly needs looked at but that is a different matter to claims of fraud made in the iDigi days.

    And why your interest? WHy this obsessive digging? You have posted emails from company staff to journalists, between Kromka and colleagues, between xG employees. How have you got hold of these? There seem a number of possible options:
    1. a number of sources (including those with reason to keep emails confidential) have chosen to leak emails to you. Why would they do that?
    2. You have hacked into these emails which is probably illegal.
    3. You have made them up.

    Care to tell us which of these it is or offer a fourth option?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Anonymous 2,

    I'll answer the last question first. It's option 1. As to why they would - I can't speak for them, but essentially they think the truth is important.

    Ask yourself how many innocent investors would have lost money if xG's claims hadn't been challenged by people like myself? If people still believed the lies that xG had achieved a system capable of 100mbps, at powers below the shannon bound? These were lies plain and simple. xG can't argue they just messed up or were incompetent. They were told about it many many times. They published a BER curve (later withdrawn) that conclusively disproved their own claims. Yet they still carried on lying. As you'll see in the archive in the email from the Deputy CEO to Marc Dannenberg they were talking about 100mbps as recently as Q2 2008. Yet the design of the BSN250 CANNOT get to 4G speeds with whatever clever software that may have been invented.

    AIM rule 11 says they MUST warn investors of any major news that would be 'price sensitive'. Their main product not working as claimed is the most 'price sensitive' of all. Yet they remained silent. That's not only a breach of the rules - it's immoral.

    As to the IPO you do realise that they raised $0? NOthing. It was all changed because of the lawsuit between Bank Hapoalim and xG (see archive), where they cheated a former director out of 4 million shares, because he realised what they were doing was a sham. Any money in had to be changed from an IPO to a convertible bond. Also did you notice in the IPO that xG had orders covering 57 million people? Where did they go? Answer - they never had them, they lied at IPO. (Document to be added to the archive when I have time).

    You seem to think they should be 'let off' because they've managed to make a standard network. I disagree. Let them own up to their previous misdemeanors to the stock market - to investors that have lost money - only then can they move forwards. If this doesn't happen then xG is still a scam.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I now know that your statements are deliberately false as you have committed yourself in the above post to false statements. The IPO was not changed at all because of the Hapoalim stuff - on the contrary that suit was fully referenced in the IPO prospectus so anyone looking at the company was fully aware of it from the moment the investment document was out. In terms of the $40 million raise in the convertible - that instrument was designed AFTER the introduction to the market to give investors reassurance about the tech - it was NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. Investment was only payable once a network was up and running - those were the core conditions. Furthmore if the Hapoalim suit had had the effect you suggest the company would have been unable even to be introduced to the market, with a fundraise or without. Whether the 'network' that the $40 million was invested on the back of was worth squat is debatable (I doubt it was) but your version of events is palpably false.

    I am also intrigued by the way you now present yourself as a guardian angel protecting innocent investors. In the past you have admitted that you were posting what you were to support your short position in the company. Your actions are nothing to do with a pursuit of truth and justice - it is all about lining your own pockets. Personally, I think XG have made many promises that have not come off and many of their claims are now shown to be naieve or disingenuous but that doesn't stop you being a crook as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Anonymous 2 / John / Domitanus,

    "The IPO was not changed at all because of the Hapoalim stuff - on the contrary that suit was fully referenced in the IPO prospectus so anyone looking at the company was fully aware of it from the moment the investment document was out."

    There you have the advantage on me. From where I'm sitting there never was any IPO prospectus (at least one publicly available). At least I've never seen it if it exists. I'm sure you'll be able to link me to a copy.

    There isn't one on xG's site. There's a admission document:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.xgtechnology.com/documents/xG%20Admission%20Document%20-%20final.pdf

    There's a 2006 Report (which funnily enough doesn't mention the 'IPO prospectus'):
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.xgtechnology.com/documents/FINAL%20ANNUAL%20REPORT.pdf

    But No IPO Prospectus. I suppose it would be on Hitchens website, but as you very well know you've been bought out. (aka nearly busted and bailed).

    I'd be delighted to be wrong, but to prove me wrong you'll have to either email me the document or link to it on the web.

    If the Hapoalim case DID have the effect I describe then it will be proven or disproven by the existence of a publicly available IPO prospectus document. I'm happy to be wrong on this minor issue - it doesn't change the situation much. But I do object to being called a liar. Put up or shut up.

    I'm glad we agree about the network being bogus!

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK I Fess up. I was wrong. There was an IPO document. Whether or not this was sent out to investors I don't know. I doubt it as the result obtained was $0 raised.

