Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Quick reply to 'Innocent Bystander'

This humble blog has been name-checked on the iii.co.uk board by a poster called 'innocent bystander'. He hasn't got a high opinion of it, or me, but everyone is entitled to his/her own viewpoint. But I'm afraid to say old fruit you've got this one almost 100% wrong.

In fact, his letter is full of things taken out of context, outright lies and curios omissions of his own personal involvement.
Ohh. Bold claims. However you fail to say what these "lies" are in my fully referenced post. Care to expand? Where are these "lies"?

Incidentally I'm not David Falt, But seeing as you want to drag up the bank Hapoalim case again, I'm delighted to assist - seeing as it highlights the underhand, deceitful and manipulative way Mr Mooers has acted. Incidentally the court documents for the case are available online from the US courts system.

I wrote this is March 2009 to another poster, called John, who -like you- had got the wrong end of the stick. It still stands:

"Lets look at the facts AGAIN but this time in chronological order.

Fact 1: Roger Branton issued the shares to Falt and four other people around March 29, 2005. They were real, valid shares. Not forgeries. Not bogus. Branton signed them. He and Rick authorized them. Hapoalim confirm this. Hapoalim confirm Falt's name on the certificates, along with the other names. Hapoalim confirm Branton's signiture on the certificates. xG LLC was the name on the certificates. There were no restrictions as to the disposal of these shares. None of the parties involved now dispute this. John - the whole point of shares (as I tried to explain yesterday) is that you can sell them, Falt and the others was perfectly entitled to sell them when they saw fit. I trust you are with me up to this point.


Fact 2: A few days later in April 2005 Falt deposits the shares at the Bank of New York. They accept the shares as legal, binding, Kosher.

Fact 3: Sometime later that year Falt leaves xG. It's pointless to argue with you about exactly who left who. I maintain, through multiple excellent sources, that Falt resigned because he was disgusted about the way xG were handling themselves. You are free to believe what they pay you to. That's your job after all. I imagine that harsh words were said on both sides. Around that time he also leaves ACH. Falt was now obviously a threat to both of them as he knew where the skeletons were buried.

Fact 4: October 2005 - Falt sells some of the shares. Not the whole amount, just some of them. The Bank of New York say it's a legal transaction. Hapoalim, who end up on the other side of the trade, agree.

Fact 5: Hapoalim, try to get the certificate split to complete the sale. Inexplicably xG refuse. The initial reason they give is the shares don't exist - which was just silly, two banks had confirmed they do, and then there was the awkward fact of Branton's signature on the paperwork.... When they acknowledged that the shares did exist their next lie was to say they were issued against a promissory note. Then they lie again and say that they are now called xG Inc so the shares aren't valid. Then that simply the shares are 'Null and Void' These guys are squirming, but the elephant in the room' throughout all the shenanigans is the certificates with Falts name and Brantons' signature...And ain't it strange that every other director who've all been GIVEN shares in xG have had their share certificated honored...

Fact 6: 1 January 2006 - BOTH the Bank of New York AND Bank Hapoalim write to XG Technology to pressure them about the certificates. Both these institutions are siding with Falt. Both agree that as far as they can see he is the abused party. Legal threats are made from the banks to xG, whose response is to return legal threats, not at the banks, but at Falt.

Fact 7: Lawyers earn money all through most of 2006.

Fact 8: 9 November 2006 xG Change [Edit: finally - despite them saying months before that they already had...]from LLC to Inc. They do not inform Hapoalim, despite the ongoing legal process. Presumably this is because they already said to Hapoalim that they are already called Inc. Hapoalim find out from their inquiries they've made about these xG people. They've also found out that they are planning to list.


