Hmm.
Rumor has it,that Penny Scam Victims.
As it pertains the the Matt Brown,of Investors Hub.
Criminal Trial for Fraud.
Are organizing a Class Action suit.
Worth monitoring.
imo.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=15452

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 19755 / July 5, 2006
SEC v. HydroFlo, Inc. and Dennis Mast, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, Civil Action No. 5:06-CV-270, filed July 5, 2006
SEC Sues HydroFlo, Inc. and its Former CEO, Dennis Mast, for Issuing False Press Releases

The Commission announced that today it charged HydroFlo, Inc. ("HydroFlo") and its former CEO, Dennis Mast ("Mast"), with defrauding investors by making false and materially misleading statements about Hydroflo's water treatment business, contracts, and prospects in a series of press releases in 2005. Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, HydroFlo and Mast have consented to entry of injunctions against further violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Mast, of Apex, North Carolina, has also consented to entry of an order requiring him to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and barring him from participating in offerings of penny stock.

The Commission's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, alleges that HydroFlo and Mast misled investors by (i) mischaracterizing an agreement involving a subsidiary's consignment customer as a guaranteed contract worth $210 million to HydroFlo; (ii) touting a positive stock analyst report as "independent" and "unbiased" without disclosing that HydroFlo had paid $19,500 for the analyst coverage; and (iii) repeatedly publishing false statements claiming that HyrdroFlo subsidiaries were providing filtration equipment and water purifying consulting services to government agencies engaged in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts when in fact the company had not shipped any products, nor provided any such services. All of these false press releases had the effect of increasing trading volume in, and the price of, HydroFlo's common stock.

The complaint charges HydroFlo and Mast with engaging in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business in violation of Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. HydroFlo and Mast consented to the entry of permanent injunctions against future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Mast also consented to entry of an order requiring him to pay a $100,000 civil penalty under Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, permanently barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company under Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act, and barring him from participating in offerings of penny stock under Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act.

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19755.htm

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21642 / September 3, 2010
DISTRICT COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JASON T. ROSE, DAVID G. ROSE, AND MARK LONG, AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS BRIAN C. ROSE AND JOYCE A. ROSE
SEC v. Berkshire Resources, L.L.C., et al., Civil Action No. 09-0704-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind.)

The Commission announced that on September 2, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court") entered separate Final Judgments of against defendants David G. Rose, Jason T. Rose, and Mark Long, and relief defendants Brian C. Rose and Joyce A. Rose.

The final judgments against David Rose and Jason Rose enjoin each from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Exchange Rule 10b-5 and require David Rose to pay full disgorgement of $15,400,000.00, prejudgment interest of $205,846.67, and a civil penalty of $130,000.00, and Jason Rose to pay full disgorgement of $182,896.42, prejudgment interest of $4,298.12, and a civil penalty of $130,000.00. The final judgment against Long enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and orders him to pay full disgorgement of $446.775.00, prejudgment interest of $13,537.73, and a civil penalty of $130,000.00. Relief defendant Brian Rose was ordered to pay full disgorgement of $431,517.32, plus prejudgment interest of $10,140.79. Relief defendant Joyce Rose was ordered to pay full disgorgement of $192,000.00 plus prejudgment interest of $4,512.06. Separately, David Rose, Jason Rose, and Mark Long have agreed to be barred from future association with any broker or dealer.

The Commission's June 8, 2009 complaint alleged that, among other things, from at least April 2006 through December 2007, the Roses used Berkshire to carry out an offering fraud and sell unregistered securities. Although Jason Rose was put forward as the public face of the company, his father, David Rose, who had an extensive disciplinary history, ran the company behind the scenes. The complaint further alleged that Berkshire raised approximately $15.5 million from approximately 265 investors in the US and Canada. The complaint also alleged that Berkshire misled defendants, among other things, about the use of investor proceeds, the experience of Jason Rose, David Rose's role at the company, and the expected rate of return. Additionally, the complaint alleged that Long, the head of sales at Berkshire, ran one of two "boiler room" operations that used teams of sales agents to sell units of participation to the public.

For Additional Information, see Litigation Release Nos. 21074 (June 9, 2009) and 21330 (December 10, 2009).