    However you are spectacularly wrong:
    "The IPO was not changed at all because of the Hapoalim stuff - on the contrary that suit was fully referenced in the IPO prospectus so anyone looking at the company was fully aware of it from the moment the investment document was out."

    There is no mention AT ALL of the Hapoalim suit in the document. Also if you see here:
    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7P-ff1BkyFbNDE5NzY1YTctMzY0Yy00MTI0LThmZGYtMjg3OWIxOTZjODJi&hl=en
    You'll see that Hapoalim made a complaint to Hitchens about the planned IPO. What are we to conclude? A complaint to the broker, no mention in the IPO document and $0 raised...!

    ReplyDelete
  23. And another thing! Have a look at point 21. Game Set and Match.

    Hapoalim v xG

    ReplyDelete
  24. Game, set and match in my favour, I believe. No mention of the Hapoalim issue? Have a look at the very top of page 50 of the Admission document. It references the claim on 4 million shares which was all that existed at the time.

    Of course the document was sent out - any prospective IPO document is widely circulated by the broker as part of the marketing exercise. When I tried to get a hard copy from the broker at the time I was lucky to get almost the last copy as all the others had gone. The fact that no funds were raised does not at all mean that the document was not circulated - i means that people did not invest, primarily due to the unproven natue of the tech. Once a convertible was put together AFTER the company had listed, its conditions were designed to mitigate the technology risk and $40 million was raised from institutions through that instrument. I have grave doubts about the 'proof' that the institutions saw to justify their investment but whatever network they saw seems to have satisfied them.

    In terms of objecting to being called a liar - tough! You call just about everyone associated with the company liars, crooks, fraudsters etc etc and you have also a post on this blog calling Marc Dannenberg fat, ugly and an asshole - yet you cry when you are insulted. Dry your eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gosh, I wonder what happene tomy earlier reply tht seems to have een deleted. Let me repeat it. Lok at top of page 50 of the Admission document and you will see the 4 million Hapoalim claim referenced in the detail that was availabloe and relevant at the time. This disclosure was approved by the Nomad doing theDD.

    Of course the admission doc was circulated. I had considerable touble getting a copy as they were almost allgone when i enquired myself at IPO stage. The reason people did not invest was due to the fact that the tech was still unproven. The convertible instrument, constructed AFTER the company listed was designed to give assurance about the tech as funds were only payable once a test network was estalished. I have my douts about the value of that network but the institutons were obviously happy enough and ut in $4 millionon the back of it. CLearly the Hapoalim claim in the admission document did not alarm or dissuade them.

    You complain about being called a liar? You have insulted just about everyone associated with xG on this site and iii repeatedly, calling them crooks, liars, scam artists, fraudsters etc and laughing at their misfortunes. You post a pic of Marc Dannenberg and call him fat, ugy and an assholeyet cry when someone calls you a liar. Grow up!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have posted rebuttals to John Prescott's comments above, citing the relevant facts and parts of the Admission document that prove his statements to be false and he has TWICE deleted my comments.

    I wonder if he will delete this one?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Anonymous 2,

    Sorry you were deleted - not my fault! You went through as spam like Anonymous 1 did the other day. Why not try signing in with a username? That may stop the issue.

    The IPO document I've seen
    HERE Has no page 50. It's only 40 pages long. Can you link me to the one you have? And really even if it was tucked away in page FIFTY that's hardly shouting it from the rooftops!

    You've got me banged to rights about called Marc Dannenberg an Asshole, but that's reporting the facts as humanity sees them.

    Interesting that you agree that possibly the tech they were shown wasn't an accurate representation of it. In the IPO I've seen Robyn Harte Bunting writes about 50Mbps being proven. But the latest broker reports writes of 6Mbps being possible. Quite a difference.

    Is it possible that Hitchins were equally as cavalier with their analysis of the company and their directors as they were of xG's technology...?

    Have you thought to consider that the IPO prospectus you saw was part of an 'ahem' fairly short print run? You are the only person on the planet that has the 50 page IPO document!

    Sorry about the deletion - even though it wasn't my fault or intention.

    Bottoms up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ahhh I may see where you are going wrong.

    You are confusing an IPO prospectus (that you originally said referenced the Hapoalim issue - but didn't), with their AIM admission document. On that one on Page 49/50 there's a 4 line mention of an "individual who says they are entitled to 4 million shares." No name. Neither Falts, nor Hapoalim, nor BNY.

