Mountain Lake men manipulated stock, says NSSC
2012-01-23 14:47 ET - Street Wire
Not available.
© 2026 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reader Comments - Comments are open to paying subscribers of Stockwatch and unmoderated,
although libelous remarks, obscene language and impersonations may be deleted.
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
For information regarding Canadian libel law, please view the
University of Ottawa's FAQ regarding Defamation and SLAPPs.
so. let me get this straight. these guys should NOT have been supporting the share price of their company? I always kind of LIKE to see guys supporting their own markets. and it gave whomever was SELLING their stock a better price, no? I'm confused.
Posted by what? at 2012-01-23 14:53
What a SCOOP Stockwatch! The trading took place during the depths of the 2008-09 financial crisis and having checked the SEDI records it appears all trades for the period in question were reported in a timely fashion with Sheito buying 71,000 shares for a total value of $7,440 and Woods buying 12,000 shares for a total value of $1,620. And neither Sheito nor Woods have sold a share since despite the stock trading as high as $1.11 in late 2010.
Maybe the Supreme Court of Canada should rethink its recent ruling on the idea of a National Securities Regulator to bring common-sense regulation to the business of buying and selling stocks.
Posted by Common¢ at 2012-01-23 18:58
They should DEFINITELY rethink the idea of a NATIONAL securities regulator ! Duplication of services for the sake of Stroking Provincial Egos ? Give me a break !
Posted by Gregarious at 2012-01-23 19:36
Good luck to these guys. I've spoken to a couple of people who know them and they say they are absolutely stand-up honest guys. If the numbers quoted above are actual fact, then something has to be done about this ridiculous, draconian regulation. I hope when they are exonerated they have the balls to go after the reg's for defamation and disruption of business. There should obviously be a national regulator. then perhaps they could concentrate on pump and dumps and scams, false news releases, sell-ONLY insiders etc etc. there are plenty of d-bag scammers out there. if the info quoted above is true, then these guys definitely are NOT two of them
Posted by what? at 2012-01-24 09:08
The people of Nova Scotia should demand the resignations of the NSSC, if this is all the commission can come up with after two and a half years of investigation. What a waste of money paying the NSSC for anything, the commission is most likely staffed with good friends or relatives of the government.
Thank you stockwatch for publishing this information, its time to get out of the market!! The administrators are sucking up a large portion of the investment capital of Public companies leaving little left for furthering the business plans of the companies.
Posted by bt at 2012-01-24 09:31
as the above have all clearly and so eloquently stated, this is common business practice, which has always been slammed by securities regulators contra hand picked targets. Go and read any BC securities commission decision the past 20 years and you find the targeted individual "hung" on "common business practices" taking place in all the trading stocks. As someone so perversely stated "honest" or "good guys" are the terms banded about to talk about everyone partaking in this common business practice that dont deserve being "hung" whereas the ones "hung" usually have offended others in the industry while practicing common business practices- if you notice the securities commissions are prosecuting "ethnics".
or the first time ever, this is actually a securities commission that understands common business practices unlike BCSC who bark loud and actually showcase their stupidity in real world finances.
Posted by common business practice at 2012-01-24 11:34
there are precedent cases from the late 80's and early 90's where the BCSC took it upon themselves to determine directors of public companies are not allowed to be "market mnakers" that foolow this common business practice.
do the securities commissions prosecute everyone who breaks these rules? No, the question then has to be why not? and who determines which rule breaker gets his livelihood taken away?
for anyone making an educated comment has had in the past, to taken part in such activity. it's the psychotic shrug of the shoulders to dismiss thoughts of actual illegality occuring- like minded shruggers coalesce into the BCSC, the best has to be the prevalent pot smokers knowingly breaking the law on each puff who then show up at work at BCSC extolling the virtues of the BCSC fight versus the anti-christ promoters. lest we forget the chairman who never turned his son in whereas the BCSC demands all who report to their pot filled floors to report any wrongdoer to the usurpers themselves.