 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21642.htm

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21641 / September 2, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sandra Venetis, Systematic Financial Services, Inc., Systematic Financial Associates, Inc., and Systematic Financial Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 10-CV-4493(JAP)(D.N.J.)
SEC CHARGES NEW JERSEY INVESTMENT ADVISER IN MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR OFFERING FRAUD

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that is has filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey against Sandra Venetis, a Branchburg, N.J.-based investment adviser and three of her firms, Systematic Financial Services, Inc., Systematic Financial Associates, Inc., and Systematic Financial Services, LLC, with operating a multi-million dollar offering fraud involving the sale of phony promissory notes to investors, many of whom are retired or unsophisticated in investments.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Venetis and the three entities that she founded, owned, or controlled have obtained at least $11 million from investors since approximately 1997. Systematic Financial Associates Inc. is an investment adviser, Systematic Financial Services LLC is an accounting and tax preparation firm, and Systematic Financial Services Inc. is an entity Venetis created to conduct the fraudulent offerings. Venetis, acting on behalf of the three entities, solicited and obtained funds from clients and others to invest in promissory notes, fixed income investments, or other side investments.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Venetis told some investors that the promissory notes were guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and would earn interest of approximately 6 to 11 percent per year that would be tax-free due to a loophole in the tax code. She also told investors that she would use their money to fund loans to doctors that would be backed by Medicare reimbursement payments to those doctors. Instead of making investments, Venetis looted investor funds to pay business debts and personal expenses accrued from international travel, gambling, and home mortgages and property taxes. She also funneled cash to her relatives.

The complaint alleges that the representations made by Venetis to investors were entirely false and the promissory notes and other offerings were unsupported by any investments, assets, or related revenues. Venetis simply fabricated the names and signatures of "doctors" or forged signatures of other people she claimed were recipients of the loans. Venetis concealed from investors that she used their funds to pay her home mortgage and property taxes, purchase a home for her daughter, finance improvements on a home owned by her brother, pay her own gambling debts, and pay for trips to such destinations as Alaska, Italy, France, India, and the Caribbean.

The complaint charges Venetis, Systematic Financial Associates, Inc., Systematic Financial Services, LLC, and Systematic Financial Services, Inc. with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC also charged Venetis and Systematic Financial Associates, Inc. with violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In addition, the SEC's complaint names three relief defendants for the purposes of recovering investor assets now in their possession: Jennifer Venetis (Venetis's daughter); Kevin Persley (Venetis's brother); and Venetis LLC (an entity owned and controlled by Venetis).

Venetis and the entities have agreed to settle the SEC's charges and have consented to all of the relief that the SEC seeks in its complaint, including the entry of a court order enjoining them from future violations of the above provisions of the securities laws, ordering the payment of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, an asset freeze, accountings, and the appointment of an independent monitor. The settlement will defer the determination of the amount of the monetary relief to a later date.

Venetis and Systematic Financial Associates Inc. also agreed to settle related administrative actions by the Commission that will bar Venetis from association with any investment adviser or broker or dealer, and revoke the registration of the firm.

 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21641.htm

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21640 / September 1, 2010
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 3180 / September 1, 2010
SEC v. Sujata Sachdeva and Julie Mulvaney, Civil Case No. 10-CV-0747, USDC, E.D., Wisc.
SEC CHARGES OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF MILWAUKEE CORPORATION IN $30 MILLION EMBEZZLEMENT

On August 31, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Wisconsin charging Sujata Sachdeva and Julie Mulvaney with accounting fraud, books and records violations and related misconduct arising from Sachdeva's embezzlement of over $30 million from their employer, Koss Corporation.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, since at least 2004, Sachdeva - the former Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary and Vice-President of Finance at Koss - stole over $30 million from Koss. Sachdeva used the embezzled funds to finance an extravagant lifestyle, including lavish spending sprees at department stores, designer boutiques, jewelry stores, and other high-end retailers. Sachdeva and Mulvaney - Koss's senior accountant - concealed and facilitated the theft from Koss by preparing materially false accounting records. Mulvaney, working in concert with Sachdeva, prepared false journal entries to disguise Sachdeva's misappropriation of funds. Sachdeva and Mulvaney attempted to hide the embezzlement on Koss's balance sheet and income statement by overstating assets, expenses, and cost of sales, and by understating liabilities and sales. Based on the fraudulent records prepared by Sachdeva and Mulvaney, Koss prepared materially false financial statements and filed materially false current, quarterly, and annual reports with the Commission. After discovering the embezzlement, Koss amended and restated its financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010.