    That is NOT fully referenced! But, to be kind, it's possible that the Admission document was sent out too close to the Hapoalim complaint. The Hapoalim latter is dated the same day as the Admission document.

    Also in the same kind spirit we notice that the IPO prospectus is dated a month prior to the Hapoalim letter: 19 September 2006. If you haven't read the letter You should. It is illuminating.
    So, Conclusion:

    29th March 2005: Share cert issued.
    30th December 2005: xG refuse to honour the share cert (saying ultimately they've changed their name to xG inc from LLC - but that doesn't happen until...)
    19th September 2006: Hitchens sends out IPO prospectus.
    Between 19 September and 15th November Hapoalim writes to Hitchens to complain.
    9th November 2006 XG Changes it's name from LLC to Inc - cheating Falt out of the shares.
    15th November 2006 xG's Admission Doc Published.
    15th November 2006 Hapoalim writes letter.
    4th April 2007 Hapoalim case filed.

    So whatever way you cut it A2, the Hapoalim case was not fully referenced - because the case was filed 5 months after the IPO document.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You are grasping at straws here. You are all over the place. You claim that "As to the IPO you do realise that they raised $0? NOthing. It was all changed because of the lawsuit between Bank Hapoalim and xG (see archive)" yet you have just claimed that ""the Hapoalim case...was filed 5 months after the IPO document..."

    Which is it, for God's sake? How could the IPO be affected by the Hapoalim case if it wasn't filed until five months later? The admission document refers to the extent of knowledge at the time - namely there was a dispute over 4 million shares. You seem to think that the Nomad (who is legal;ly responsible for DD and preparing the admission doc) should have known a lawsuit would later be filed???? Bottom line, you claim the Hapoalim case was what scuppered investment. That clearly, obviouslt, palpably wasn't the case as $40 million was subsequently invested by institutions in spring 2007 once an instumkent was designed that seemed to address the technology risk. Your claim just doesn't stand up any way you look at it.

    The suggestion about there being more than one admission doc is just risible and desparate.

    And I note you still haven't commented on my reference to the fact that you are using this blog to support a short position rather than champion the cause of the true and just. Do you wear your pants over your tights, Superman?

    ReplyDelete
  30. :-)

    Who is all over the place? Remind me: who was it that thought there was a settlement favourable to xG in the iDigi case? Who was it that thought the Hapoalim case was fully referenced in the IPO prospectus?

    Hmmm.

    I've shown you - from original documents - that Hapoalim were making complaints around the time of the float. If Hapoalim were successful then there would be an additional liquidity of 4 million shares. I understand that Hapoalim made representations to the effect that the IPO must be pulled as the number of shares that xG were to have in issue was not certain.

    Combine this with the acknowledged fact that the float raised $0 - despite you telling us the IPO documents being so much in demand they were in short supply :-)

    My conclusion, and the conclusion of someone very close to the matter, is the IPO was pulled.

    You seem to think that the Nomad (who is legal;ly responsible for DD and preparing the admission doc) should have known a lawsuit would later be filed????

    Hilarious! You agree they did shabby DD on the technology, yet you imagine these same chancers were assiduous on investigating all other aspects: The Fraud in iDigi, The Cheating of the shares from Falt, The offshore accounts in NCR, The second largest shareholder ACH being expelled from Sweden.

    No. Hitchens and everyone else involved were more interested in lining their own pockets. They were dazzled by Mooers the Fraud. They saw dollar signs and lots of them.

    Lastly, have a look at the share chart. I called xG a fraud when the price was over $12.00. Do you think it makes substantive difference to me if the price falls to zero, now that it's all the way down to $0.15? Answer: No it doesn't. I post here because, 1) I find it fascinating 2) I'm banned from posting on iii.co.uk, and 3) Yes, I want to warn other people about the scam.

    Gin and Tonic time. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. You are truly delusional. Firstly I have not claimed that the DD conducted on the technology was shabby - I have not referred at all to S&W's DD on the technology. The state of the DD was clear to all at the time and was based upon an assessment by Schwartz. If you refer to the networks that initiated the investment of $40 m it was not for S&W to investigate that network - it was up tothe institutions. If they failed to do so or if the network that was set up failed to scale-up or suffered other limitations then that is down to the individual instiutions. I have said that whatever they saw clearly did not progress to any sort of commercial level, that is all.

    As for S&W being blinded by dollar signs - you are a fool. If you read the Admission DOcument you will see that SMith & Williamson were paid standard cash fees and a retainer for 1 year after listing. They had no options or any other reason to turn a blind eye to anything. Quite the opposite - if a Nomad fails to complete adequate DD and ther are repercussions it is the Nomad who is legally accountable and liable. The financial and reputational risk to S&W for doing less than thorough DD would far outweigh any fairly modest fees obtained.