Posted by precedent cases at 2012-01-24 11:47
AGAIN, where are the regulations against the pump and dump pieces of shit. they guys that NEVER would consider buying their own stock. who hide behind false names in off-shore accounts and the regulators sit by idly and do NOTHING. then you find guys like these, who in my opinion, were trying to protect the share price to the benefit of EVERY shareholder in the company, INCLUDING the ones who were selling, and they get taken to task?? WTF?
Posted by what? at 2012-01-24 12:23
This is a shocker! Whoever oversees the Nssc should clean house!!
Posted by retired at 2012-01-25 07:18
that is what happens when you get a bunch of leftish, technocrats dictateing policy that have detrimental effect on the capital markets. Because these two gentlemen had the balls to support their company's markets , risking their own capital in the face of the natiest market crash of our generation, the NSSC has initiated this witch hunt. Nova Scotians interested in protecting the honesty and viability of capital markets in their province, please initiated an petition and go to your MLA, MPS and the media and go to the rescue of these gentlmen.
"when good men do not arise to assist the victims of tyrany, who will help them when the tyrants come after them?"
shame on you beaurocrats at the NSSC whom I am sure you have a team of inquisitors peruseing this material on this site! You are the TYRANTS since you do not answer to no one and therefore apply your draconian rules with imputinity.
Posted by montekristo at 2012-01-25 07:26
I sure hope they intend to follow through on this thought!
This statement "with no "bona fide investment intent."
I seams rediculous to me that the bonified intent of the individuals to support their own stock is frivous use of the human resources available. Ther e are much much bigger fish to fry.... What about the robot traders that walk the price of share down in hundreds of stocks every day.... what about the huge undeclared short positions, what about the lending of shares by institutions without their clients knowledge (Note I didn't say permission) Conflict of intrest of your own brokerages using your PP stock to short during the 4 month hold periods... They short it while you can't.
How about the trader that short a stock then print missleading negative stories or ocupy bullitin boards to manipulate stocks down on targeted companies or to cover shorts.
How about the institutions that run a stock up in front of a placement they have undertaken from the company and then short sell covering with placement stock.
Maybe they should eliminate the ability to short all stocks PERIOD!
This case is miniscule in comparision to the real problems in the market.... Sort of like charging someone for picking their nose in public, while letting the bank robbers drive off with the cash.
This case shows just how out of touch and STUPID The regulators are.... JMHO
Posted by
Dave at 2012-01-25 10:05
well said, Dave. The whole thing smacks of job-justification and git ya politics. I can not remember EVER even hearing of the NSSC and I'm sure they were getting pressure to charge someone with something, no matter what it was. A NATIONAL regulator would, I'm sure, at least be able to separate the ridiculous from the mundane. watch for more of this to happen, particularly in the less market populated places like PEI, N.B. etc. Now that the national reg. thing has been shot down by the supreme court there is going to be a flurry of activity from those who fought it just to justify their existence. This is NOT public protection. It IS persecution. The players in this arena, the Sprotts, Mineralfields, Pinetrees of the world best get busy. All the jr. miners should put together a fund to defend the innocents against the tyranny. This is all in the name of protecting the "integrity and efficiency of the public market". What do they think we're trading? IBM? these companies SURVIVE on their ability to promote, tell a good story and raise capital whilst attempting to BUILD a respectable, reputable company.
Posted by smart at 2012-01-25 11:59
Youse guy's comments warm the very cockles of my heart. While rampant "wash trading" and "running a box" had been very effectively used in the past to move prices up and cheap paper out, the regulators decided that something had to be done to restore a semblance of legitimacy to the highly promoted moose-pasture industry (which might help to entice the retail punters back into the stock markets).
Ergo, rules against market manipulation became matters of greater import (front running, wash trading, etc.). While these extremely profitable promotional and marketing activities are often suspected, they can be difficult to detect and very time-consuming to prove and enforce.
"Difficult to detect" and "time-consuming to prove and enforce" could no doubt provide comfort to those who wish to briefly transmute wildlife habitat into an untapped cornucopia of mineral riches, but it's likely that it is the legal profession which might benefit the most from "time-consuming".