Fact 9: 13 November 2006 The letter is sent that I've posted here. Let's remind ourselves what it says because you obviously haven't read it properly John:

*"We have attempted to obtain clarification but he has not been cooperative...We have made inquiries in the United States. These inquiries have raised serious doubts about xG Technology LLC itself and the individuals that stand behind it. It is very difficult to form a definite opinion but we have serious doubts that xG Technology LLC and the technology it claims to own are what they purported to be." They then say they've spoken to the broker and the Nomad about their position with the certificate. The letter is co-signed by the CEO and Head of Controls.*



The reason they've spoken to the Broker and Nomad is simple. They want these shares recognized in the new company. And by the looks of it both seem to agree that Hapoalim had got a point because the IPO is shelved. Yes, this IPO you harp on about just turned out to be an "Introduction" to the market. (Don't bother to argue - it's on the LSE website, as "Not IPO XG TECHNOLOGY INC - Introduction"). They shelved it for two reasons: 1) lack of mugs willing to buy, and 2) the nomad was unwilling to accept later share dilution once these shares were converted. ZERO pounds was raised during this 'Non-IPO'. They changed their IPO into a 'convertable bond' so that the guys who had bought in at pennies in the pound via ACH and Wahlman could get their shares. But I'm digressing...

Fact 10: 26 January 2007 Bank Hapoalim sues xG Inc for breach of fiduciary duty. The breach was that they i) failed to inform Hapoalim on the name change from XG Technology LLC to XG Technology Inc, and ii) failed to inform them of the introduction of the company on AIM, and iii) they didn't list the David Fält shares in the register. Hapoalim say:

*"The company and specifically Mooers and Branton have betrayed their trust, breached their Fiduciary duty, withheld the information required and behaved disgracefully and deliberately and willingly infringed the Bank and the applicants' rights".*



Fact 11: The Judge had to decide, not if the certificates were valid - they were - but if by outrageously not including them in the register did a member of a Limited Liability Company owe a fiduciary duty to a party (Hapoalim) who wasn't in the LLC. The judgment is paraphrased here (www.abanet.org/buslaw/newsletter/0071/materials/pp2.pdf) "In a Florida
case interpreting Delaware law, the Court considered whether LLC managers owed a duty to parties that were not formally designated as LLC members. Under Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 18-1101(c) a LLC may owe a fiduciary duty to “another person that is a party to or otherwise bound by a LLC agreement.” Plaintiffs needed to prove whether the assignee of a LLC member’s securities assumed member status in the LLC. The Court held that the allegations failed to allege that the LLC managers owed the assignee a fiduciary duty and therefore failed to state a claim of breach of fiduciary duty."

So the judgment was *NOT* that the certificates weren't valid. *Not* that Falt/Hapoalim/BNY had done anything wrong, but simply on the legal point that LLC members didn't owe fiduciary duty to non LLC members. But stench of fraud around Rick and Roger got really bad that day. The issue wasn't resolved. These share certificates are still out there.

Ding. Ding. Round one over.

Fact 12: Now we are back to the present day, the bell has just struck for round two. It's still unresolved. BUT, if Falt is - as the Swiss Police have determined - innocent, then who is Guilty? There must be these still outstanding share certificates somewhere, along with that sale through two banks. These issues haven't gone away. I can't speculate about the future but it's logical to suggest that if the guilty one isn't Falt, or Hapoalim, then the only people left in the frame are Rick and Roger. I'm sure the next few months will be interesting for us all."

Now Innocent Bystander continues:
He somehow links Palmi Sigmarsson and Marc Dannenberg together through Guardian Holdings and make that suspicious. What’s the link? Guardian Holdings is owned by 300 different shareholders, not Palmi alone, and he had left Guardian Holdings long before Marc Dannenberg apparently sold these shares in Guardian Holding. Again, where is the crime (and link)?

Now that's very interesting. 300 shareholders. Just how do you know that? It shows you are more closely involved than you admit to. The crimes (plural please) are simple: 1) The shares were restricted shares - that were sold for HALF the market rate, by an unregulated stock promoter rather than legal channels, 2) whilst these restricted shares were meant to be under the 'lock-up' period, 3) to multiple US citizens in contravention of their Reg 'S' status.

