Hartcourt am ENDE!!! Neues Kursziel 0,00!!!! PLEITE!!!!! - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[abgenix]

Ich habe vor monaten gewarnt!


aber...ich wurde belächelt!

mein Ziel von 0,10$ ging auf!

unter RELATIV hohem volumen auf neuem allzeittief!


in ca. 3-6 monaten hartcourt=0,00!

[Cisk]

Na und jetzt!?
Die hat doch eh keiner mehr....
Abgenix wirds in 1-2 Jahren auch um die 0,00 € stehen...
Belächle mich mal...

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.10 0.01 (9.09) 0.10 (50) 0.105 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
11:22 89,300 5,000 0.105
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.111 0.10 +-+- 18
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
4,961 N/A N/A 0.11

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.095 0.015 (13.64) 0.095 (50) 0.103 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
11:42 117,500 4,400 0.105
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.111 0.095 -+-- 22
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
5,341 N/A N/A 0.11

[ehrenwort]

@ alle HRCT Idioten wie abgenix, franzfinanz, starlemming, andy5 u.a., Euer "Spielplatz" ist eröffnet: Thread: Die 1000% IDIOTEN-Umleitung von Hartcourt

Viel Spass!!!

EHRENWORT

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.095 0.005 (5.00) 0.095 (50) 0.099 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
10:18 14,000 14,000 0.095
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.095 0.095 ++-- 1
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
14,000 N/A 0.0938 0.10
VWAP Avg Day Vol

[abgenix]

EHRENWORT

Spielplatz?

Noch solch ein dummer hartcourt aktionär

wir werden sehen wer dumm ist


spätestens in 6 monaten ist harcourt pleite!

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.089 0.011 (11.00) 0.085 (50) 0.089 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
11:19 221,500 3,000 0.10
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.10 0.089 -+-- 32
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
6,922 N/A 0.0938 0.10

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.085 0.015 (15.00) 0.075 (50) 0.088 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
11:23 229,300 5,000 0.10
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.10 0.085 +--- 34
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
6,744 N/A 0.0938 0.10

[juta]

http://dieteleboerse.n-tv.de/readygo_show_tpl.php?n1=1&n2=1&…

High-Risk-Aktien

THE HARTCOURT COMPANIES

Kritische Zeiten


Einschätzung


Update: 31.05.2002

Hartcourt arbeitet daran seine Beteiligungen zu konsolidieren und wirtschaftlich tragfähig zu werden. Doch der Weg ist weit.
Bewertungssystem





The Hartcourt Companies ist eine im chinesischen Technologiesektor aktive Beteiligungsgesellschaft. Unter dem Gründer-CEO Phan blieb das Unternehmen lange Zeit amorph und undurchsichtig. Doch das hat sich geändert, seit Wallace Ching das Sagen hat. Während Phan immer wieder besonders mit (leeren) Versprechungen in Erscheinung trat, verpasste Ching Hartcourt erst einmal eine Struktur:
Sinobull: Finanzdaten und -anwendungen
Historisches Kernfeld ist die Sinobull-Finanzgruppe. Die Unternehmen der Gruppe bieten Finanzdaten und -anwendungen vorwiegend via Internet an. Indes arbeitet nur Financial Telecom, an der Hartcourt 58,53% hält, mit nennenswerten Umsätzen. Sinobull wird demnächst mit dem Börsenmantel Global Telephone Communications verschmolzen, um so am OTC Bulletin Board gelistet zu werden. Diese Spin-Off-Strategie soll die Beteiligungen der Gruppe liquider machen.

Elephant Talk: Breitband/Telekommunikation/Medien
Erste über einen Reverse Merger an das OTC Bulletin Board gebrachte Beteiligung und absoluter Star im Portfolio ist das Telekommunikationsunternehmen Elephant Talk, aus dem praktisch der Geschäftsbereich Breitband/Telekommunikation besteht. Über achtzig Prozent der Hartcourt-Umsätze stammten im letzten Quartal aus dieser 51%-Beteiligung. Am Betriebsverlust war Elephant Talk dagegen nur mit knapp einem Fünftel beteiligt. Wie alle anderen Unternehmen im Portfolio steht auch Elephant Talk nicht wirklich auf eigenen Füßen. Im ersten Quartal 2002 verbrannte das Unternehmen bei knapp drei Millionen Dollar Umsatz 173.497 Dollar im operativen Geschäft. Bilanztechnisch ist das Unternehmen sogar überschuldet, ebenso wie Hartcourt selbst.

Der Rest ist Schweigen
Lässt man Elephant Talk und Financial Telecom fort, bleibt von der Hartcourt-Gruppe nicht mehr viel übrig. Das ist für Altanleger besonders enttäuschend, denen der Mund wiederholt mit der 85%-Tochter Streaming Asia wässrig gemacht wurde. Im ersten Quartal 2002 brachte der Streaming Media-Bereich gerade einmal 76.115 Dollar Umsatz bei einem fast ebenso hohen Betriebsverlust. Doch CEO Wallace Ching hat große Hoffnungen. Das Lieblingskind des Ex-Prudential-Investmentbankers scheint hingegen ein neues Geschäftsfeld zu sein: Hartcourt Capital. Im entstehenden Finanzmarkt China bietet Hartcourt Capital Beratungsdienste im Bereich Investment-Banking an. Wieviel das bringen wird, muss sich erst noch zeigen.

Riskantes Geschäft
Ching sieht sein vorrangiges Ziel naturgemäß darin, Hartcourt und seine Beteiligungen so weit zu bringen, dass sie auf eigenen Füßen stehen können. Dabei bedingt natürlich das eine das andere. Doch dürfte es dennoch nicht so einfach zu bewerkstelligen sein. In den Sektoren Telekommunikation und Internet hat es in den letzten Monaten viel Pleiten und Ernüchterung gegeben. Kursdatenanbieter und Streaming Media-Anbieter haben es längst nicht mehr so leicht, Kunden und Investoren zu finden. China mag noch Nachholbedarf haben, aber dafür stellt die Regierung, die nun immer noch eine sozialistische Diktatur ist, immer wieder ihr gespaltenes Verhältnis zum Medium Internet unter Beweis. Wenn Tausende von Internetcafés in China geschlossen werden, dann betrifft das auch die Nachfrage nach Hartcourt-Produkten.

Daher laufen die Bemühungen auch auf strategischer Ebene. Einige der im Hartcourt-Portfolio vor sich hin dümpelnden Beteiligungen wurden abgeschrieben, vereinbarte Beteiligungen wurden abgeblasen. Dafür hat Hartcourt zwei neue Kandidaten in Aussicht. Im Unterschied zu früher sucht man jetzt allerdings nicht nach Start-Ups mit großen Plänen, sondern nach „rentablen Unternehmen in Branchen mit unter Beweise gestelltem Wachstumspotenzial“. Einer der Kandidaten, der Systemintegrator Kangrun, soll im Jahr 2001 angeblich 7,1 Millionen Dollar umgesetzt haben. Das ist etwa die Größenordnung von Elephant Talk. Wenig bekannt ist über den zweiten Kandidaten, Control Tech.

Ebbe in den Kassen
Solange aber fehlt Hartcourt Geld. Selbst die Akquisition von Elephant Talk ist noch nicht bezahlt: 1,25 Millionen Dollar waren im Februar fällig, jetzt ist der Tilgungszeitpunkt auf Mai verschoben. Die Konten sind überzogen, 4,6 Millionen Dollar offene Rechnungen stehen aus.

Ein "Grabstein" vom Investor?
Erste Finanzierungsquelle ist eine Aktienkreditlinie des Brokers Swartz Private Equity im Umfang von 35 Millionen. Dollar. Doch Swartz ist nicht unbedingt eine erste Adresse. Der Spezialist für Privatplatzierungen hatte zuletzt 47 solcher Deals mit einem Gesamtumfang von 146 Mio. Dollar laufen. Bei 90 Prozent der von Swartz auf diese Weise unterstützten Unternehmen ist der Kurs der Aktie seit dem Einsteig abgestürzt. Trauriger Rekordhalter: die im Konkursverfahren befindliche Ursus Telecom. Swartz` Darstellung des Hartcourt-Enagements ist jedenfalls erstaunlich. Auf der Website des Finanziers findet sich Hartcourt in der Rubrik "Tombstones" (Grabsteine), gemeinsam mit anderen abgestürzten Aktien. Was soll das aussagen?

Dr. Martin Hock; 31. Mai 2002








Sehr guter Bericht!

Der objektiv ist!

Die Pleite ist so gut wie sicher

Ich freu mich

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.077 0.003 (3.75) 0.077 (50) 0.081 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
13:30 287,200 200 0.08
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.085 0.077 -+-- 35
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,206 N/A 0.0781 0.08

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.073 0.004 (5.19) 0.073 (50) 0.079 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
13:06 187,500 500 0.077
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.082 0.073 -+-- 23
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,152 N/A 0.0781 0.077

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.072 0.005 (6.49) 0.071 (50) 0.075 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
13:24 239,000 6,300 0.077
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.082 0.072 +--- 28
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,536 N/A 0.0781 0.077

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.071 0.006 (7.79) 0.071 (50) 0.075 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
13:26 239,500 500 0.077
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.082 0.071 ---- 29
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,259 N/A 0.0781 0.077

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.07 0.007 (9.09) 0.07 (50) 0.075 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
14:05 320,300 2,000 0.077
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.082 0.07 -++- 38
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,429 N/A 0.0781 0.077

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.068 0.002 (2.86) 0.066 (50) 0.07 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
12:15 371,900 8,700 0.074
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.074 0.067 --+- 43
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,649 N/A 0.0781 0.07

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.066 0.004 (5.71) 0.066 (50) 0.07 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
15:10 417,100 200 0.074
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.074 0.066 +-+- 48
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,690 N/A 0.0781 0.07

[defcons]

ohne worte

GTCI.OB
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.005 0.005 (50.00) 0.005 (50) 0.015 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
11:03 500 500 0.005
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.005 0.005 +-+- 1
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
500 0.1719 N/A 0.01

Hartcourt ist auf dem Weg....wie GTCI.OB

[abgenix]

@EHRENWORT


noch 0,066 cent bis zur pleite!

dies dauert nicht mehr lange

[realsucker]

...gibt auch noch was anderes:

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.06 0.006 (9.09) 0.06 (50) 0.063 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
09:45 66,600 10,000 0.066
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.066 0.06 -+-- 10
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
6,660 N/A 0.0625 0.066

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.055 0.011 (16.67) 0.055 (50) 0.062 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
10:08 173,600 5,000 0.066
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.066 0.055 -+-- 20
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
8,680 N/A 0.0625 0.066

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.05 0.016 (24.24) 0.05 (50) 0.058 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
10:43 248,700 5,000 0.066
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.066 0.05 -+-- 35
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
7,106 N/A 0.0625 0.066

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.05 0.016 (24.24) 0.05 (50) 0.058 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
10:43 248,700 5,000 0.066
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.066 0.05 -+-- 35
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
7,106 N/A 0.0625 0.066

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.05 0.016 (24.24) 0.05 (50) 0.058 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
10:43 248,700 5,000 0.066
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.066 0.05 -+-- 35
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
7,106 N/A 0.0625 0.066

[michse_I]

Defcons allen Respekt Du betreibst ein sehr geistreiches Board in dem Du scheinbar Alleinunterhalter bist. Ganz toll Deine regelmäßigen Kursberichte. Sonst wüßten wir ja gar nicht wo HRCT steht. Warum bist Du eigentlich so schadenfroh hast Du Komplexe, wenn ja es gibt hier sicherlich medizinische Hilfe. Brauchst Dich nur zu melden. Ansonsten mach weiter so, wenns Dich befriedigt.
michse

[defcons]

michse..
keine sorge...Ich poste nur noch 3 Monate,weil dann HRCT pleite ist!