    In terms of investigating "the fraud in iDigi" S&W looked at that very carefully indeed. My sources tell me that scrutiny of the court case added considerable time to the DD process. And if you read the Admission doc you will see that, far from being a sealed document, the terms of the settlement were spelt out quite clearly.

    In terms of representations from Hapoalim - if these were made they were clearly considered and assessed through the process of DD and their weight and relevance noted. The amount of weight and relevance they appear to have been given is reflected by the mention in the Admission document. To the best of my knowledge the facts relating to these shares remain unsettled at this time and the fact that a suit has been filed proves nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I know parties who were involved in the marketing of the IPO and there was very considerable institutional interest and a full investor roadshow programe around the City. This did not convert into firm investment due to concerns about the unproven nature of the tech - concerns which were meant to be addressed through the convertible instrument designed subsequently. Due to the lack of investment XGT listed through an 'introduction' rather than a fundraising. The upshot is the same - XG became a PLC sponsored onto the AIM market by S&W and the reputational and legal risk to the Nomad was exactly the same. If S&W had felt there was merit to the Hapoalim suit or any evidence of fraud they would have withdrawn from the process and refused to sponsor XG as Nomad.

    In terms of the Hapoalim case being "fully referenced" it was referenced (as I have already said) to the extent that it was considered necessary. The only significance to investors was that there was a claim on 4 million shares - a claim disputed by the company. That fact was made abundantly clear and as such was fully referenced.

    A settlement favourable to iDigi? Yes. The litigants were trying to get their hands on the technology through the lawsuit. This was fended off and xG retained ownership of the technology and the outstanding loan was settled through equity - a course of action that xG had been happy to agree to from the outset. Sort your facts out before you shoot your mouth off. Furthermore, the fact that the court approved a negotiated civil settlement clearly shows that it saw no substance in the claims of fraud. I have said this repeatedly and you just can't (or, more likely, won't) get your head around the fact that fraud is a criminal offence that would have resulte in criminal prosecution if it had been detected. The notion that fraudsters can deflect a court from crminal behaviour by just settling things on the quiet is as absurd as the notion that S&W would have turned a blind eye to evidence of fraud by a company they were vouching for in order to get in some fees.

    Everything you say just shows your naievety about the stock markets or your disingenuity in twisting the truth.

    I think you have had far too many Gin & Tonics. They have messed up your brain and whatever little integrity you might ever have had :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi A2,

    You seem to think that because a company has a Nomad, and has had DD done, then fraud is impossible. Have a read of these:
    AIM becomes victim of £365m fraud
    Aim link in 'boiler-room scam'
    Former chairman of AIM-listed property company suspected of £430m fraud

    I'm sure that Smith and Williamson and Hitchens said they investigated everything fully. They are hardly likely to say anything different. I'm equally sure that the Nomads and Brokers for the above three companies said something similar.

    If S&W were so sure of Mooer's innocence why did they later dump xG when the rumours started? Why have xG lost an incredible 3 Nomads? (or is it 4? Lost count - too many G&T's...).

    You keep repeating the same things; "fully referenced" and "favourable settlement" despite the actual documents showing the opposite! If you have new evidence - present it.

    When it comes to claiming I've got it wrong about fraud also being a civil crime the least you could do would be to look it up on Wikipedia:

    "Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation"

    OK? For LN to instigate a criminal investigation they would've had to report it to the police. They didn't, although AFTER iDigi closed down the court appointed receiver felt strongly enough to inform the FBI. The case is still open.

    Lastly, do I detect a change of tone?:

    "The upshot is the same - XG became a PLC sponsored onto the AIM market by S&W"

    Beforehand you were indignantly insisting there was a full scale IPO prospectus (with Hapoalim 'fully referenced' {snigger}) that was so popular you had to scramble for a copy. Now xG were just quietly 'sponsored' onto the market?! Slipped in without a penny raised.

    ReplyDelete
  34. More BS from Prescott. You cite three cases of illegality by AIM companies and then argue that it means ll AIM DD is dodgy and all Nomads and brokers are crooks. Prescott, in psychotherapy this is a cognitive distortion called 'generalisation' or 'black and white thinking'. Perhaps you need help. Let's look at the specifics - you claim that S&W turned a blind eye to fraud yet when we look at the Admission doc we can see that they have reported BOTH of the issues you claim they chose to ignore - the result of the iDigi case and the claim on 4 million shares. How have they ignored this when they have put it in the Admission doc in black and white?