The Commission's complaint seeks an order to permanently enjoin Sachdeva from violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13. Similarly, the Commission's complaint seeks an order to permanently enjoin Mulvaney from violating Sections 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1, from aiding and abetting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13. Further, the Commission seeks an order directing Sachdeva and Mulvaney each to disgorge their ill-gotten gains obtained through their misconduct, plus prejudgment interest thereon, and to pay a civil money penalty. Finally, the Commission seeks an order permanently barring Sachdeva from acting as an officer or director of any public company.

On July 27, 2010, Sachdeva entered into a plea agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in a parallel criminal proceeding and pleaded guilty to six counts of wire fraud. Sachdeva admitted her multi-million-dollar theft from Koss, and admitted her scheme to falsify Koss's accounting records to hide her embezzlement. Sachdeva is scheduled to be sentenced on November 18, 2010.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

See Also: SEC Complaint
 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21640.htm

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 21639 / September 1, 2010
Accounting and Auditing Release No. 3179 / September 1, 2010
SEC v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04-2315 (WHW) (D. N.J.)
SEC SETTLES ACCOUNTING FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST FORMER SENIOR LUCENT SALES EXECUTIVE

On August 17, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered final judgment against Nina Aversano, former President of North America Service Provider Networks and former corporate officer of Lucent Technologies Inc. (Lucent), arising out her role in an accounting fraud action that the Commission previously filed against Lucent and ten individuals. Aversano was the remaining defendant in this action. The Commission alleged that Aversano entered into side agreements with certain of Lucent's distributors that granted the distributors rights and privileges beyond those contained in their respective distribution agreements. Those side agreements made it improper for Lucent to recognize revenue, and caused Lucent to materially overstate its pre-tax income for fiscal year 2000.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's Amended Complaint, Aversano consented to the entry of the order, which permanently enjoins her from aiding and abetting violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and from violating, or aiding and abetting the violation of, the books and records, internal controls, and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. Specifically, Aversano is enjoined from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13, and from directly violating Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2. In addition, Aversano was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 and to: (1) not seek or become an officer or director of any public company for one year following the date of entry of the Final Judgment; (2) resign immediately from the audit committee of New Jersey Resources Corporation; and (3) discontinue her relationship with the Board of Directors of New Jersey Resources at the earlier of [a] termination by the company, or the expiration of her current term in January 2011.

For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 21551 (June 9, 2010), 19502 (December 20, 2005), 19437 (October 20, 2005), and 18715 (May 17, 2004).

 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21639.htm

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21638 / September 1, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission v. James W. Self Jr. and Stephen R. Goldfield, Civil Action No. 10-CV-4430-ER (E.D.P.A.)
SEC CHARGES PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY INSIDER AND FORMER HEDGE FUND MANAGER FOR INSIDER TRADING, RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY $14 MILLION IN PROFITS

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against James W. Self, Jr. (Self), an Executive Director of Business Development at a pharmaceutical company located in New Jersey (the Company), and Stephen R. Goldfield (Goldfield), a former hedge fund manager, for engaging in unlawful insider trading in advance of the April 23, 2007 announcement that AstraZeneca would acquire MedImmune, Inc. (MEDI). The Commission's complaint alleges that Self tipped Goldfield, a friend and former business school classmate, with material nonpublic information regarding the MEDI acquisition and that Goldfield unlawfully purchased 17,000 MEDI call options and 255,000 shares of MEDI stock while in possession of the material nonpublic information provided to him by Self. Goldfield realized actual profits of approximately $14 million from his unlawful trading.

The Commission's complaint further alleges that Self had been assigned to the Company's team that was tasked with evaluating a potential acquisition of MEDI, and learned nonpublic information about the potential MEDI acquisition. The Complaint alleges that Self knew that he owed a duty to the Company to maintain the confidence of all nonpublic information he learned during the course of his employment and to abstain from disclosing any such information to others.