Now, If you have some FACTS which show me to be wrong - please post them. Please include links to references as I have done. You can email me: john.prescott.dpm at gmail.com, you can post here - whatever you like, but please put up or shut up.

Sunday, 12 December 2010

A Useful Summary

Craig Malthus has written a piece on xG that they are trailing on their website (right-hand column). I made a comment a few days ago, and Craig asked for more info, which I have now provided. For those who are catching up on the xG story I thought it may make a useful summary:

"Hi Craig,

Thanks for the reply. Sure. I'll back up what I said. The beginning is probably a good place to start:

In the late '90s xG was called iDigi, run by the same directors; Rick Mooers, Roger Branton, and the inventor Joe Bobier. Besides that it had three major similarities to xG:

1) It sold similar high-tech broadband radio-modulation products, which would 'revolutionise' the market, but were 'so secret' nobody could ever know how they worked. This was because in common with the early xG modulation - they DIDN'T work. At least at anywhere near the capabilities they claimed to investors. In fact with iDigi their main investor discovered that they had actually cheated in their demo - pre-recording video on computer hard-drives that was supposedly broadcast by their system. (Link a). Link b)).

Compare this with early xG claims that their modulation was special and worked. This (link c)) analysis shows that their claims of special modulation are entirely bogus. Any number of systems could have easily achieved what they claimed was special. (Also see this entire blog by a Professor of Electrical Engineering - link d)). xG's supposed advantage lay within two inventions: their 'special' filter called the 'wavelet pass filter', and 'flash signal'. The two patents backing these up have been shown to show a laughable lack of basic communications theory. (link e, link f)). When iDigi's main investor (Icelandic pension fund LN) found out, well obviously they sued for FRAUD. Mooers obviously couldn't fight it so settled out of court, for $5m.

xG evidently knew about the problems with their modulation system, as witnessed by these emails (link g, h)), and this BER curve they put up on their web-page and later took down (link i)). Yet they continued to tell their investors who had put in their hard-earned money nothing - in direct contravention of AIM rule 11.

a)http://tinyurl.com/2w2fsko
b)http://tinyurl.com/2vx96wb
c)http://www.ka9q.net/xmax.html
d)http://tinyurl.com/3x2wtpw
e)http://tinyurl.com/29ntyvs (pdf file)
f)http://www.ka9q.net/tristate.html
g)http://tinyurl.com/39p5jm8
h)http://tinyurl.com/356884p
i)http://tinyurl.com/2bpz73p

2) In common with iDigi, xG's funding was...ummm...unusual. As you've been told instead of the usual route of showing their incredible system to any number of major institutions who would've undoubtedly cut each others throats to get a piece of it, they chose...wait for it...a boiler-room to market their stock.

With iDigi the boiler-room was, unusually for a company based in the USA, one based in Spain, the Costa del Crime: N.C.R. Capital. (I will leave it to your imagination to decide whether they chose this one to be out of reach of US legislators.) Of the funds raised destined for iDigi 50% ended up in offshore accounts never to be seen again. Did Rick Mooers know it was a boiler-room? Did he know only pennies in the dollar from investors money was going to iDigi? Well, yes he did:

"Rick Mooers came here to Spain," Dannenberg said. "He knew all about it. He knew he was getting pennies on the dollar for iDigi. Yes, he knew it was called iDigi Ltd. He gave a speech to all of us. He mentioned the fact that it was a boiler room. He didn't want it to be a boiler room. He was saying this was not something that was a boiler room deal, but it was. He was just giving us a story to go on."" (link b), page 6, also see link a)).

When iDigi folded it left the FBI and the court administrator chasing up to $30m that had gone missing. None has been recovered to my knowledge.