    You then completely contradict yourself by claiming that S&W dumped xG when the rumours started. Nice vague term that "the rumours". Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You claim they overlooked fraud on one hand yet resigned an account on the basis of rumours the next. Which is it? Are they fraudsters looking for a quick buck (and remember they had no financial incentive and even if they had would have realised it to be valueless if they had known the company was a scam)or are they principled gentlemen resigning on a point of honour? Seems you think they can be both.

    Fact is you aren't even correct when you say S&W resigned. XG ended their association (not the other way round) on a very amicable basis as they were looking for the gretaer broking power of Piper Jaffrey and signed up PJ as Nomad first to have a joint house (technical term for a company that is both broker and Nomad as you are obviously so ignorant). Fact is, the broking arm of PJ never came online so XG were pretty peeved with them and eventually left for ING. I agree that the musical chairs over Nomads and brokers has been ridiculous and has damaged XG's reputation hugely. This has been largely due I suspect to Rick Mooers personal cantankerousness and demanding nature which has not gone down well with City advisors. Funny how, if it is an open secret that XG has been involved in dodgy dealing, they never seem to have trouble finding a new Nomad!

    I do realise that you have made repeated complaints about wrong-doing to the AIM regulators in the past and are upset that their investigations have proven you to be completely wrong. Any reasonable person might say "Maybe I was wrong" but you are clearly not a reasonable person so you continue to publish smears that the authorities have looked into and found baseless.

    "Favourable settlement", "full disclosure". The facts clearly back my interpretation and your repeated statements to the opposite don't change that. XG got what they wanted out of the iDigi case - retention of the technology IPR and an agreement to settle the outstanding loan through an equity bstake in XG. The litigants wanted to grab the IPR to the technology - they failed! I know what 99% of people would take from that result - a good outcome for XG. You, however, belong to the deranged one percenters.

    Fraud. Your source is Wikipaedia? I seem to recall you slating Robyn Harte-Bunting when he tok his exposition of Shannon's Law from the same source! :-) WHat a hypocrite you are as well as a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You claim that it would have been up to LN to report fraud to the authorities but that they failed to do so. Yet you have quoted in other forums an early claim form a judge that there were sufficient badges of fraud to warrant appointment of an administrator. So the fraud allegation was in front of a court with a legal duty to report any crimnal activity they discovered. Patently clear that the full unfolding of the court case dsmantled the earlier suspicions of fraud and I understand that in the final verbal narrative the judge overseeing the settlemtn completely dismissed the notion of fraud. If a judge had seen definitive evidnce of fraud he or she would have had no option but to report it to the law enforcement agencies yet the judge instead was happy to approve a civil settlement. You claim the administrator informed the FBI and that the case is still open? SUre, Prescott, sre. ANy evidence for this? You claim that evidence of fraud is obvious but here we are many byears later and what action have we seen from the FBI or any other party? Absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Sweet FA. You are a liar and coward who is sitting back and effectively saying "I know nothing has happened but just wait....it will." Guess you could string that out for decades yet.

    Change of tone? Not at all and you are simply showing your complete ignorance here....AGAIN! When a company chooses to go for an IPO (i.e. to list on a public exchange) they are required by law to publish a prospectus outlining the business, its history, accounts and flotation plans etc. This is put togther by the Nomad assisted by more than one set of lawyers (I think there were three sets involved with XG, their US lawyers Abel Band, KLNG representing them in the UK and a law firm representing the Nomad) who are legally responsible for its contents. WHatever the outcome was, XG were planning to raise money through their listing so had a full IPO prospectus costructed and published. WHen the company lists this becomes known as the Admission Document - it is much the same document with some 'blobs' now filled in as the share price and valuation will have been fina,ised.These are usually unfinalised in the prospectus. There is absolutely no doubt that XG had a full IPO prospectus as they were going for a full IPO. This is not even a matter that is subject to debate - it could be verified by any of the advisers, potential investors - ANYONE involved with the marketing. To deny this is an act of lunacy!