The Complaint alleges that during a meeting with Goldfield on or about March 12 or 13, 2007, Self, in violation of his duty to the Company, told Goldfield that he had been assigned to work on the potential MEDI acquisition and showed Goldfield a confidential deal sheet, which described MEDI and the procedure and planned timing for the subsequent confidential auction process. The Complaint further alleges that, following this meeting, Self continued to provide nonpublic information to Goldfield on the status of the potential acquisition. From March 15, 2007 continuing through April 20, 2007, Goldfield traded while in possession of the material nonpublic information that Self provided to him. Goldfield closed out his MEDI position entirely within the four business days immediately following the April 23, 2007 announcement about the acquisition, and realized $13,978,752 in profits from his unlawful trading. By May 31, 2007, Goldfield lost all of the profits he had earned trading MEDI through aggressively trading index options.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Self has agreed to settle the case against him. Self has consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, Self has consented to an order imposing a civil penalty of $50,000, based on Self's sworn statements in his statement of financial condition and other materials provided to the staff.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Goldfield has also agreed to settle the case against him. Goldfield has consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, Goldfield has consented to an order for disgorgement in the amount of $13,978,752, along with prejudgment interest of $2,666,275, for a total of $16,645,027, provided that payment of all but $600,000 is waived, based on Goldfield's sworn statements in his statement of financial condition and other materials provided to the staff.

See Also: SEC Complaint
 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21638.htm

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21637 / September 1, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Halek Energy, LLC, CBO Energy, Inc., Jason A. Halek and Christopher Chad Wilbourn, Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-01719-K (NDTX) (August 31, 2010)
SEC CHARGES TWO COMPANIES AND TWO INDIVIDUALS FOR SELLING FRAUDULENT OIL AND GAS INVESTMENTS

On August 31, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in United States District Court in Dallas, Texas, alleging that Jason A. Halek of Southlake, Texas and two companies he owns and controls - Halek Energy, LLC and CBO Energy, Inc. - fraudulently sold investments in Texas oil and gas projects. The Commission also charged that one of Halek's salesmen, Christopher Chad Wilbourn, illegally acted as an unregistered broker-dealer and unlawfully offered and sold unregistered securities.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, between June 2007 and September 2009, Jason Halek, Halek Energy and CBO Energy raised approximately $22 million from at least 300 investors nationwide by making materially false and misleading statements about the risks of the oil and gas projects, the use of investor funds, and potential returns from the investments. The complaint further alleges that Jason Halek knew these representations were false and that the vast majority of the oil or gas projects never provided the promised returns to investors. Finally, the complaint alleges that Wilbourn earned large commissions from promoting and selling unregistered oil and gas working interests and pre-IPO shares.

The Commission charges Jason Halek, Halek Energy and CBO Energy with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the Commission charges Wilbourn with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The defendants have agreed to injunctions against future violations of these provisions. Halek has agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty. The Commission is also seeking disgorgement plus prejudgment interest against each defendant and a civil penalty against Wilbourn.

See Also: SEC Complaint
 
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21637.htm

And another  

Run a search on Solarbrook on Google Maps and you get:-

Shine Holdings Inc
1121 Situs Court, Raleigh, NC 27606-4298, United States (919) 854-2623 ()

* Directions
* Search nearby
*
* more?

Search nearby
Save to My Maps
Which map do you want to save to?
Category: Shoe Shining Service

Which also happens to come up as a residential address (of Dennis Mast) and corresponds to the phone number of Ultra Choice Water sales.

So where is the inventory? Where is the manufacturing done? Are they really a Shoe Shining Company?

Sorry guys but this is too funny. ROFL

Before they get deleted 

From Google Maps

1251 Northwest Maynard Road, Cary, NC, United States

At this address:
Allen Jimmy Photography?
Business Loan Quest LLC?
Collegiate Funding Solutions?
Cra Solutions Inc?
Dmks Solutions?
Ghostlobster IT Solutions? - 3 reviews
Green Dry Carpet Cleaning?
Interstate Glass?
Meeks Educational Technologies?
Murphy Business & Financial - NC?
Omni Office Services Inc?
Paycom?
Precise Inventory Specialists?
South Atlantic Component Sales?
The UPS Store? - Rated 1.9 out of 5.0
True Service Corporation?