The link with NCR continues to this day. Palmi Sigmarsson a current xG director worked with NCR to bring in LN, via his company Spectra Kapital. Spectra promoted mainly penny stocks and have now been closed down by the finance inspectorate. The contact list for NCR was allegedly sold on to Spectra...Incidentally this same director made upto $2.25m shorting xG - his own company, as well as allowing stock he controlled to be sold for half the market rate whilst under the lock-up period. That shows confidence in xG, huh?

With xG the story is similar but the boiler-room changes to ACH securities in Geneva. (Again you will note outside US jurisdiction.) ACH were a Swedish brokerage, but have the unusual distinction of being expelled from Sweden for various shady deals (link j)). Two directors of ACH were at one time or another also directors of xG. ACH have now also been closed down by the authorities, but not before they were able to lap the share-price from $4.50 to $18...


After ACH closed, xG were left to mainly rely on unregulated stock promoters like Fredrik Walhman (mentioned in court document - link k)) page 25 onwards) to sell shares. Which he did with some success bringing in $34m investment from a millionaire called Johan Bohamn (who is also not without a 'colourful' history himself..)

Doubts raised at the beginning of the float weren't chased up.(link kk)



j)http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-122629851.html
k)http://tinyurl.com/2wrsper
kk)http://tinyurl.com/35zbxqs

3)The third major similarity involves accounts, so I thank Mr Rotondo for bringing it up. In both companies Rick Mooers dramatically overstated to companies balance sheets. With iDigi (from link b) page 7):
"Mooers never fully disclosed where the money was coming from . which left all of us very uneasy," Heimann said.

He also claims that Mooers and another partner, Roger Branton, wanted to "adjust" entries in the 1999 year-end financial figures "that would show investments in the $10s (of millions) and $100 millions range by valuing their contributions at exorbitant amounts, without any reference to reality."

"They wanted to show iDigi Communications was valued at a very high level," Heimann said. ". Mooers committed fraud in several ways: by falsifying records and inflating financial statements and misleading investors with respect to the value of the company they were investing in .

"No. 2, by setting up all sorts of covert schemes with offshore entities that ended up siphoning off 50 cents on the dollar on average, of monies investors paid."

Mooers, for his part, denied those allegations and claimed Heimann "embezzled from the company."

With xG Rick was up to his old tricks - valuing the company exorbitantly. This may have been justified if the miracle modulation was real - but as I've shown they knew it wasn't, or was unworkable. The 'sales' and 'deals' they announced were really nothing of the sort. The former were mainly just adjustments to the accounts receivable (with, presumably, the knowledge of Johan Bohman) - if you do as Mr Rotondo suggested and check the last few years' accounts you'll see they've just been shifted to debt owing after one year. Very little, if anything, was actually sold in the true sense. The 'deals' were mainly just letters of intent to look at the system. There were by my count 11 such 'deals' - no business ever resulted - despite the 'miracle' nature of their technology.

All in all it paints a very bad picture of the attitude that Mr Mooers has to his investors. This is why the latest announcements (links l), m), and n)) of MBTH being involved is such a bad sign for investors. Now Mr Moores has a mechanism to cheat all the investors quite legally. No wonder Ceinwen Lloyd (xG director, and wife of Johan Bohman) is upset. She realises that the $35m they've put in is hanging in the balance.

l)http://tinyurl.com/36s7hn7
m)http://tinyurl.com/33cm4js
n)http://tinyurl.com/38fa4jx

Finally I should say that it may well be true that xG now have a cognitive radio that works. I'll leave that to people like yourself. But this must be weighed up against the appalling behaviour of Mr Mooers, and his attitude to investors and stock-market regulations. Praise must go to Rick Rotondo for putting an acceptable face to xG, and him having the honesty to say they have had a change of technology (link o)). But all this is too little, too late - it should've come years ago through the appropriate channels - the stock market regulations.

There's so much I left out - enough to write a book - but I think you'll get the picture. I can be contacted at john.prescott.dpm at gmail.com

Regards John.

o)http://tinyurl.com/39lzx62 (in comments)"

Saturday, 4 December 2010

Johan the patsy.