[projektionsmatrix]

Mal ganz ehrlich,defcon, was hast Du von diesem Feldzug? Hab das seit einiger Zeit beim Rumstöbern bei w:o verfolgt, was in diesem Board so los ist und finde keine Erklärung für Deine Bemühungen um eine Schrottaktie.
Für mich macht das keinen Sinn, sich mit sowas abzugeben. Warum also?

Gruß p-matrix

[CHAPTER7]

Diese Hartcourt aktie scheint ja ein klarer Nepp zu sein!


die Vergangenheit =Lügen-Betrug usw....


Das solch ein Müll noch gehandelt wird!
Wahnsinn!

Das ist ein klarer Pleitewert!

[RisingStar]

:-) und :-(....freu mich ueberhaupt nicht...hoffe das dreht doch noch gewaltig......aber nach den Berichten und den Aktienkursverfall sollte dies alles eher eine Sache des gluecklichen Geschicks mit grossen guten Willen einer exorbitanten Macht bewerkstelligt werden. Auch wenn Seifenblasen platzen, Luftschloesser nicht existieren und Kinder was auf die Bollen bekommen, wenn sie was wollen - hoffe ich da ist noch was drin.

[Depetus]

@ risingstar

hoffe auch in bezug auf hrct, das dein name programm ist! ich würde gerne andere zahlen sehen!

hoffen wir das beste und schauen das wir nicht zu viel lehrgeld bezahlt haben....

gruss depetus

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.05 0.005 (8.06) 0.057 (50) 0.061 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
14:15 131,800 100 0.06
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.06 0.056 +-+- 14

[abgenix]

nanu? kein posting von den longs?*LOL*

kein wunder!


1.schlimme zahlen
2.neuer wirtschaftsprüfer
3.neuer ceo
4.outstanding shares wieder gestiegen ! zum vergleich bei yahoo zeigt es http://biz.yahoo.com/p/h/hrct.ob.htmlShares Outstanding 74.6M
jetzt sind es As of June 30, 2002, The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. had 82,148,360 shares of
Common Stock Outstanding.

*LOL*
5.der kracher*LOL
During the quarter ended June 30, 2002,
Hartcourt and its affiliates sold 22 copies of the Equis`s licensed products for
HK$95,000 (US$12,179) and recorded data feed income of HK$45,600 (US$5,846) for
MetaStock products, since the inception of this agreement.
:Laugh:
WOWWWWWWW 22 copies 12.000$

6.noch ein kracher*LOL*
YesMobile is currently providing these services
to over 105 million users of China Mobile. As of August 10, 2002, Sinobull has
not received any revenues under the revenue sharing agreement.

nicht 1 cent dadurch verdient!!!!


On August 15, 2002, Hartcourt engaged Loral International ("Loral") Certified
Public Accountants, as Hartcourt`s independent auditors to report

*LOL*

Hartcourt dismissed Weinberg & Company, P.A. ("Weinberg") as its auditors
effective August 15, 2002. Weinberg served as Hartcourt`s independent auditors
for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. Weinberg`s report on
Hartcourt`s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2001 and 2000 (the "Reports") did not contain an adverse opinion or
disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty,
audit scope or accounting principles



UNGLAUBLICH!!!!!

DER X-TE WIRTSCHAFTSPRÜFER!!!




und wieder ein neuer ceo *LOL*



The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.

Date: August 19, 2002 By: /s/ Alan V. Phan
-------------------------------
Dr. Alan V. Phan
Chairman


Date: August 19, 2002 By: /s/ David Chen
--------------------------------
David Chen
Chief Operating Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer



wo ist den dieser Dr. Wallace Ching geblieben???


ich bleib dabei

diese unseriöse klitsche hrct wird pleite gehen!

[LEMMINGJGER]

@abgenix



Der Knüller ist:

On August 15, 2002, Hartcourt engaged Loral International ("Loral" Certified
Public Accountants, as Hartcourt`s independent auditors to report




Diese Firma Loral International

GIBT ES GAR NICHT!!!!!

Im Netz nichts zu finden

versucht es mal bei google.com

nichts!!!!!


unglauchblich Dr.phan + co. übertrift sich sogar!!

miese lügenklitsche!

[juta]

Die Pleite ist zu 100% sicher!







und weiter geht es mit den Insiderverkäufen

Form 144: Filing to Sell 58540 Shares of HARTCOURT COS INC (HRCT)

Aug 21, 2002 (Vickers Stock Research via COMTEX) --

Document Processing Date: August 21, 2002

Filer: COHN, FREDERIC
Relation:

Stock Name: HARTCOURT COS INC
Stock CUSIP: 416187201

Stock Symbol: HRCT
Exchange: OTC

Transaction date: August 01, 2002
Shares for sale: 58540
Value held: $3629


@2002buyer und spooky

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.05 0.005 (9.09) 0.05 (50) 0.055 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
13:28 159,700 11,000 0.06
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.06 0.05 +--- 17

[ANDY5]

auf gehts zur hrct pleite!!!!!

[LEMMINGJGER]

wowwwww neues tief 0,046$

[mp7]

hrct lügenklitsche ist klinisch tot!

sogar heute:wo es eine megarally gab
hrct -4%

[BobKeule]

MP7 ist doch wohl auch wieder ein abklatsch von STARLEMMING.
Begründe deinen Mist den du hier Postest!

Gruß
Bob.

[BobKeule]

MP7 ist doch wohl auch wieder ein abklatsch von STARLEMMING.
Begründe deinen Mist den du hier Postest!

Gruß
Bob.

[abgenix]

bobkeule

wenn du lesen könntest und deinen verstand mal einschalten würdest,dann würdest du es sehen das hrct sicher pleite gehen wird!

siehe posting nr.33-34-35
sind schon argumente!

dazu noch

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/h/hrct.ob.html
Financial Strength
Current Ratio (mrq) 0.50
Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.34
Total Cash (mrq) $106.0K


wie ich befürchte hat von euch longs gar keiner ahnung was das bedeutet!

Debt bedeutet =verbindlichkeiten!!!!
cash=das hrct nur noch 100.000$ verfügt!!!
in worten 100 tauend $!!!!

das bei einer marktkap. von 5 mio. $!!!!

dieses papier ist extrem überbewertet!!!

dazu noch lügen über lügen!

laßt euch nicht beeiren von den usern 2002buyer+brasil

die stecken in einem gewaltigen problem!!!!!

wollen nur neue abnehmer finden ,weil in deutschland fast kein volumen mehr existiert und in usa ein sehr dünnes volumen!!!

dazu steiget die aktienanzahl extrem!!!!



Shares Outstanding 80.0M
Float 76.8M

[corvis]

und up mit dem Thread!



2002Buyer ließ mal in diesem Thread,dann lernst du was!

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
Last Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size)
0.06 0.012 (16.67) 0.06 (50) 0.065 (50)
Trade Time Day Volume Last Size Open
14:52 314,400 20,000 0.065
High Low Latest Ticks # of Trades
0.076 0.06 -+-- 31
Avg Trade Size 52 Wk High 52 Wk Low Prev Close
10,142 N/A 0.0469 0.072

[new_investor]

ohne Worte

HARTCOURT COMPANIES INC NEW - OTC BB: HRCT
Exchange QuoteLast Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size) Trade 0.07 0.002 (-2.78) 0.06 (50) 0.075 (50)
Day Volume 339,400
Last Trade 15,000
Open High Low
0.065 0.076 0.06

ELEPHANT TALK COMMUNICATIONS - OTC BB: ETLK
Exchange QuoteLast Change (%) Bid (size) Ask (size) Trade 0.07 0.03 (+75.00) 0.04 (50) 0.07 (50)
Day Volume 5,100
Last Trade 2,000
Open High Low
0.06 0.07 0.04

[Hatch]

Hi,

ich habe da heute ein Schreiben meiner Bank bekommen bzgl. HRCT, dss mir sehr wenig sagt:

Entflechtung/ Spin-off
Zuteilungsverhältnis 1 : 0,058004
Wir haben auf Ihren Bestand in Höhe von 80 St. HRCT folgende Zuteilung durchgeführt:
4,6403 St ETLK

????

Könnte mir bitte jemand ganz sachlich (bitte ohne unqualifizierten Kommentare) erklären, was genau das bedeutet ?

Thz, Tony

[McCorry]

@hatch

das ganze bedeutet das du auf deine HRCT-Aktien
im verhältnis von ca. 17:1 ETLK-Aktien bekommst.

also für 17 HRCT bekommst du 1 ETLK dazu.

jetzt klar?

MFG
MC

[KATZENHASSER]

Hier nochmal für alle, die nicht so schnell im checken sind

Notice Regarding Dividend of ETLK Shares

Dear Shareholders,

We have received many queries relating to the dividends of ETLK shares. We would like to inform you the following details:


Ø Record Date of Dividend: 21st October, 2002

Ø Total outstanding shares as of 21st October, 2002: 85,608,897

Ø Total ETLK shares as dividends: 5,000,000

Ø Number of HRCT shares for each ETLK dividend: 17.12

Ø Number of ETLK shares for each HRCT share owned: 0.058

Ø Remaining ETLK shares to be held by HRCT: None

Ø Restrictions: All ETLK shares are restricted one year from date of dividend payment since the transfer of shares took place within one year of ETLK listing.

If you have any question with the share distribution dates and/or the calculation of your shares, please note the following:

Ø If your shares are in street names (the brokerage houses hold your certificates), you must contact and resolve all dividend distribution issues with your broker.
Ø If your shares are registered with the transfer agent, you should receive the actual share certificates at the address given. If there is any problem regarding your dividend distribution or any change of address, you should contact:

Signature Stock Transfer
2301 Ohio Drive Suite 100
Plano, TX 75093
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


Best Regards,

KATZENHASSER

[CHAPTER7]

katzenhasser=brasil oder spooky oder 2002buyer??????

Userinfo

allgemein
Username: KATZENHASSER
Registriert seit: 10.12.2002
User ist momentan: Online seit 10.12.2002 19:02:32
Threads: 0
Postings: 2
Interessen keine Angaben


Die Longs versuchen es mit allen mitteln

Hartcourt=Pleite!

[KATZENHASSER]

Hey Krampfader, sehr fleißig warst Du aber auch noch nicht.
Und unterstell mir nichts,wovon Du keinen Schimmer hast.
Oder woher weißt Du das meiner Long ist,Du Shortie.

Userinfo

allgemein
Username: CHAPTER7
Registriert seit: 02.12.2001
User ist momentan: Online seit 10.12.2002 19:19:02
Threads: 5
Postings: 48
Interessen keine Angaben

[spooky0815]

@KATZE..

...von Deinem Namen mal abgesehen bist Du mir symphatisch.

@#49

CHAPTER7 = doof oder abgenix oder = defcons oder corvis = dümmlich = lemmingjäger = gesperrt = doof

[2002buyer]

Spooky, wieso bist du KATZENHASSER?; wenn du doch schon ich bist (wie kürzlich von unseren Meister-Detektiven festgestellt wurde).
Und wieso bin ich KATZENHASSER wenn ich ich bin

Jetzt bin ich ganz verwirrt


Eine bitte an "Columbo persönlich":
Könntest du auch meinen Bruder ausfindig machen. Ich weiß aber nicht ob es ihn wirklich gibt
Zur Not kannst du mir auch einfach einen zuteilen. Das kannst du doch so gut

[suxxx]

wollte hrct nicht einen wirtschaftssender starten?vor 2 jahren?

hrct ist junk!


Bloomberg Television(R) Debuts In China
Thursday January 9, 12:47 pm ET


BEIJING, Jan. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Bloomberg Television, the global network of the financial information company, has been awarded one of only two new license applications accepted so far this year, to distribute its English-language finance news and information channel on the Chinese government-run direct-to-home satellite TV platform. The green light gives the channel access to hotels, foreign housing compounds and government offices in the world`s fastest growing financial market.
ADVERTISEMENT


Under the agreement, the China International Television Corporation (CITC), the commercial arm of the nation`s broadcasting regulator, the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT), has granted Bloomberg Television a national license to commence broadcasting its 24-hour Asia Pacific feed this month on the SinoSat platform.