Time-consuming is another word for protracted, and protracted, if converted into billable hours, could become a goldmine in legal fees.
Please, don’t knock the regulators (and especially the NSSC) as, IMO, it’s a symbiotic system. The chance of attracting the attention of the regulators is slim, enforcement hearings are relatively rare, and both sides of the legal profession likely welcome the chance to gnaw at the desiccated pieces.
It is indeed an injustice that the innocent may unnecessarily suffer but, as the family doctor told my dad decades ago, “if it’s support that you need, buy a truss”.
Posted by harpinder at 2012-01-25 15:21
ok harpinder. I haven't checked the facts, but if, as one poster above claimed, the sum total of stock these guys bought (and never sold) was under 10 grand, this is a gross injustice. its still an if, but really. their names are besmirched, their resources will be tapped with attorney fees (the gov't is paying for the other side so technically there is NO cost, except we ALL have to bear the brunt of it)and to what end? Who are they protecting from these nefarious deeds????? Unless there's some profit, how can there be a crime? It just ain't right!
Posted by smart at 2012-01-25 16:12
when you compare it to the story directly above, about Mr. Ricci, it certainly pales by comparison.
Posted by smart at 2012-01-25 16:17
IMO, this was a material matter (and it seems that the two directors did also, if they negotiated with the NSSC for 2-1/2 years to try to resolve it).
It certainly became a reportable material matter when, on January 9, 2012, they issued a MOA news release which stated, in part, “...These allegations do not involve Mountain Lake...”. Prior to this news release, there was no prior mention in the company’s Sedar-filed financial statements of the ongoing negotiations.
An article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald adds a bit more meat (and references an amount of $7-8 million that is required in 2012)
.here
Posted by harpinder at 2012-01-25 17:47
What does “an amount of $7-8 million that is required in 2012” have to do with the allegations?
During the period the allegations stem from between Dec 4 '08 and Jan 21 '09 the stock price was between 8.5c and 14.5c and a total of 2,083,474 shares traded for a total value of $248,823
What the ChronicleHerald and Stockwatch chose to omit from both their stories are the very easily researched SEDI trading records that show for the period in question that Sheito and Woods reported on time with Sheito buying 71,000 shares for a total value of $7,440 and Woods buying 12,000 shares for a total value of $1,620. And neither Sheito nor Woods have sold these shares or any other shares they own since, despite the stock trading as high as $1.11 in late 2010.
Posted by Do some research! at 2012-01-25 22:03
Were is the crime? These regulators(and their support teams) need a good shake up. From what read above 95% of the comments are of discontent with the regulators. These guys, if not absolved of any wrong doing, Some thing is greatly wrong with the system.
Posted by Just me at 2012-01-25 22:58
Were is the crime? These regulators(and their support teams) need a good shake up. From what read above 95% of the comments are of discontent with the regulators. These guys, if not absolved of any wrong doing, Some thing is greatly wrong with the system.
Posted by Just me at 2012-01-25 22:58
These people should go to jail,if proven guilty.
Posted by waterhouse at 2012-01-26 10:24
Give your head a shake waterhouse. Pathetic!
Posted by Just the facts at 2012-01-26 13:35
he CAN'T give his head a shake. its too far up his ass
Posted by smart at 2012-01-26 16:03
Waterhouse,,,you ought to go to jail for your unfathomable stupidity,,,,what harm have these two guys caused you sanctimonious nimcompooop! or a loony bin,,,
give us one thing that may have caused the shareholders harm,,,,that is the only criteria these guys should be held to account..use your fingers if you have to...
Posted by montekristo at 2012-01-27 21:19
When I read this article I thought is was actually a joke -- utterly ridiculous that the securities commission is pursuing this. Agreed - someone at the commission should be fired. It's embarrassing to know that this how tax payers $ is being wasted by a gov't agency.
Posted by observer at 2012-01-28 01:42
Comments for this item are closed