Skip to main content

Advice to Richard A. Altomare (Universal Express) from a Convicted Felon: Cut the Bull

As cold blooded and heartless criminals, ‘Crazy’ Eddie Antar, his father Sam M. Antar, and I made up many tales to divert attention from our crimes. Eddie’s father tried to set up his own son, Eddie, to take the fall for his crimes. After Eddie Antar was dragged back into the United States by US Marshals, Eddie and father (now re-united against a common enemy, me, who had turned state’s witness), tried to blame the entire Crazy Eddie fraud on me. Before I began cooperating with the government, I used many excuses such as attributing our inventory shortages, (later uncovered when new management took an inventory and found a massive fraud), on anything from poor internal controls to shop lifting.

Recently, Senior New York Times Columnist, Floyd Norris has been following the actions of Richard A. Altomare from Universal Express. In a post on his blog entitled, "Naked Shorting Grows Ever Larger," (subscription required), Mr. Norris writes that Richard A. Altomare is a “the man who claims to be chief executive of Universal Express despite a court order barring him from serving as an officer of any public company….”

In a column entitled, "HIGH & LOW FINANCE; A Sad Tale Of Fictional S.E.C. Filings," (subscription required), Floyd Norris wrote:

In 2006, Universal lost $18.9 million on revenue of just $1.1 million. Mr. Altomare, acting as the sole member of Universal's board, gave himself a $50,000 raise, to $650,000 a year. The company also forgave part of $1.6 million in loans to Mr. Altomare and his wife. The cash to pay that salary came from the sale of unregistered stock.

In Mr. Altomare's view, the issues that bothered the judge are irrelevant. ''Long and short of it,'' he said in a statement issued by the company, ''this is a naked short hallmark case in the making.''

Eddie Antar and his immediate family used Crazy Eddie as a personal piggy bank, too. For example, Eddie Antar and his father, Sam M. Antar, put their wives on payroll for no-show jobs and gave them company cars to use.

In another column, entitled "S.E.C. Seeks Receiver for Universal Express, Calling It a Fraud," (subscription required), Floyd Norris wrote:

In its filing, the S.E.C. said, ''Universal Express has since 2001 existed primarily as a vehicle to flood unregistered stock into the public market at values fraudulently inflated by the dissemination of false and misleading statements'' and said the ''conduct is continuing unabated.''

Later, Mr. Norris writes:

The company...argued that it was being persecuted by the S.E.C. because Mr. Altomare had been a loud critic of the commission for not cracking down on ''naked short selling,'' the practice of selling shares without owning or borrowing them.

Excuses, excuses. Advice to Richard A. Altomare, from a convicted felon, when you can no longer spin, SHUT UP! The Securities and Exchange Commission is not buying into your nonsense and neither will a federal jury buy into it, too.

Read about spinning here.

Written by:

Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO & convicted felon)


Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…