Announcing the deal, distribution manager for Bloomberg Television Asia Pacific, Bill McHugh, said that as one of only two new applicants accepted, the business-focused channel will now have access to the hotels and buildings that house its clientele -- the international business traveller in China.

"The current license demonstrates our continuing commitment to increasing distribution of Bloomberg Television across the Asia Pacific region," Mr. McHugh said.

"More importantly, the agreement represents China`s acknowledgement that it is now more important than ever to follow global business developments and trends. Through Bloomberg Television and the Bloomberg Professional Service, we hope to provide Chinese viewers with a clear perspective of the business world."

Bloomberg Television`s total household viewership in the Asia Pacific region has increased by 77 per cent in the past 18 months, with 24 million households throughout the region now receiving the channel`s market-moving financial news, analysis and information. The channel`s hotel distribution more than doubled during the same period.

About Bloomberg Television

Bloomberg Television provides the most comprehensive coverage of fast-breaking money and business news, stock reports, world news, market updates, sport and weather in the world. Bloomberg has 1,500 reporters and editors based in 87 news bureaus worldwide, delivering news and analysis 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Bloomberg Television is part of the Bloomberg financial information network including Bloomberg Professional terminals, news wires, radio, magazines, book publishing and the Internet. For further information visit the Bloomberg website at http://www.bloomberg.com/asia




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bloomberg Television

[MeinHerr]

Aha, wie ich sehe, sind mal wieder die gehirnlosen am Werk, die den Kurs drücken wollen und daher mal wieder lauter dummes miesmachendes Zeug von sich geben.

HRCT ist für 2004 (ja, 2004) brandheiß. Lest euch mal die chinesischen Artikel durch, zumindest die, die in englisch verfaßt sind.

Ausserdem: Der Spin-Off spricht doch für sich.

HRCT: BUY bis STRONG BUY

[2002buyer]

@ MeinHerr

Wie kommst du auf 2004?
2003 wird ein sehr interessantes Jahr für Hartcourt. Erst am Ende läßt sich das nächste Jahr abschätzen.

Bei einer sachlichen Diskussion kannst du auch im IHub vorbeischauen. Deine Informationen und Artikel sind sort besser aufgehoben.

Viele Grüße
2002buyer (andiklimm)

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1456

[juta]

ihr Hrct Longs

ihr habt euch den rachen vollgestopft mit Hrct

und nun habt ihr euer eigenes träumerboard



tja....


was mir nur aufällt,jeder würde auch nur ein bischen kritik an seiner aktie äußern!

aber ihr Hrct longs ?
KINDER!


Woher sollen den noch die Umsätze kommen???-K:

ETLK Terminates Relationships with Parent

Ridgeland, MS, JAN 10, 2003 (EventX/Knobias.com via COMTEX) -- Elephant Talk Communications Inc. (OTCBB: ETLK) released an 8-K on Thursday, after the market closed.

Pursuant to an execution of a Spin-Off Agreement, dated September 12, 2002, and through the subsequent transactions that closed on January 4, 2003, the Company terminated its relationship with The Hartcourt Companies, Inc., a Utah corporation. The Company was formerly a subsidiary of Hartcourt.

Pursuant to the terms of the Spin-Off Agreement, the Company received 17,895,579 of its common shares held by Hartcourt and $349,000 in cash advances from Hartcourt, in exchange for returning 4,756,000 common shares of Hartcourt held by the Company and its affiliates, canceling two promissory notes of Hartcourt held by the Company and its affiliate in the respective amounts of $1,250,000 and $140,595, and canceling the indebtedness by issuing 5,000,000 of its restricted common shares to Hartcourt. In addition to executing the Spin-Off Agreement, the parties executed a mutual release to end their relationship and place each other in a position whereby no party is indebted to the other party.


?????

????
etwa von Sinobull???
dazu siehe postingnr.33 von abgenix!
aus dem Filing!!!

Hrct ist nichts mehr wert!
aber trotzdem noch mit 6 million$ bewertet!!!
unglaublich!

na ja...

ihr werdet auch irgendwann aufwachen...nur wahrscheinlich ist es dann zu spät!

[icemen]

@2002buyer

2003 wird ein sehr interessantes Jahr für Hartcourt.

warst du nicht der jenige der letztes jahr großkotzig hier geschrieben hat"Hartcourt 50$"?


klar jetzt wo im jahre 2002 nichts passierte,wird es natürlich im jahr 2003"interessant"?

Bei einer sachlichen Diskussion kannst du auch im IHub vorbeischauen. Deine Informationen und Artikel sind sort besser aufgehoben.



also sorry
was ist den daran sachlich?
was du da abläst in deinem geführten Board.

Ich will dir mal sagen das ich Hrct schon über 5 Jahre kenne,solche leute wie du wird es jedes 2.jahr geben.
von wegen merger oder "Big News"

Hrct ist ein unternhmen das sogar an der Otc einer der untersten sorte ist.
Die Storys die Dr.Phan sich schon geleistet hat kennt jeder.

wie schon juta geschrieben hat:ihr habt euch den rachen vollgestopft mit Hrct
und nun erwartet ihr das der Hype sich wiederholt wie im Jahre 1999/2000?
Träumer!
Im Jahre 1998-2000 wurde jedes Unternehmen gehypt,ob die die Fundamentaldaten gut oder schlecht waren!
Der Grund weswegen Hrct damals so extrem gestiegen war
ist
das damals bestimmte Finanzseiten bezahlt wurden um Hrct zu hypen(Stockreporter ist ein Begriff?)
Dazu die ganzen Shareholderletters vom Doc Phan
Wie"Nasdaq"oder Sinobull 500 Million$ Ipo usw.....
Wenn man sich mal anschaut ,das Werte wie Netease.com -Sina.com-Sohu.com-Asiainfo-UtStarcom für Zahlen abliefern und wirklich Wachstum zeigen,und sich dabei die Fundamentaldaten von Hrct sich anschaut,dann wird jedem normalen klar,das Hrct auch gar nichts von China hat oder auch profitiert!
mir ist auch aufgefallen wie du 2002Buyer dich reinkniest,sei es im W O oder wie du jetzt dein Board jetzt anpreist,ähnelst du doch sehr wie einem User der damals unter dem Usernamen FrankieTheFly gepostet hat!

Daraus schließe ich
1.Entweder du wirst dafür bezahlt
2.Du bist ein Pumper

@MeinHerr
Aha, wie ich sehe, sind mal wieder die gehirnlosen am Werk, die den Kurs drücken wollen und daher mal wieder lauter dummes miesmachendes Zeug von sich geben.

HRCT ist für 2004 (ja, 2004) brandheiß. Lest euch mal die chinesischen Artikel durch, zumindest die, die in englisch verfaßt sind.

Ausserdem: Der Spin-Off spricht doch für sich.

HRCT: BUY bis STRONG BUY

sehr geistreich dein posting!
Du meinst das ein kritischer Kommentar den Kurs von Hrct drückt?????
und für dich ist Hrct im Jahre 2004 brandheiß?
so so
mit welcher Begründung????
Schlußpunkt!
Nicht einer von euch "Longs" ist kritisch oder objektiv!

Viel Glück bei eurem Investment Hrct
ihr werdet es unbedingt brauchen!

[2002buyer]

@icemen

Um es gleich mal richtig zu stellen. Ich werde weder von Hartcourt bezahlt, noch schreibe ich um irgendwelche neue Aktionäre zu ködern. Ich versuche lediglich meine Informationen mit anderen zu teilen.

Sicher gab es in der Vergangenheit häufiger irgendwelche Poster die dann wieder verschwanden. Man konnte damals auch mit Aktien Geld verdienen. Heute sieht es anders aus. Da ich kein Trader bin muß ich mich nach dem Markt richten.
Das ich in der Vergangenheit mit meinen Zielen falsch lag ist auch richtig. Habe aber nie das Gegenteil behauptet. Ich habe mir die gesamte Entwicklung des Market anders vorgestellt. Allerdings hat sich an meinem Optimismus nichts geändert. Dieses Unternehmen wird von einigen völlig falsch dargestellt und man versucht durch falsche Informationen Aktionäre zu blenden, um sich an den Kursschwankungen zu bereichern.
Solange es Basher gibt ist die Aktie am Leben. Ansonsten würden diverse Poster hier nicht ihre Freizeit investieren und sich immer neue Sch... ausdenken.


Viele Grüße
2002buyer (andiklimm)

[sisqu]

ohne worte

Posted by: andiklimm
In reply to: MisterEC who wrote msg# 17709 Date:1/13/2003 4:19:35 PM
Post #of 17713

45.000 shares are well. Then you should be a happy man end of 2003. I bought my first shares at .90 US$ before the splitt and but my average shareprice is between 5 - 6 Dollar. I know I get the money back. Not today but tomorrow. If the story would be bad I had sold my shares at all-time-high. But I want more in the past and I want more in future.

These words are from Alan. I read it in the past and I believe it´s right.lol

But if I would have luck in lotto today I could buy some more shares.LOL.LOL
Then I would be the "King of Germany".LOL.LOL


best
andi


dir ist nicht zu helfen

[trimatec]

Hallo an alle in diesem Thread.

Ich bin seit fast 3 Jahren in Hartcourt investiert. Seit der Kurs ende des Jahres 2000 so derb abstürzte hat mich diese Aktie nicht mehr interessiert.
Jetzt hat mich die Neugier gepackt und ich mußte mal wieder nachschauen, wo Hartcourt so rumdümpelt.
Leider mußte ich nichts erfreuliches feststellen.

Jetzt meine Bitte an euch: Ich würde gerne in einer kurzen Zusammenfassung wissen, was geschah und wie die Aussichten für die nächsten Monate bzw.
Jahre sind.

Eine sachliche und fundierte Auskunft wäre super.

Danke

[2002buyer]

@ trimatec

Schau doch malin dem Board vorbei.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1456

Da findest du Infos über Hartcourt. Die Links (Information über das letzte Shareholder Meeting und eine kleine Präsentation) bitte mit der rechten Maustaste "in neuem Fenster öffnen" öffnen.

Ich hoffe es hilft dir weiter.

Viele Grüße
2002buyer (andiklimm)

[guru2002]

und wieder der promoter 2002buyer

[guru2002]

bye bye bye streamingasia.com


Has anyone discuused the death of "Streamingasia,com" here. I know it was crap for a long time put did anyone know it went under completely?...I am sure some of you did. why not post it...