    After the marketing there was inadequate investment (I believe some funds were offered but much less than the company were seeking so they decided to decline any investment then as the climb down in valuation would have looked bad). A listing on an exchange without a fndraising is technically called "an Introduction" so I used that term for clarity (having previously assumed that anyone with half a brain new the difference). The clear point is that whether a company has a full fundraising IPO or is Introduced without a raise, the requirement for a Nomad, the financial and reputational rrisk to the Nomad and the legal requirement for DD is identical. Hence your claim that the IPO was withdrawn due to concerns about Hapoalim is absurd. If the advisors had any such concerns they would not have associated themselves with an IPO, an Introduction, a quick drink after work or even put XG on their Christmas card list. The fact that they sponsored XG onto AIM in ANY capacity and agreed to be their Nomad for at least the ensuing year shows that they harboured no concerns about Hapoalim or anything else. The distinction between IPO and Introduction is technical (relating solely to whether funds have been raised) and the term IPO is often used casually to describe any type of listing onto AIM. Since everyone knows that XG raised no funds at listing this did not seem a distinction that it was important to make until now. I hadn’t of course bargained for your stupidity and obtuseness.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You claim that it would have been up to LN to report fraud to the authorities but that they failed to do so. Yet you have quoted in other forums an early claim form a judge that there were sufficient badges of fraud to warrant appointment of an administrator. So the fraud allegation was in front of a court with a legal duty to report any crimnal activity they discovered. Patently clear that the full unfolding of the court case dsmantled the earlier suspicions of fraud and I understand that in the final verbal narrative the judge overseeing the settlemtn completely dismissed the notion of fraud. If a judge had seen definitive evidnce of fraud he or she would have had no option but to report it to the law enforcement agencies yet the judge instead was happy to approve a civil settlement. You claim the administrator informed the FBI and that the case is still open? SUre, Prescott, sre. ANy evidence for this? You claim that evidence of fraud is obvious but here we are many byears later and what action have we seen from the FBI or any other party? Absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Sweet FA. You are a liar and coward who is sitting back and effectively saying "I know nothing has happened but just wait....it will." Guess you could string that out for decades yet.

    Change of tone? Not at all and you are simply showing your complete ignorance here....AGAIN! When a company chooses to go for an IPO (i.e. to list on a public exchange) they are required by law to publish a prospectus outlining the business, its history, accounts and flotation plans etc. This is put togther by the Nomad assisted by more than one set of lawyers (I think there were three sets involved with XG, their US lawyers Abel Band, KLNG representing them in the UK and a law firm representing the Nomad) who are legally responsible for its contents. WHatever the outcome was, XG were planning to raise money through their listing so had a full IPO prospectus costructed and published. WHen the company lists this becomes known as the Admission Document - it is much the same document with some 'blobs' now filled in as the share price and valuation will have been fina,ised.These are usually unfinalised in the prospectus. There is absolutely no doubt that XG had a full IPO prospectus as they were going for a full IPO. This is not even a matter that is subject to debate - it could be verified by any of the advisers, potential investors - ANYONE involved with the marketing. To deny this is an act of lunacy!

    After the marketing there was inadequate investment (I believe some funds were offered but much less than the company were seeking so they decided to decline any investment then as the climb down in valuation would have looked bad). A listing on an exchange without a fndraising is technically called "an Introduction" so I used that term for clarity (having previously assumed that anyone with half a brain new the difference). The clear point is that whether a company has a full fundraising IPO or is Introduced without a raise, the requirement for a Nomad, the financial and reputational rrisk to the Nomad and the legal requirement for DD is identical. Hence your claim that the IPO was withdrawn due to concerns about Hapoalim is absurd. If the advisors had any such concerns they would not have associated themselves with an IPO, an Introduction, a quick drink after work or even put XG on their Christmas card list. The fact that they sponsored XG onto AIM in ANY capacity and agreed to be their Nomad for at least the ensuing year shows that they harboured no concerns about Hapoalim or anything else. The distinction between IPO and Introduction is technical (relating solely to whether funds have been raised) and the term IPO is often used casually to describe any type of listing onto AIM. Since everyone knows that XG raised no funds at listing this did not seem a distinction that it was important to make until now. I hadn’t of course bargained for your stupidity and obtuseness.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A2 aka Domitianus, good to see you're back. Last time you said something it was about me being an idiot with an xG target price of $1. It's blown through there long time ago and the reason you're back is you're bitter and a bad loser.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You claim that it would have been up to LN to report fraud to the authorities but that they failed to do so. Yet you have quoted in other forums an early claim form a judge that there were sufficient badges of fraud to warrant appointment of an administrator. So the fraud allegation was in front of a court with a legal duty to report any crimnal activity they discovered. Patently clear that the full unfolding of the court case dsmantled the earlier suspicions of fraud and I understand that in the final verbal narrative the judge overseeing the settlemtn completely dismissed the notion of fraud. If a judge had seen definitive evidnce of fraud he or she would have had no option but to report it to the law enforcement agencies yet the judge instead was happy to approve a civil settlement. You claim the administrator informed the FBI and that the case is still open? SUre, Prescott, sre. ANy evidence for this? You claim that evidence of fraud is obvious but here we are many byears later and what action have we seen from the FBI or any other party? Absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Sweet FA. You are a liar and coward who is sitting back and effectively saying "I know nothing has happened but just wait....it will." Guess you could string that out for decades yet.