Interesting article in the Telegraph: Investment vehicle linked to Conservative donor David Rowland sued after 'not paying for £2m shares'. It mentions Johan Bohman and is a fascinating insight into behind the scenes share dealings involving xG. For me, two points stand out:

Firstly, think back to a previous Johan Bohman thread: Johan Bohman is a Crook. In it is a fascinating post from xStureplan. His conclusion about how Johan got involved in xG is that someone (whom we now know to be unregulated stock promoter Fredrik Wahlman) took advantage of Johan's "drink addled brain" and used him as a "dumping ground" for stocks everyone wanted out of.

Contrast that with the Telegraph article which says "The money [from Jonathan Rowland] did not arrive but the shares were later sold on to a vehicle belonging to a Swedish billionaire, Johan Bohman, for $1.4m." So, yep, Johan = Dumping ground.

These were 3 million shares. 'Do-ing the math' gives us $0.47 a share, which is pretty shit considering during 2008 the price ranged from $6.50 to $1 so it's a minimum of a 50% discount. Johan probably thought this a good deal at the time, pity the rest of his shares were so expensive...But who was so keen to get rid of shares at such a discount to the market rate?

The shares had come from failed Icelandic bank Straumur. Who do we know that is Icelandic and has a connection with xG? Which brings us on to...

Secondly, do please kindly note the reason why the Rowlands' disputed the sale of the xG shares. It was because the shares were restricted! It doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to work out the original source of those 'restricted' shares.... It would be someone with Icelandic contacts.... Someone who was illegally selling restricted shares previously...

Palmi Sigmarsson! You know; the xG director that was illegally selling 'restricted' shares via some loser boiler-room slob in Spain? Yeah the same Palmi Sigmarsson who had his investment company closed down by the finance inspectorate for some serious irregularities. Yep the same guy who was working with NCR the Spanish Boiler-Room owned by a Sarasota friend of Rick Mooers.

He's certainly has his fingers in some pies. This is of course the same chap who made up to $2,250,000 shorting xG in 2008. In May '08 he borrowed and immediately sold 450,000 shares at $5 each. The shares were meant to be returned to Landsbanki Luxembourg SA before Feb 2009 at the prevailing market rate. BUT Palmi certainly called this one right. Perhaps he knew that Landsbanki were in trouble: They went bust in October 2008 so, possibly, there was nobody to repay the shares to, and even if chased he knew where there was a large reserve of shares at $0.47 and under - his own holdings...!

Put it all together - Around the same time Palmi is:
1) Selling xG shares for less than $0.47, he is also
2) Shorting the same shares for $5.00 - and I wouldn't be surprised if I was told who bought these shares...

Johan: You've been played my boy.

Thursday, 2 December 2010

MBTH do an Alien!



Today's announcements absolutely confirm that xG Technology investors are shafted. Johan Bohman must be feeling such a mug. Hopefully he's reaching for the 'Lawyer' speed-dial button (on his non-xG phone) as I type. While he's pumped in millions into xG, Rick has put in a fraction of that. Now he's planted the seed of MBTH in the belly of xG, ready to burst out at any moment he chooses.

George Schmidt has so little confidence in xG's future that he chooses to join MBTH instead. He's admitted where the future lies. xG is as good a dead, and so is all the lovely money people have invested in it.

MBTH is contemplating investment in xG of a total of up to $10 million pursuant to the additional shareholder loan facility announced by the Company on October 8, 2010.
Under which terms MBTH will own all of xG if Rick does not pay Rick. So, they'll put in just enough to keep the ship afloat until the Army trial result comes through. Then, whatever the result, Rick can close xG down.

If MBTH is required to make a mandatory take-over offer to the holders of all of the xG Shares not held by MBTH then the offer price will be less than the latest closing mid-price of $0.16 per xG share since MBTH will have to offer to purchase more shares than under its contemplated investment in xG.
Less could be $0.01, or $0.001, or $0.0000001.

Just a matter of time. It's over.