StreamingAsia.com (SITE CLOSED)

http://www.cmasia.com/sorting.sites/highest.ranked.asp?CatID…


Highest Ranked (4) Page (1 of 1)
Name Total [Jan] [Feb] Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
i 1. deansee.com 74.0 74.0 74.0 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.7 73.8 73.8 73.8 74.0 74.0
i 2. B2Bcast 73.0 73.0 73.0 72.9 72.9 72.9 73.2 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0
i 3. BroadcastOne 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
i 4. StreamingAsia.com
(SITE CLOSED) 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.5 72.5 72.5 72.5 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0




streamingasia=pleite!
von wegen ipo!!????
die typische dr.phan lüge!!!

viel glück dem promoter 2002buyer

[guru2002]

weiter geht es mit den lügen von dr.phan

HRCT PR JUST RELEASED
Hartcourt CEO Discussed the IPO of Sinobull.com And The
$25 Million Equity Financing

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- In an interview with the German financial magazine, wallstreet-online.de, Dr. Alan Phan,
Chairman & CEO of Hartcourt (OTC Bulletin Board: HRCT - news) explained details of the coming IPO of Sinobull.com and the
structure of the $25 Million equity financing agreement with Swartz. Here is the excerpt of part of the interview:

``Q. Can you give us more details on the formation of Sinobull.com and how it will affect Hartcourt shareholders?`

``A. Sinobull.com is a separate entity, in which Hartcourt contributed the shares it owns in UAC and FTL as equity. Other owners of
Sinobull.com include our present partners of UAC and FTL, plus 3 more strategic partners (well-known American and Chinese
companies) which shall be disclosed as soon as agreements are signed. The percentage of ownership of Sinobull.com will be 45% for
Hartcourt, 21% for UAC partners, 18% for FTL partners, and 16% for 3 new partners. Based on projected revenue, net profit, market
position and comparable market capitalization of other Chinese Internet companies, our investment banker estimated that Sinobull
should command a $500 Million price tag on its IPO. We plan to sell 20% of Sinobull to the public by issuing 5 Million shares at $20
per share. The IPO would reduce Hartcourt`s ownership of Sinobull to 36 percent, equaling to $180 Million (or $7 book value per
share) in assets. It could go much higher if the public embraces the IPO as seen in other cases. Depending upon the impact on HRCT
price, the Board could then decide to keep its Sinobull shares in Hartcourt`s portfolio; or to pay out all or part of it as dividends to
HRCT shareholders. As for the IPO, the banker would study market conditions before deciding to list Sinobull in NASDAQ or GEM
(Hong Kong) or both. We are also working with the banker to reserve a quantity of IPO shares, from 500,000. to 1 Million, for
existing HRCT shareholders.`

``Q. How is the $25 Million equity financing agreement with Swartz structured?`

``A. First of all, Hartcourt will file a SB-2 registration of the shares we plan to issue. Once it is approved by the SEC, Swartz has the
obligation to purchase these shares at the market price minus 10 percent discount during the next 24 months. The maximum amount
of funding will be 10 percent of the dollar trading volume of HRCT each month. Hartcourt does not have to sell these shares, if we do
not need the money or if the market price is not attractive. Therefore, we are in complete control of the share dilution and the timing
of the funding. Swartz has good track records of similar funding with many larger Internet firms.`

Certain statements in this news release may constitute ``forward looking` statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause
the actual results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to differ materially from the
forward-looking statements.

SOURCE: The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.

DISCLAIMER

HRCT has retained DDInvestor.com for a 6 month period to assist it in becoming more widely known to the investment community. For its efforts, DDInvestor.com will receive $1,000 in cash and 3,000 shares of HRCT stock each month.

We also urge you to read our full disclaimer as provided on our web site at:
http://www.ddinvestor.com/disclaimer.html







einmal otc lügenklitsche=immer otc lügenklitsche

[TheWorld]

Ich danke Dir vielmals dass Du mir endlich die Augen über HRCT geöffnet hast

Hast Du irgendeinen Grund weshalb Du gerade heute bashen tust?

Ich denke anhand Deinen Postings werde ich mir morgen gleich noch ein paar kaufen

Gruss aus der Schweiz

TheWorld

[2002buyer]

guru2002

Mit deinem Blödsinn über StreamingAsia lockst du keinen Hund hinter dem Ofen vor.

Schönen Sonntag
2002buyer (andiklimm)

[guru2002]

@the world

ich bashe?

junge dir ist nicht zu helfen!
hab ich etwas falsches gepostet?
es war mit linkangabe oder von hrct!

die wahreit tut weh oder?

noch was the world!
zum nachkaufen



#25 von TheWorld 12.02.02 00:08:47 Beitrag Nr.: 5.565.617 5565617
Dieses Posting: versenden | melden | drucken | Antwort schreiben HARTCOURT COS DL-,001

Mir persönlich macht dies eigentlich nicht soviel aus, wie Du meinst.

Ich habe schon einige HRCT`s und wenn Sie günstiger werden, dann kaufe ich nochmals nach. Wäre erst das 5. Mal.

Da ich aber von Hartcourt ÜBERZEUGT bin, kann der Kurs ruhig noch ein bisschen unten bleiben, doch LEIDER wird dies wohl nicht der Fall sein, oder denkst Du das WC ein Shareholder herausgibt ohne nachher wirkliche Taten folgen zu lassen? Denkst Du dass Sie nicht von Ihren Fehlern in der VERGANGENHEIT gelernt haben?

@2002buyer
ja promoter
du lockst ja die hunde hinter dem ofen als promoter

[guru2002]

@2002buyer
zum themalockst du keinen Hund hinter dem Ofen vor.


#1 von 2002buyer 30.12.01 23:15:22 Beitrag Nr.: 5.234.843 5234843

Und mit Altersvorsorge meinte ich, daß ihr uns unsere Aktien bei 50US$ oder mehr abnehmt. Dann setzten wir uns zur Ruhe und ihr müßt welche suchen, die eure wieder abnehmen. So ist halt das Leben. Das werdet ihr noch erfahren.

ja ja promoter 2002buyer

[defcons]

ohne Worte!
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/030415/hrct.ob10ksb.html

April 15, 2003

HARTCOURT COMPANIES INC (HRCT.OB)
Annual Report (SEC form 10KSB)
Item 6. Management`s Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation
General

The following is a summary of certain information contained in this Report and is qualified in its entirety by the detailed information and financial statements that appear elsewhere herein. Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in this Report include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties are detailed throughout the Report and will be further discussed from time to time in Hartcourt`s periodic reports filed with the Commission. The forward-looking statements included in the Report speak only as of the date hereof.

Plan of Operation

The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. is a holding and development enterprise that is building a broad network of Internet, media, and telecommunication companies in Greater China. In partnership with leading Chinese entrepreneurs and government-sponsored entities, Hartcourt is developing and investing in emerging technologies while building an integrated commercial framework for its subsidiaries and their partners. Hartcourt`s operative business strategy is designed to establish market-leading position and facilitate a series of venture divestitures via IPO or public mergers in its five main business divisions to fully realize the value of these assets for its investors. The four business divisions are Sinobull Financial Group, Media Services Group, E-learning Group and Hartcourt Capital.

Hartcourt, through a combination of expertly managed internal expansion and accretive strategic acquisitions, is executing plans to provide a sustainable, growing, diversified and profitable revenue base throughout its operations. The company is aggressively identifying and pursuing the best business opportunities available. Through a continued refinement of operational efficiencies, and increasing revenue margins, the Company is providing a clear path to profitability for its current and future businesses."

Results of Operations

Comparison of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001.

During 2002, Hartcourt continued its previously implemented plan to acquire profitable companies that were in established industries with a history of growth. Since mid-1999, Hartcourt has been focusing on assembling a collection of companies and services that will provide citizens of China with next generation communication services, including China-focused Internet access and financial portals, online share trading services, data broadcasting, and financial services. The Company signed underwriting agreements for the initial public offerings of shares of its two most developed investments, both of which were planned in the year 2001. On January 4, 2002, pursuant to an Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization, Hartcourt`s subsidiary Elephant Talk Limited


merged with Staruni Corporation, a California corporation, organized under the laws of California and listed on the over the counter on bulletin board of NASDAQ exchange. Prior to the conclusion of the merger, Hartcourt acquired additional equity in Elephant Talk Limited and retained a 51.7% ownership in ETCI upon conclusion of the merger. Hartcourt plans to eventually build all of its current operations into stand-alone entities that will also be taken public on US and/or Asian Financial markets.

The operations of Hartcourt for 2002 primarily consisted of operations of FTL (58.53% ownership interest), StreamingAsia (85% ownership interest), Sinobull (wholly-owned subsidiary), AI-Asia (wholly-owned subsidiary) and Hartcourt Capital, Inc. (wholly-owned subsidiary) and its investments and advances to entities in China, Hong Kong and US. ElephantTalk (51% ownership interest) and HCTV (66.7% ownership interest) were disposed-off as of September 30, 2002 and June 30 2002 respectively. The operations of Hartcourt for 2001 primarily consisted of operations of FTL (58.53% ownership interest), StreamingAsia (85% ownership interest), ElephantTalk (51% ownership interest), Sinobull (wholly-owned subsidiary), HCTV (66.7% ownership interest), AI-Asia (wholly-owned subsidiary) and Hartcourt Capital, Inc. (wholly-owned subsidiary) and its investments and advances to entities in China, Hong Kong and US.

Net sales and cost of sales. The Company recorded net sales of $1,137,011 in year 2002, compared to $10,621,205 in 2001. Net sales primarily consisted of sales of wireless pagers, rental of equipment, and the related Internet and telephone services provided by FTL; real-time financial data services provided by Sinobull Financial Information using a satellite network to transmit data specializes in stock quotes, futures, indexes and commodities to its customers in China; and StreamingAsia providing web hosting and software development services in audio and video delivery or streaming solutions. The significant drop in sales of 2002 when compared to 2001 is mainly due to the fact that Hartcourt has disposed ETLK of in October 2002. The sales of Elephant Talk covered 72% more of the total sales in 2001. Moreover, the financial sector has been affected badly by the stock market downturn. As a result, most banks and brokerage houses have reduced their spending on data services, causing additional price-cutting among competitors. Cost of sales included cost of capacity associated with the sales recognized from providing telecommunications services, costs associated with in acquiring data-feed from Honk Kong Stock Exchange and various commodities exchanges in China via TV channels and satellite transmissions, equipment rental in providing event real-time Internet broadcasting and on-demand multimedia content delivery and total web solutions. The increase in operating margin is mainly due to the higher margin in financial sector, compared to lower margin in tele-communication services rendered by Elephant Talk only included in 2001.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. SG&A expenses amounted to $2,774,011 for 2002 compared to $7,379,192. Apart from dispose off subsidiaries in 2002, the decrease in SG&A is primarily attributed to reduction in consulting, legal and administrative costs incurred in 2002 as compared to that in 2001. Hartcourt completed the acquisition of Elephant Talk Limited in May 2001, which required significant legal and administrative expense to complete the acquisition. Hartcourt has taken drastic cost cutting measures and deliberately slowed down the development process of all projects on hand. Included in the SG&A expenses in 2002, the Company made bad debt provision amounted to $1,115,963 against these doubtful accounts for prudent purpose. The Company recorded an impairment of $1,563,040 during 2002 to write down certain intangible assets and its investments in Sinobull Group, FTL Group and Streaming

Asia Group. Such expense was not included in the SG&A for the year ended 2002. Hartcourt continued to eliminate less productive units, reduced consulting and legal costs associated due to restructuring of the Company`s business in Hong Kong and China.

Impairments. Impairments in year 2002 amounted to $1,563,040 compared to $1,785,262 in the year 2001. As of 31 December 2002, except for Sinobull Group, Hartcourt wrote-off all the goodwill on acquisition of subsidiaries.

Gain on disposal of discontinued operations. Gain on disposal of discontinued operation in 2002 consist of the realized gain of $1,284,048 for disposal of ETCI, and the gain of $659,653 for disposal of HCTV and Topomedia. Hartcourt disposed of the operations of UAC Exchange in 2001 and recognized a gain of $1,060,371.

Loss from discontinued operations. Hartcourt discontinued the operation of ETLK, HCTV and Topomedia during 2002 and incurred $1,020,252 in losses from discontinued operations. The loss in 2001 represents the losses from discontinued operation of UAC exchange.

Gain on extinguishment of debt: During 2001, the Chairman of the Company donated 5,000,000 shares of Hartcourt to the Company. Hartcourt settled a loan payable of $1,862,630 in exchange of 5,000,000 shares of common stock of Hartcourt. The accompanying financial statements at December 31, 2001 reflect the donation of 5,000,000 shares recorded as treasury shares and satisfaction of loan of $1,862,630.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Hartcourt`s principal capital requirements during 2002 were to fund the acquisitions of growth oriented Internet related operating companies in China and Asia. Hartcourt raised substantial funds necessary to carry out its plans of acquisitions by selling its own restricted common shares to accredited investors and bringing in business partners whose contributions included the necessary cash.