    Change of tone? Not at all and you are simply showing your complete ignorance here....AGAIN! When a company chooses to go for an IPO (i.e. to list on a public exchange) they are required by law to publish a prospectus outlining the business, its history, accounts and flotation plans etc. This is put togther by the Nomad assisted by more than one set of lawyers (I think there were three sets involved with XG, their US lawyers Abel Band, KLNG representing them in the UK and a law firm representing the Nomad) who are legally responsible for its contents. WHatever the outcome was, XG were planning to raise money through their listing so had a full IPO prospectus costructed and published. WHen the company lists this becomes known as the Admission Document - it is much the same document with some 'blobs' now filled in as the share price and valuation will have been fina,ised.These are usually unfinalised in the prospectus. There is absolutely no doubt that XG had a full IPO prospectus as they were going for a full IPO. This is not even a matter that is subject to debate - it could be verified by any of the advisers, potential investors - ANYONE involved with the marketing. To deny this is an act of lunacy!

    After the marketing there was inadequate investment (I believe some funds were offered but much less than the company were seeking so they decided to decline any investment then as the climb down in valuation would have looked bad). A listing on an exchange without a fndraising is technically called "an Introduction" so I used that term for clarity (having previously assumed that anyone with half a brain new the difference). The clear point is that whether a company has a full fundraising IPO or is Introduced without a raise, the requirement for a Nomad, the financial and reputational rrisk to the Nomad and the legal requirement for DD is identical. Hence your claim that the IPO was withdrawn due to concerns about Hapoalim is absurd. If the advisors had any such concerns they would not have associated themselves with an IPO, an Introduction, a quick drink after work or even put XG on their Christmas card list. The fact that they sponsored XG onto AIM in ANY capacity and agreed to be their Nomad for at least the ensuing year shows that they harboured no concerns about Hapoalim or anything else. The distinction between IPO and Introduction is technical (relating solely to whether funds have been raised) and the term IPO is often used casually to describe any type of listing onto AIM. Since everyone knows that XG raised no funds at listing this did not seem a distinction that it was important to make until now. I hadn’t of course bargained for your stupidity and obtuseness.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You claim that it would have been up to LN to report fraud to the authorities but that they failed to do so. Yet you have quoted in other forums an early claim form a judge that there were sufficient badges of fraud to warrant appointment of an administrator. So the fraud allegation was in front of a court with a legal duty to report any crimnal activity they discovered. Patently clear that the full unfolding of the court case dsmantled the earlier suspicions of fraud and I understand that in the final verbal narrative the judge overseeing the settlemtn completely dismissed the notion of fraud. If a judge had seen definitive evidnce of fraud he or she would have had no option but to report it to the law enforcement agencies yet the judge instead was happy to approve a civil settlement. You claim the administrator informed the FBI and that the case is still open? SUre, Prescott, sre. ANy evidence for this? You claim that evidence of fraud is obvious but here we are many byears later and what action have we seen from the FBI or any other party? Absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Sweet FA. You are a liar and coward who is sitting back and effectively saying "I know nothing has happened but just wait....it will." Guess you could string that out for decades yet.

    Change of tone? Not at all and you are simply showing your complete ignorance here....AGAIN! When a company chooses to go for an IPO (i.e. to list on a public exchange) they are required by law to publish a prospectus outlining the business, its history, accounts and flotation plans etc. This is put togther by the Nomad assisted by more than one set of lawyers (I think there were three sets involved with XG, their US lawyers Abel Band, KLNG representing them in the UK and a law firm representing the Nomad) who are legally responsible for its contents. WHatever the outcome was, XG were planning to raise money through their listing so had a full IPO prospectus costructed and published. WHen the company lists this becomes known as the Admission Document - it is much the same document with some 'blobs' now filled in as the share price and valuation will have been fina,ised.These are usually unfinalised in the prospectus. There is absolutely no doubt that XG had a full IPO prospectus as they were going for a full IPO. This is not even a matter that is subject to debate - it could be verified by any of the advisers, potential investors - ANYONE involved with the marketing. To deny this is an act of lunacy!