As shown in the accompanying financial statements, Hartcourt incurred net losses of $2,550,002 and $5,329,408 for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. In addition, Hartcourt`s working capital deficit of $2,155,058 is not adequate to meet its minimum monthly expenses. These factors, as well as negative cash flows from current operations of $1,852,669, Hartcourt`s inability to meet debt obligations, and the need to raise additional funds to accomplish its objectives, create substantial doubt about Hartcourt`s ability to continue as a going concern.

Hartcourt has taken certain restructuring steps, which in the management`s opinion will provide the necessary capital to continue its operations. These steps included: 1) the settlement of certain matters of litigation and disputes; and 2) signed stock sale agreements with accredited investors to raise in excess of $1,000,000. The Company plans to actively seek funding sources once Hartcourt is able to discontinue and dispose-off all non-profitable assets by selling or spinning-off or restructuring to minimize loss or liability.

Operating activities. The net cash used by operating activities in 2002 amounted to $1,852,669 compared to $1,462,551 in 2001. The net increase in operating activities resulted primarily due to more payments on settle of liabilities in

2002 compared to 2001. It resulted also due to the increase of minority interest offset by increase in depreciation and amortization, increase in shares issued in lieu of compensation and services and other changes in operating activities. In addition, the increase of the cash used in discontinued operations also contributed much to the operational cash flow.

Investing activities. Net cash obtained in investing activities amounted to $2,538,962 during 2002 compared to net cash used of $338,950 during 2001. Net cash flow in during 2002 primarily resulted from the proceeds on notes receivable of $1,039,389 and the proceeds from disposal of investment of $1,597,450. Net cash used in investing activities in 2001 is mainly due to the payment of $823,585 in notes receivable, purchase of property and equipment of $51,721, offset by cash of $690,202 acquired in acquisitions of ElephantTalk, Sinobull Group and StreamingAsia.

Financing activities. Net cash used by financing activities amounted to $878,554 in 2002 compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $1,984,912 during 2001. Hartcourt paid $7,986 for the loans due to related parties, paid $265,691 in net from issuance of common stock and adjustment of share price during 2002, proceeds from shareholders` loan $139,865, made payments on factor $198,205, made payments on long-term debt of $433,299, and made payments on capital lease of $113,238. During 2001, Hartcourt raised $1,988,501 from issuance of common stock, made payments on loans due to related parties amounting to $865,048, made payments of shareholders loans of $999,436, and proceeds of long tern debt of $1,619,807.

The ability of Hartcourt to continue as a going concern is still dependent on its success in obtaining additional financing and fulfilling its plan of restructuring as outlined above.



laugh:
unglaublich was für Zahlen!

[icemen]

Wirsind stark SHORT in Hartcourt(bei 1,07$)

wir werden erst bei ca 0,10$ covern!


Good Luck
bei der Hartcourt Blase!

[samy3110]

@ icemen

na super dass ihr short seid!
schau dir mal den chart an! diese aktie hat freunde die den kurs nicht mehr unter 0,7$ fallen lassen!

go hartcourt go!

[Rattlesnake]

wie kann man stark SHORT sein? steht das für:

Senil, Hirnlos, und Oft Recht Trottelig...??

Rattlesnake

[was]

Na, ja,- so schnell wie nun icemen pleite geht
schaffen das nicht viele an der Börse.

Ist doch interessant,- es hat immer weniger dumme Leute
die noch Aktien haben !

[2002buyer]

@ icemen

Warum meldet ihr euch immer wenn der Kurs mal ein paar Prozente abgibt?
Die vergangenen Wochen hat man nichts von euch gelesen.


Naja, in einigen Tagen werden wir wieder Ruhe vor euch haben.
Welch ein segen.

Andi

[icemen]

Wie ich gerade lese


sind noch viele grün hinter den Ohren.


@sammy3110
Was ist das für dummer Spruch?

Die Aktie hat freunde?
aha....deshalb wird sie nicht unter 0,70$ fallen?verstehe....das macht Sinn!


@Rattlesnake

Ich bin ein Trottel? aha....interessant!weil ich seid 1,07$ short bin?
Man sieht das Ergebnis


@was


wer geht hier pleite?Ich?
sehr interessant!
@2002buyer
zu deiner Person brauche ich wohl kein Kommentar zu schreiben!

Du und Brasil pusht diesen aufgeblasenen Wert so offensichtlich!

Die armen Lemminge!

p.s. Wir sind stark short in Hartcourt!

bei 0,10$ covern wir

grüße

[zocku]

Hallo icemen


Ich und 3 weitere Freunde sind auch massiv short in Hrct!


Ein Freund von mir hat schon die SEC(die amerkanische Börsenaufsicht) dazu aufgefordert,sich mal HRCT näher anzuschauen..wegen Dr.Phan




mfg

[philosoph11]

@icemen
@zocku

Über welchen Broker habt Ihr denn geshortet wenn ich fragen darf?
Interessiert mich nicht wegen Hartcourt sondern einfach grundsätzlich, da mich die Bedingungen interessieren würden.

Danke
Gruß
Philosoph

[spooky0815]

@Philosoph

auf Deine Antwort wirst Du IMHO länger warten können...

@zocku

Der Esel nennt sich immer zuletzt...

[philosoph11]

@spooky0815

Warum denn, ist das so ein wertvolles Geheimnis?

[spooky0815]

@Philosoph,

kein Geheimniss...warten wir mal ab, ob Du überhaupt dazu
eine Antwort bekommst...ich sach ma nö...

greets
$pooky

[maeusefaenger]

"Ich bin auch short in Hartcourt!
Ich auch!
Ich auch!
Ich auch!
Ich auch!"


Und ich lach (auch) darüber!!


maeusefaenger

[ADERA]

@all

Rette sich wer kann!!! HRCT kackt kräftig ab.............

[MeinHerr]

Ich habe dem Laden bisher immer die Treue gehalten, aber ich bin erstmal bei 0,54 ausgestiegen und habe meine Kohle gerettet, denn das was hier im Moment passiert nenne ich persönlich:

ANLEGER-BETRUG !!

Die Käufer sind durch einen gezielten Push von einigen
Investoren auf übelste Weise verarscht worden.

Wer noch im Plus oder knapp an der Grenze ist dem rate ich:

STRONG SELL, aber so schnell wies geht.

Könnt ja bei unter 0,10 wieder einsteigen.

[prof19]

@MeinHerr

hast ja wenigstens dein Motiv gleich mitgeteilt.

Du bist also raus zu 0,54 und kommst nun 14 ct billiger wieder rein. Interessant...

Würdest aber gerne zu 5 ct einsteigen, damit du 10 mal mehr Aktien hast als vorher. Noch lieber würdest du zu 2 ct einsteigen, dann kriegst du 25 mal so viele.

Ich sehe es mal andersrum: Du schreibst du kaufst erst bei 5 ct damit sie dir keiner vor der Nase wegschnappt, und hast sie friedlich bei 38 oder 39 ct eingesammelt. Wäre dir zuzutrauen.

mfG

[Franz Beckenbauer]

@ MeinHerr

Du bist hier echt die größte Pfeife die rumläuft !!!!

Damals HRCT in Grund und Boden geredet...danach war HRCT die Goldgrube schlechthin...und nun ist alles wieder scheiße !!!

Bei deinen Nerven solltest du dir Bundesschatzbriefe kaufen !!! (obwohl auch hier das Risiko eines schwankenden Zinssatzes herrscht !!)

[samy3110]

gut gesagt Franz!!!!!!

[sohu]

@zocku!

KLasse das jemand der ameikanischen börsenaufsicht mal darauf aufmerksam macht,was HRCT da betreibt!Betrug Hoch 10!


Hrct wird es nicht lange geben.

Betrüger!!!!



long sohu!

[MeinHerr]

@Franz und Konsorten

Irrtum ihr Pappnasen. Wenn ihr meine Postings mal richtig durchlesen würdet, dann wüßtet ihr, daß ich bei 0,2 eingestiegen bin. Ich bin doch nicht so bescheuert und warte ein paar Tage, bis der Wert wieder dort ankommt.

Hier ist eine RIESENSAUEREI im Gange !!!!

Und wer nicht rausgeht, ist selber Schuld. Wie gesagt, ihr könnt meckern wie ihr wollt, abermeine Meinung steht fest. Hier läuft irgendwas ab, was wir nicht nachvollziehen können. Da sind linke Säcke am Werk, die abgesahnt haben.

Punkt.

[nete]

@icemen+zocku
Gratuliere euch(mit euren shorts)!!!!!!

HRCT sieht bearish aus!

[prof19]

@nete

totaler Blödsinn, als ob sich bei HRCT keine Übernahmen ereignet hätten. Auf solche Fälle kannst du diese dummen Programme ja nicht loslassen.

Wer dir auf den Leim geht, ist selber schuld.

[Franz Beckenbauer]

@ mein lieber "Herr"-Gesangsverein

Wir sind GRÜN in Frankfurt ))

Wo hat denn das Management gepusht ?????
Es wurden Beteiligungen verkündet die auch real sind !!!

Welche Schlüsse der Anleger daraus zieht...dafür kann HRCT ja nix !!!

Sollte HRCT in 2 Wochen wieder bei 0,80 stehen....kommst du dann wieder unter deinem Stein hervor und brüllst: "Ich habe es immer gewußt und bin bei 0,36 wieder eingestiegen" ????

ANFÄNGER !!

[freitag]

_.«:::..·´¯`·.:::»
____.
____<"/>
_____/ _

GOOOOOOOOO HRCT

[MeinHerr]

Und heute war wieder mal ein kleiner Zock möglich.

Heute +21% und Morgen dafür wieder -40%



Wie schon gesagt: Hier läuft ne verdammt linke Sache ab !!



Vorsicht Leute !!

[freitag]

@MeinHerr

Franz Beckenbauer stimme ich VOLL zu.

@ MeinHerr

Du bist hier echt die größte Pfeife die rumläuft !!!!

Damals HRCT in Grund und Boden geredet...danach war HRCT die Goldgrube schlechthin...und nun ist alles wieder scheiße !!!

Bei deinen Nerven solltest du dir Bundesschatzbriefe kaufen !!! (obwohl auch hier das Risiko eines schwankenden Zinssatzes herrscht !!)

PS: Bleib Long. Sehe nicht täglich auf Kurse. Dann passiert dir keine blöde sachen; wie, billig verkaufen TEUER kaufen.

[freitag]

_.«:::..·´¯`·.:::»
____.
____<"/>
_____/ _

GOOOOOOOOO HRCT

[guru2002]

Tja!

HRCT=Einmal betrüger=immer BETRÜGER!!!!!Das mußte mal kommen!Mich würde nicht wundern HRCT ausgesetzt wird!

Dann ist HRCT wertlos!
Hartcourt Will Vigorously Defend the SEC Civil Lawsuit
Wednesday May 28, 9:04 am ET


LOS ANGELES, May 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: HRCT, Frankfurt: 900009), www.hartcourt.com , today announced that it has received word that the Securities and Exchange Commission intends to file a civil complaint alleging that Hartcourt and its Chairman violated some regulations of the 1933 Securities Act. The alleged violations are alleged to have occurred during the UAC acquisition in 1999.
ADVERTISEMENT


The company strongly denies any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Its legal counsel believes that the lawsuit has no merit.

Dr. Alan Phan, Hartcourt`s Chairman, comments, "Unless settled, this lawsuit may last for a few years. It will be one of the major challenges facing Hartcourt. However, we have overcome many similar challenges in the past and we intend to fight this lawsuit with the same attitude. Meanwhile, our aggressive strategy for consolidating all independent PC companies in China will continue at its fast pace. There is no change in our plan to deliver substantial positive financial results in the coming years."

About Hartcourt

The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. is an investment holding and developing company specializing in the acquisition and development of private companies within high-growth industries in China. Hartcourt`s business strategy is to add substantial value in terms of financial restructuring and corporate governance to enable these subsidiaries goes public via IPO or reverse merger. Detailed information on Hartcourt can be obtained via the company`s Web site: www.hartcourt.com .

Forward-looking statements

The statements made in this press release, which are not historical facts, contain certain forward-looking statements concerning potential developments affecting the business, prospects, financial condition and other aspects of the company to which this release pertains. The actual results of the specific items described in this release, and the company`s operations generally, may differ materially from what is projected in such forward- looking statements. Although such statements are based upon the best judgments of management of the company as of the date of this release, significant deviations in magnitude, timing and other factors may result from business risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the company`s dependence on third parties, general market and economic conditions, technical factors, the availability of outside capital, receipt of revenues and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of the company. The company disclaims any obligation to update information contained in any forward- looking statement.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.

[defcons]

ohne Worte!

Hartcourt Mafia!





Reuters
U.S. sues Calif.-based China investment company
Wednesday May 28, 5:13 pm ET


SAN FRANCISCO, May 28 (Reuters) - Federal securities regulators on Wednesday sued The Hartcourt Companies Inc., (OTC BB:HRCT.OB - News) and its chairman for allegedly participating in a scheme that illegally raised more than $800,000 for the investing holding company.
ADVERTISEMENT


The Securities and Exchange Commission complaint alleges Long Beach, California-based Hartcourt violated securities regulations that permit the issuance of shares to compensate consultants as a back-door means to raise capital for the company itself.

The SEC named Hartcourt, its chairman Alan Phan and Los Angeles resident Yongzhi Yang in its complaint seeking civil penalties and permanent injunctions.

The SEC also said Yang, whose lawyer could not be reached for comment, assisted in selling the shares.

The company, which specializes in the acquisition and development of private companies in China, denied the allegations and said it would vigorously fight the lawsuit.

"Unless settled, this lawsuit may last for a few years," Phan said in a statement. "It will be one of the major challenges facing Hartcourt."

According to the SEC, the company violated federal securities laws by issuing one million shares to Yang`s wife to raise money for the company rather than compensate her for services provided to Hartcourt. Yang`s wife did not provide any services for the company, the SEC said.

The complaint also alleges that Phan caused Hartcourt to issue a series of false and misleading press releases while Yang was selling stock into the market.

During the period in which Hartcourt issued the press releases, its stock price rose from $1.27 to $4.50, a 254 percent increase, the commission said. Hartcourt stock was off 25 percent on Wednesday to close at 49 cents.

[defcons]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.,
RICHARD GEIGER, JEFFREY A. RICHARDSON,
AARON TSAI, MICHAEL M. MARKOW,
GLOBAL GUARANTEE CORPORATION,
FRANCOIS GOELO, YONGZHI YANG,
K&J CONSULTING, LIMITED, KE LUO,
M&M MANAGEMENT, LIMITED,
JEROME B. ARMSTRONG,

Defendants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO.



COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff United States Securities & Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges as follows:

SUMMARY

1. The Commission brings this civil action against eight individuals and four entities for their conduct between April 1999 and July 2000 relating to the price manipulation, unregistered sales, unreported stock ownership and touting of securities issued by BluePoint Linux Software Corporation ("BluePoint"), a U.S. corporation formerly named MAS Acquisition XI Corporation ("MAS").

2. Aaron Tsai ("Tsai") formed MAS as a shell corporation in 1996. From then through August 1999, Tsai purported to transfer ownership of many of MAS`s outstanding shares of common stock to approximately thirty shareholders. These transfers were shams; the shareholders were nominees, and Tsai retained control of the stock during all relevant times. Tsai`s intent was to create the appearance that the nominee shares could later be sold without limitation and without a registration statement in effect with the Commission.

3. From late 1999 through early 2000, Tsai, Michael Markow and his company, Global Guarantee Corporation (collectively, "Markow"), Francois Goelo ("Goelo"), and Yongzhi Yang and his company, K&J Consulting, Ltd. (collectively, "Yang"), arranged for MAS to acquire a Chinese company that purportedly had developed a Chinese version of the Linux computer operating system. Upon the acquisition in February 2000, the Chinese Linux company became a subsidiary of MAS, which changed its name to BluePoint.

4. Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Ke Luo, and his company, M&M Management, Ltd. (collectively, "Luo"), placed 3.75 million shares they bought from Tsai in their names, the names of entities they controlled, and the names of their relatives.

5. Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc. ("Sierra"), its president, Jeffrey Richardson ("Richardson") and its trader, Richard Geiger ("Geiger") (collectively, the "Broker-dealer

Defendants") participated in the scheme to manipulate the price of BluePoint shares.

6. At all relevant times, Markow, Goelo, Yang and Luo (collectively, the "Promoter Defendants") acted as a group and controlled a vast majority of the free-trading shares, or float, of BluePoint in order to manipulate the price of BluePoint shares. When BluePoint stock began trading publicly on March 6, 2000, the Broker-dealer Defendants facilitated the scheme by creating artificial trading activity in BluePoint stock that enabled the Promoter Defendants to complete the scheme. The Promoter Defendants and Broker-dealer Defendants engaged in trading of BluePoint shares at artificially high prices that were hundreds of times more than what the Promoter Defendants had paid for less than three weeks earlier.

7. Tsai made false filings with the Commission when he failed to disclose his true ownership of the shares and the subsequent sale of those shares to the Promoter Defendants. Although the Promoter Defendants had collectively acquired nearly 20% of BluePoint`s 20 million outstanding shares and over 90% of the publicly traded shares, they never reported their ownership to the Commission in any filing as required under the federal securities laws.

8. On March 6, 2000 and after, Jerome Armstrong ("Armstrong") promoted BluePoint on the Raging Bull internet site, which carried hundreds of posts about BluePoint. Armstrong received undisclosed compensation from Markow and Goelo in return for his posts.

9. In the weeks and months after BluePoint started trading, BluePoint`s price and volume steadily declined from its all-time high of $21. Nonetheless, the Promoter Defendants continued to sell at a profit, having paid Tsai only pennies for their shares. The Promoter Defendants never reported any changes in ownership when they sold their BluePoint shares in any filings with the Commission.

10. Tsai, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. §§77e(a) and 77e(c)] and Sections 13(d)(1) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a) and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §240.16a-3] thereunder.

11. Markow, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder; or in the alternative, Markow has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute aiding and abetting the other promoter`s violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

12. Goelo, Yang, Luo, and the Broker-dealer Defendants, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

13. The Promoter Defendants, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], and Sections 13(d)(1), 13(d)(2), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78j(b), 78m(d)(1), 78m(d)(2) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a), 13d-2(a), and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§240.10b-5, 240.13d-1(a), 240.13d-2(a), and 240.16a-3] thereunder.

14. Sierra, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the broker-dealer anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)]. Geiger and Richardson, directly and indirectly, have engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute aiding and abetting violations of the broker-dealer anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

15. Armstrong, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the touting provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(b)].

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77v(a)], Sections 21(e) and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78u(e) and 78aa] and 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77v(a)] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78aa].

17. The transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business constituting the violations alleged herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere.

18. Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint.

DEFENDANTS

19. Aaron Tsai, age 33, resides in Evansville, Indiana. Tsai formed MAS in October 1996. From October 1996 through at least February 2000, he was the chairman, president, and treasurer of MAS. During this same time period, Tsai formed nearly fifty "blank check" public shell corporations, including MAS. From 1998 through 2000, Tsai was also a registered representative for three securities firms.

Promoter Defendants

20. Michael Markow, age 56, resides in Westlake Village, California. At all relevant times, he controlled Global Guarantee Corporation as the president and chief executive officer of the company. He was employed as a registered representative for four different securities firms before 1993. In 1998, California issued "desist-and-refrain" orders against him for operating an unlicensed broker-dealer and for selling securities that had not been "qualified." Alabama issued a cease-and-desist order against him in 2000 for operating an unregistered broker-dealer.

21. Global Guarantee Corporation ("Global Guarantee") is a California corporation that Michael Markow formed in 1992 and controlled throughout the relevant times. Michael Markow used Global Guarantee to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Michael Markow.

22. Francois Goelo, age unknown, resides in the Cayman Islands. Goelo`s citizenship is unknown.

23. Yongzhi Yang, age 44, resides in Irvine, California. At all relevant times, he controlled K&J Consulting, Ltd. as the president of the company. He was born in China but is a U.S. citizen. From 1994 through 1999, he was a college professor in the U.S. Since then, he has been a self-employed business consultant. At all relevant times, he was a consultant for the Chinese Linux company, and then continued to be a consultant for MAS after it acquired the Chinese Linux company and changed its name to BluePoint.

24. K&J Consulting Ltd. ("K&J") is a British Virgin Islands entity organized and controlled by Yongzhi Yang. Yongzhi Yang formed K&J in January 2000. Yongzhi Yang used K&J to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Yongzhi Yang.

25. Ke Luo, age 44, resides in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. At all relevant times, he controlled M&M Management, Ltd. as the president of the company. He is a citizen of the People`s Republic of China. From 1992 through 1998, he was a student in the United States, and during 1998-99, he was employed as a research scientist at a university in Alabama.

26. M&M Management Ltd. ("M&M") is a British Virgin Islands entity organized and controlled by Ke Luo. Ke Luo formed M&M in February 1999. Ke Luo used M&M to acquire and sell BluePoint stock. At all relevant times, acts of this entity were caused solely by Ke Luo.

Broker-Dealer Defendants

27. Sierra is a broker-dealer located in Columbus, Ohio that has been registered with the Commission since 1994. Sierra is a small, one-office operation that conducted a general securities business in listed and over-the-counter securities and made a market in many bulletin board stocks. During all relevant times in the Complaint, Sierra was a market maker in BluePoint. On March 7, 2003, the NASD gave Sierra notice of its intention to expel the firm from membership for failure to pay a fine. Since November 2002, Sierra has not been operating for failure to meet net capital requirements under the federal securities laws. On October 8, 2002, the Commission instituted an unrelated administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Sierra`s Chairman, who was also CEO and part-owner, in a matter involving a fraudulent, unregistered offering of securities in an unregistered hedge fund. In 1998, 2000 and 2002, Sierra was censured and fined by the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") three times for various violations of NASD regulations, including, failure to timely report transactions, failure to correctly memorialize the time of execution of transactions, failure to memorialize the time of entry and time of execution of transactions, and failure to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding trading and market making activities.

28. Geiger, age 48, resides in Morton, Illinois. During the relevant time period, Geiger was employed as a registered representative and trader at Sierra. In July 2002, the NASD fined Geiger $10,000 and suspended him from association with any NASD member for twenty days for conducting transactions at Sierra as an equity trader without being registered. In January 1997, the NASD censured Geiger, fined him $10,000, suspended him for ten days, and barred him from acting as a securities firm principal for one year. Geiger had acted as an unregistered principal of a member firm, allowed another individual to work at the firm without the required registration, and failed to properly report transactions and prepare trade confirmations. Based on the NASD action, the state of Ohio refused to grant Geiger a securities sales license, and Geiger worked for Sierra out of his home in Illinois during the times alleged in the Complaint.

29. Richardson, age 44, resides in Columbus Ohio. Richardson is the president of Sierra, its head trader, and a part-owner of the firm. He supervised Geiger and authorized all of Geiger`s trades in BluePoint during all relevant times. In July 2002, the NASD censured Richardson and fined him $10,000 (jointly and severally with Sierra) for allowing Geiger and another Sierra employee to function as equity traders without being registered to do so. In June 2000, Richardson was fined $5,000 by the NASD for various violations at Sierra, including, its failure to timely report transactions, failure to correctly memorialize the time of execution of transactions, failure to memorialize the time of entry and time of execution of transactions, and failure to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding trading and market making activities.