    ReplyDelete
  40. After the marketing there was inadequate investment (I believe some funds were offered but much less than the company were seeking so they decided to decline any investment then as the climb down in valuation would have looked bad). A listing on an exchange without a fndraising is technically called "an Introduction" so I used that term for clarity (having previously assumed that anyone with half a brain new the difference). The clear point is that whether a company has a full fundraising IPO or is Introduced without a raise, the requirement for a Nomad, the financial and reputational rrisk to the Nomad and the legal requirement for DD is identical. Hence your claim that the IPO was withdrawn due to concerns about Hapoalim is absurd. If the advisors had any such concerns they would not have associated themselves with an IPO, an Introduction, a quick drink after work or even put XG on their Christmas card list. The fact that they sponsored XG onto AIM in ANY capacity and agreed to be their Nomad for at least the ensuing year shows that they harboured no concerns about Hapoalim or anything else. The distinction between IPO and Introduction is technical (relating solely to whether funds have been raised) and the term IPO is often used casually to describe any type of listing onto AIM. Since everyone knows that XG raised no funds at listing this did not seem a distinction that it was important to make until now. I hadn’t of course bargained for your stupidity and obtuseness.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Evening A2,

    I love your writing style. You manage to say in just 3,000 words what it would take another man almost 200 to do.

    So according to you it was planned as a full, bells and whistles IPO, but after the Hapoalim lawyers started writing letters, it was changed to a quiet introduction? Interesting A2, very interesting. That's how I see it too. And a bloke very close to the issue. Glad we all agree.

    Look, I didn't say ALL Aim companies were frauds. Just that it's not as impossible as you were implying. It's happened before.

    Let's assume you are right that the might of historic Hitchens, coupled with the most bullish IPO report I've ever seen (the one written by Robyn Harte-Bunting) managed to raise the grand sum of $0. Do you realise what that means? It would mean that Marc Dannenberg is better at raising capital than the most ancient (at the time) Broker in the City. That's a terrifying thought A2. Are you sure that's what you mean?

    A more likely explanation is that it went like this:
    1) Full bells and whistles IPO planned.
    2) Hapoalim get wind of it, and holding 4 million shares ($18M at the time), complain.
    3) The float morphs from a full IPO to a mere introduction. Any interested investors were told if you want shares, wait and we'll tag you on to the convertible bond coming up.

    Let's look at another key point of the float. S&W, as nomad, oversaw that there was $57M worth of orders, through letters of intent, already on the books at float. Where are these orders A2? Did S&W just mess up? Were they conned? Seems likely to me. I've got a list of these supposed customers. I've contacted a few - they hadn't even heard of xG! It was just a big deception. At whom's gate do you lay the blame for that one A2? Potential investors (thankfully there were none at the time) would've been misled into believing there was a full order book.

    I'm glad that we do actually agree though on some very key points:
    1) Mooers is an asshole.
    2) $0 was raised at the float/ipo/introduction
    3) Mooers the cantankerous tuned down (from memory $8 a share) before the float
    4) The technology is not what they promised. And they knew it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. My Apologies A2,

    I previously said the 57 million was via letters of intent. This should have been 'contracted.' From the RNS 6-12-06:

    Sarasota, Florida USA; December 6, 2006-xG Technology, Inc. (AIM:XGT) announced today that it has increased the upfront fee required to secure exclusive xMax service territories for those mobile VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) deployments beginning in 2008. This decision was made so that xG can best accommodate the substantial demand it has experienced thus far. Those deployments already contracted for in 2007 remain unaffected.

    "The success of our xMax mobile VoIP deployment program highlights the demand in the marketplace to deploy and deliver our cost-effective mobile IP services. This change in our program allows us to prioritize potential customers in an orderly manner while also creating additional revenue for the Company," explained Frank Peake, Head of Sales & Marketing. "xG has already entered into contracts in 130 communities covering approximately 57 million people for 2007, affording us an opportunity to accomplish a fast and cost efficient wireless rollout."


    Well A2? Where are the customers that S&W, as Nomad, vouched for? Or was it all lie...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wow, got some news for you both...xG is far from a busted flush, and the feeling that it is a busted flush is why there are so few multi millionaires and billionaires and so many paupers. Why is it busted...because something didn´t happen when YOU thought it should...question is...who are you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Priceless! The irony of an Anonymous poster asking:

    "question is...who are you?"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yep, irony in fantasy land...good one drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Only in Drunk fantasy land do all contracts end up in sales...cuckoo cuckoo!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thank you so much. It is, as stated, at first priority to defend us all from those evil scams and spams that threat to destroy our lovable personal informations.

    ReplyDelete