Touting Defendant

30. Armstrong, age 39, resides in Seaside, Oregon. Since early 2000, his only source of income has been from stock market investing.

OTHER RELEVANT NON-DEEFENDANT ENTITIES

31. MAS was formed by Tsai in 1996 as a blank check Indiana shell corporation. In April 1999, Tsai caused MAS to become a voluntary reporting company by registering its class of common stock under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act by filing a Form 10-SB with the Commission. In February 2000, MAS acquired BluePoint Linux Software Company, and changed its name to BluePoint upon the acquisition.

32. BluePoint Linux Software Company was a Chinese entity that marketed a Chinese version of the Linux computer operating system, an alternative to Microsoft`s Windows program. As a result of being acquired by MAS, it became BluePoint Linux Software Corporation or BluePoint. Aside from a December 2000 Form S-8 involving common stock to be awarded to certain employees as part of an employee benefit plan, BluePoint has never filed a registration statement under the Securities Act. BluePoint stock currently trades on the OTC Bulletin Board around $0.10.

THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME

The Start of the Scheme

33. When Tsai formed MAS in October 1996, he was its chairman, president, and treasurer, and he caused MAS to issue him 8.5 million shares of common stock. MAS was a shell with minimal assets, and its express purpose was to merge with a private entity looking to establish a public trading market for its shares.

34. In several Commission filings made in 1999, Tsai falsely represented that he and MAS had transferred thousands of MAS shares to dozens of individuals during 1997 and 1998 in order to conceal his true ownership and control of the shares and to make it appear that the shares could be later sold without a registration statement in effect. More specifically, Tsai falsely reported in these filings that in January 1997 he gifted 50,000 of his own shares to each of five former directors, for a total of 250,000 shares, and that MAS issued a total of 500 shares in January 1997 and a total of 750 shares in September 1998 to former directors as compensation for services in 1997 and 1998. Tsai subsequently fabricated documents which showed that the former directors transferred most of their 250,000 shares supposedly gifted by Tsai in January 1997 to roughly thirty other individuals in August 1999.

35. The two January 1997 transfers and the September 1998 transfer were shams since the purported directors rendered no services for MAS and never knew they supposedly were directors. Tsai never told the purported directors they received shares in MAS from him or the company, or that the 250,000 shares they supposedly collectively received from Tsai in January 1997 were later transferred to others.

36. In fact, at all relevant times, the "directors" and other "shareholders" were nominees, and Tsai controlled the stock they supposedly owned. Tsai duped the nominees into signing one or more blank stock powers, which Tsai kept and later used to further the scheme.

The Promoter Defendants` Initial Involvement in the Scheme

37. On February 17, 2000, after MAS acquired the Chinese Linux company and changed its name to BluePoint, the total outstanding shares of BluePoint stood at 20 million shares. Of the 20 million shares, approximately 16 million shares were restricted. The Chinese Linux company`s founders held 15.5 million restricted shares, and Tsai held 450,000 restricted shares. This left roughly 4 million shares in the float. On the same day, the Promoter Defendants obtained 3.75 million shares, or over 90% of the supposed unrestricted shares, from Tsai. Tsai sold the nominees` shares to the Promoter Defendants through the stock powers he obtained earlier in 1997 and 1998, and he never told the nominees about the stock sale.

38. Markow facilitated the transfer of the 3.75 million BluePoint shares from Tsai to the other Promoter Defendants. Through Markow, the Promoter Defendants paid Tsai $250,000 for the shares while Markow paid the nominees each $100 to make it look like he and the other Promoter Defendants were buying from shareholders rather than Tsai. The Promoter Defendants never reported their acquisition of 90% of the free-trading shares of BluePoint, and Tsai never reported the sale of the nominees` shares which he effectively controlled to the Promoter Defendants.

Distribution of BluePoint Shares to the Promoter Defendants and
Preparation to Trade

39. Markow and Goelo knew that they were required to report their control of BluePoint stock in a Commission filing and actively took steps in an unsuccessful attempt to evade the reporting requirement. Markow was careful to cause the 3.75 million shares to be assigned to fourteen separate holders, with no single holder assigned more than 2.5% of BluePoint`s outstanding stock.

40. Out of the 20 million total shares of BluePoint outstanding, the promoters had collectively acquired 18.75% (3.75 million shares). They held or directly controlled 15.45% (3,090,000 shares), and Yang at least partially controlled an additional 3.3% (660,000 shares) held by him, K&J, his spouse and in-laws.

41. Of the 3.75 million shares controlled by the Promoter Defendants, Markow caused a total of 2.6 million BluePoint shares to be issued in the names of the Promoter Defendants and entities they controlled. Markow also caused another 590,000 shares to be placed in the names of the spouses of Yang (220,000 shares) and Luo (220,000 shares), and Luo`s minor child (150,000 shares). The remaining shares (560,000) were placed in the names of Yang`s mother, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. The shares initially assigned to Yang`s mother (120,000) were soon transferred to Yang, and he had at least partial control of the shares held by his in-laws and spouse. The shares assigned to Luo`s child were soon transferred to Luo, and he controlled the shares held by his spouse.

42. The Promoter Defendants concealed from the investing public that they controlled the float of BluePoint, that they planned to manipulate the BluePoint market, and that they had paid only pennies for their shares. In addition, Markow never reported the "desist-and-refrain" orders issued against him by the state of California in 1998 in any BluePoint filing with the Commission.

43. Around the time of the acquisition, Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Luo worked together as a group to arrange for BluePoint to trade publicly by lining up market makers for BluePoint shares, communicating frequently amongst each other, and transferring a majority of the BluePoint shares held by the Promoter Defendants to Sierra.

44. During this same time, Markow also recruited Sierra and other brokerage firms to act as market makers for BluePoint.

45. Three days before trading began in early March, Markow wrote to Yang and Goelo as follows: "WE CAN TRADE ON MONDAY. EVERYTHING IS FINE. LET`S HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL SHORTLY."

The Manipulative Trading Activity on March 6, 2000
Domination and Control of the BluePoint Market

46. By March 6, 2000, the Promoter Defendants had placed 2.43 million BluePoint shares in Sierra accounts they controlled. That day, BluePoint began trading on the OTC Bulletin Board.

47. On March 6, 2000, the Promoter Defendants and Broker-Dealer Defendants maintained control of BluePoint`s float and exercised domination and control of the market in BluePoint shares. The initial BluePoint trades all involved Sierra, Goelo, Yang, and Luo. Specifically, in the first eleven minutes of trading, the following transactions occurred:


Acting for Sierra`s account, Geiger bought 100,000 shares from Yang at $6 per share. Sierra reported the purchase to the Nasdaq system as four separate blocks of 25,000 shares each.

Geiger (on behalf of Sierra) sold 40,000 of the Yang shares for $6.02 per share to Goelo, who already owned nearly a million shares.

Geiger (on behalf of Sierra) bought one block of 50,000 shares each from Yang and Luo at $6.50 per share.
48. These transactions were artificially structured by the Promoter Defendants acting in concert and were executed at literally hundreds of times the price that the Promoter Defendants had paid just weeks earlier.

49. Geiger resold another 40,000 of the first 100,000 Yang shares to Geiger`s wife, his mother, Richardson, and John McCamey ("McCamey") of Sierra. Each buyer got 10,000 shares at $6.1275 per share.

50. At 9:58 a.m., sixteen minutes after the first trade, Sierra sold 5,000 shares of BluePoint at $7.1875 per share to a Sierra customer, who was advised by Markow to buy BluePoint. Markow arranged this trade in advance with Geiger.

51. At 10:22 a.m., forty minutes after the first trade, Geiger bought another 20,000 shares for Sierra from Luo at $15 per share. Sierra`s bid was then 200 shares at $11 per share.

52. By 10:28 a.m., BluePoint had traded at its high for the day, $21 per share.

53. After the first eleven minutes, Sierra began reselling the shares it bought from Yang and Luo to other broker-dealers. In just over half an hour between 9:54 a.m. and 10:31 a.m., Sierra sold 59,700 shares at prices starting at $7.125 per share and ending at $20 per share. By 1:00 p.m., Sierra had sold 103,700 shares at prices as high as $21 per share.

54. BluePoint`s total trading volume on March 6 was 1.15 million shares. Sierra`s trading accounted for 44% of the volume, and the market maker with the next highest volume had just 8%.

Price Leadership by Sierra

55. Throughout the day, the Broker-dealer Defendants demonstrated price leadership

of the BluePoint shares. During this sell-off, Sierra dominated other market makers. For much of the morning, only Sierra consistently offered BluePoint for sale. From the first trade at 9:42 a.m. until 10:06 a.m., Sierra was the only market maker quoting an ask. During that time, Geiger raised Sierra`s ask from $7 to $10.

56. From 10:06 a.m. until 10:17 a.m., only one other market maker quoted an ask.

57. From 10:17 a.m. through 11:18 a.m., other market makers frequently quoted a bid but no ask, while Sierra always quoted both prices.

58. Geiger also ensured the Sierra led the bid, although it bought little from other broker-dealers. Between the market open and 10:47 a.m., Sierra`s bid (entered by Geiger) went from $3 to $19. Yet Sierra did not buy BluePoint from another broker-dealer until 10:51 a.m.

59. Sierra`s bid leadership occurred when over half the float was in Sierra accounts and over 90% of it was held by the promoters or their relatives. For the day, Sierra had the exclusive high bid 59% of the time, and shared the high bid with one or more other broker-dealers 16% of the time. Sierra also raised its bid ten times to match or exceed the high bid. Yet for the day, Sierra bought only 5,400 shares from other broker-dealers.

60. Sierra bid and bought aggressively (from Yang and Luo) in the absence of arms-length retail demand for BluePoint from Sierra customers. Every retail customer to whom Sierra sold BluePoint on March 6, with the exception of one person, was either one of the promoters, a Sierra employee, a relative of Geiger, someone whose account Geiger set up specifically to trade in BluePoint, or someone with ties to Markow. Because Sierra had purchased enough shares of BluePoint from Yang and Luo in the first eleven minutes to satisfy the total retail customer demand on March 6, Sierra had no legitimate reason to raise the bid throughout the day.

61. Likewise, Sierra had purchased enough shares to satisfy demand from other broker-dealers and had no legitimate reason to raise the bid throughout the day on March 6.

62. Geiger and Richardson knew they could immediately resell 80,000 shares to Sierra customers when Sierra bought the initial 100,000 shares from Yang. The customers, however, were Goelo, Geiger`s wife, Geiger`s mother, Richardson, and McCamey. There was no preexisting retail interest in the remaining 20,000 Yang shares, or for the other 100,000 shares Sierra bought from Yang and Luo in the first eleven minutes of trading on March 6, 2000.

63. As the day wore on, Sierra bought back over half of the 40,000 BluePoint shares Sierra had sold earlier to Geiger`s wife, Geiger`s mother, Richardson, and McCamey. Sierra paid as much as $19.875 per share for the stock, which it had sold to these customers for $6.1275 per share.

64. At all relevant times and to date, the Promoter Defendants never made any filings with the Commission as required to report their sales of BluePoint securities and the change in their ownership.

65. At all relevant times, Tsai, the Promoter Defendants, Sierra and Richardson sold or offered to sell shares of BluePoint without a registration statement in effect.

The Slide Down

66. BluePoint never regained the $21 per share high and million-plus volume seen on its first day of trading. On the first day, it closed at $17.75 per share. On the second day, BluePoint closed at $18.50 per share, and trading volume fell to slightly over 100,000 shares. By March 13, 2000, BluePoint closed at $17.875 per share on volume of 80,000 shares. By March 20, 2000, the closing price was $14.50 per share on a volume of 34,000, and by March 27, 2000, BluePoint closed at $13.75 per share with volume of 25,000. On April 6, 2000, one month after it began trading, BluePoint closed at $6.875 per share with volume of 6,700.

67. On the last trading day in April, BluePoint closed at $6.375 per share with 3,700 in volume. By the end of May, it was down to slightly over $4.00 per share, and by the end of June, it fell to under $3.00 per share, with volume at 3,800.

68. After July 2000, BluePoint never closed above $5 again.

Touting Scheme

69. Markow and Goelo orchestrated a scheme to arrange for individuals, including Armstrong, to tout the BluePoint stock. Armstrong posted over eighty times on the BluePoint message board located on the Raging Bull website in the first three weeks. He praised BluePoint`s investment value and encouraged traders who were having trouble getting their orders filled to keep trying. Armstrong never stated in his posts on the Internet that he was being compensated for making the postings. However, Goelo and Markow compensated Armstrong by transferring stock in three separate companies to Armstrong at below market prices during the relevant time period.

Profits to the Defendants

70. All the defendants profited from selling BluePoint. After the first day of trading and continuing through July, the Promoter Defendants sold off many of their remaining shares. Although the price of BluePoint fell sharply during this period, the Promoter Defendants continued to profit because they had paid Tsai only pennies per share for their stock.

71. Tsai received $250,000 from the Promoter Defendants when they bought the nominee shares from him.

72. To date, the Promoter Defendants` approximate profits from selling BluePoint are as follows: Yang $1.27 million; Luo $1.24 million; Markow $1.23 million; and Goelo $300,000.

73. Sierra`s profits from BluePoint were about $570,000 on March 6, 2000 and about $40,000 thereafter. Sierra paid 60% of its March 6 BluePoint profits to Geiger, per his usual compensation program. Richardson has made about $90,000 in profits from trading BluePoint in his personal account, most of which he made on March 6.

74. Armstrong made at least $20,000 from selling the shares of the three securities he received from Markow and Goelo.

75. In making their profits, the Promoter Defendants did not give up their control of the float. By the end of the third week of trading (March 27, 2000), they still directly held about 2.97 million shares. On succeeding dates, they still held shares as follows: April 17, 2.96 million shares; April 30, 2.94 million shares; May 31, 2.63 million shares; June 30, 2.82 million shares; July 31, 2.78 million shares.

76. During this time, the Promoter Defendants never reported made any filings with the Commission as required to report their sales of BluePoint stock and the change in their ownership of the securities.

COUNT I

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. §77e(a) and §77e(c)]

77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference.

78. From February 2000 through at least July 2000, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra and Richardson, and each of them, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer and sell securities through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise when no registration statement has been filed or was in effect as to such securities and when no exemption from registration was available.

79. Tsai orchestrated a complex scheme to create the appearance that he had distributed MAS shares to dozens of shareholders who in fact were nominees. Tsai then sold this nominee stock to the Promoter Defendants. Yang and Luo resold 220,000 shares to Sierra, which immediately resold shares. Thereafter, all the promoters continued to sell shares they had acquired from Tsai, and Richardson sold the BluePoint shares he obtained from Sierra. Overall, Tsai, the promoters, Sierra and Richardson funneled BluePoint stock into the public trading market without a registration statement in effect.

80. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 77 through 79 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra and Richardson, and each of them, violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77e(a) and §77e(c)].

COUNT II

Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(1)]

81. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

82. At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in the offer and sale of securities, by the use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by the use of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, all as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

83. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, knew or were reckless in not knowing of the facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

84. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 81 through 83 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(1)].

85. Alternatively, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 81 through 83 above, Defendant Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(1)], and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(1)].

COUNT III

Violations of Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)]

86. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

87. At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in the offer and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by the use of the mails, directly and indirectly, obtained money and property by means of untrue statements of material facts and have omitted and are omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated and operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and prospective purchasers as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

88. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 86 and 87 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(2) and §77q(a)(3)].

89. Alternatively, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 86 through 87 above, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)(2) and §77q(a)(3)], and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §78q(a)(2) and §78q(a)(3)].

COUNT IV

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)]
and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] Thereunder

90. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

91. At the times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee, in connection with the purchase and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and sellers of such securities as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above; or in the alternative, by reason of the activities described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendants Goelo, Yang, Luo, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder, and provided substantial assistance in their violation. Thus, Defendants Markow and Global Guarantee aided and abetted Defendants Goelo, Yang, Luo, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson`s violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder.

92. At the times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, in connection with the purchase and sale of securities described above in paragraphs 1 through 76, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and of the mails, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers and sellers of such securities as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

93. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, knew or were reckless in not knowing of the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

94. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 90 through 93 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, and each of them, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] promulgated thereunder.

COUNT V

Violations of Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)]

95. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

96. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Sierra, as a registered broker-dealer, made use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and induced the purchase and sale of securities, otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which they were members, by means of manipulative, deceptive and fraudulent devices and contrivances, as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

97. Defendant Sierra knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above.

98. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 95 through 97 above, Defendant Sierra violated Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)] and Rule 15c1-2 [17 C.F.R. §240.15c1-2].

COUNT VI

Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)]

99. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

100. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Sierra, as a registered broker-dealer, made use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and induced the purchase and sale of securities, otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which they were members, by means of manipulative, deceptive and fraudulent devices and contrivances, as more fully described in paragraphs 1 through 76 above.

101. Defendants Geiger and Richardson knew, or were reckless in not knowing, of the activities committed by Defendant Sierra as described in paragraphs 1 and 76 above, violated Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)], and provided substantial assistance in Defendant Sierra`s violation.

102. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 99 through 101 above, Defendants Geiger and Richardson aided and abetted Defendant Sierra`s violation of Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

COUNT VII

Violations of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(b)]

103. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

104. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Armstrong, by engaging in the conduct described above with respect to BluePoint, used the means or instruments of interstate transportation, or communication in interstate commerce, or the mails, to publish or circulate communications which described securities for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly from the issuers, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof, as more fully described in paragraph 66 above.

105. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 103 through 104 above, Defendant Armstrong violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(b)].

COUNT VIII

Violations of Section 13(d) (1) and (2) of the Exchange Act
[15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and (2)] and Rule 13d-1(a) and 13d-2(a)
thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a) and 240.13d-2(a)]

106. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

107. The common stock of BluePoint was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78l] and was listed and traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, as more fully described in paragraphs 31 and 32 above.

108. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Tsai, directly or indirectly through nominees, beneficially owned substantially more than 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of MAS. Defendant Tsai, however, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission which disclosed his beneficial ownership of MAS stock.

109. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M acted as a "group for the purpose of acquiring, holding, or disposing of securities" and thus, are deemed a "person" as defined by Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3)].

110. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M acting as a group, directly or indirectly, beneficially owned substantially more than 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of BluePoint. During all relevant times, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, and Luo, directly or through entities they controlled, sold, for their own benefit, no less than 611,400 of these shares. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, however, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing their beneficial ownership and changes in beneficial ownership of BluePoint stock.

111. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing their purpose for acquiring shares in BluePoint and any contracts, arrangements, or understandings they had amongst themselves with respect to BluePoint, including but not limited to, guaranties against loss or guaranties of profits. During this same time period, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Schedule 13D with the Commission disclosing the source and amount of the funds or other consideration used or to be used in making the purchases in shares of BluePoint. Furthermore, Markow never reported the "desist-and-refrain" orders issued against him by the state of California as required by Schedule 13D.

112. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 106 through 111 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 13(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(1)] and Rule 13d-1(a) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a)].

113. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 106 through 111 above, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 13(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(2)] and Rule 13d-2(a) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-2(a)].

COUNT IX

Violations of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78p(a)]
and Rule 16a-3 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.16a-3]

114. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

115. The common stock of BluePoint was registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78l] and was listed and traded on the OTC Bulletin Board, as more fully described in paragraphs 31 and 32 above.

116. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, are deemed a "person" as defined by Rule 16a-1(a)(1) of the Exchange Act [17 C.F.R. §240.16a-1(a)(1)].

117. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, acting as a group, and Tsai beneficially owned substantially more than 10% of the issued and outstanding shares of BluePoint. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, however, never filed any Forms 3 or 5 with the Commission disclosing their beneficial ownership of BluePoint stock.

118. Defendants Markow, Goelo, Yang, and Luo, directly or through entities they controlled, sold, for their own benefit, no less than 611,400 of their BluePoint shares. Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M, never filed any Forms 4 notifying the Commission of changes in their BluePoint holdings.

119. By reason of the activities described in paragraphs 114 through 118 above, Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, and M&M violated Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78p(a)] and Rule 16a-3 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.16a-3].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that the Court:

I.

Find that Defendants committed the violations alleged above.

II.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, and Richardson, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77e(a) and 77e(c)].

III.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, Sierra, Geiger, and Richardson, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5] thereunder.

IV.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Sierra, Richardson and Geiger, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(c)(1)].

V.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Armstrong, his agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(b)].

VI.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Tsai, Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 13(d)(1) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78m(d)(1) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1(a) and 16a-3 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-1(a) and 240.16a-3].

VII.

Grant an Order of Permanent Injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining and enjoining Defendants Markow, Global Guarantee, Goelo, Yang, K&J, Luo, M&M, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Order of Permanent Injunction, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the acts, practices or courses of business described above, or in conduct of similar purport and object, in violation of Sections 13(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(2)] and Rule 13d-2(a) promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§240.13d-2(a)].

VIII.

Grant an Order requiring all Defendants to disgorge the ill-gotten gains that they received as a result of their wrongful conduct, including prejudgment interest.

IX.

Impose civil penalties against all Defendants in accordance with Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)].

X.

Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principals of equity and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

XI.

Grant Orders for such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Amy Stahl Cotter

___________________________
Tracy W. Lo

Attorneys for
Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Dated: April 11, 2003



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 04/14/2003

[sina5]

Ich wußte es!!!

Das Hartcourt die Megaabzocke ist!!!


Diese Betrüger!

hinter gittern sollten die landen!

sell hrct!

@guru2002

sehe ich genauso....mal sehen wann Hartcourt ausgesetzt wird(davon bin ich überzeugt!)


übernehmen firmen die wohl gewinne machen,und das für ca 2-3 milionen$
diese gauner!

[gopassau]

moin, moin,
klasse dass die amis in der beziehung die sache aufmischen. in deutschland gibts in sonem fall viel dampf und nix kommt raus. aber was ist das fazit ?
ich denke die macht des geldes und des schnellen reichtums wird zukünftig keinen abschrecken, auch wenn die strafen in usa doch beträchtlich sind. wir investieren ja auch in fast jede zockeraktie welche unserer meinung nach fix mal n paar eurodollar bringt.
also sind wir auf der hut..., ohne recherche gehts halt nicht.

gruß
gopa

[kyron7htx]

#98


Ich kann nicht ersehen, was dieser Artikel direkt mit HRCT zu tun hat. Oder sind Personen oder Handlungen aus diesem Artikel direkt mit HRCT in Verbindung zu bringen?

[MeinHerr]

Fein, wenn mir hier einige unheimlich starke Optimisten
widersprechen, aber merkwürdigerweise lag ich bisher
immer richtig.

Wie gesagt .. die Anleger von hrct werden z.Z. mächtig
verarscht.

Strong Sell !!

bei unter 0,10 wieder einsteigen, dann ist man
auf der sicheren seite. wer jetzt kauft, ist
selber schuld.

[Fuchsie]

Du bist das Allerletzte.

Bist Du investiert dreht sich Deine Meinung um 180 Grad.

Erbärmlich – einfach nicht hinhören und wenn es geht am besten ignorieren.

[Franz Beckenbauer]

@ "Herr"lich

Du bist und warst der reinste Wendehals !!
Selbst als du damals PRO-Hrct eingestellt warst haben dir die HRCT-Optimisten gesagt du sollst die Klappe halten !!
Du redest nämlich nur einen wischi-waschi-Brei !!

Dich nimmt leider keiner richtig Ernst !!