I am selling 6 shares (of 10% of the U.S. royalties of my second novel) for $2000 per share.
For each share you own you will receive 10% of the U.S. royalties of my second novel.
This includes all U.S. serial, reprint, textbook, and film (and other performance) royalties.
Shareholders will receive checks (and copies of the royalty statement from my publisher) in the mail every 6 months after the book's publication (probably Fall, 2009 or Spring 2010). Shares can be resold at any price at any time, I will facilitate trading and promote it on my blog if that is what a shareholder wants. I accept Paypal.
PROJECTED RETURNBased on sales of my first novel I project sales of my second novel to be ~13000 after 24 months (if there isn't more mainstream attention than with my first novel). If there is more mainstream attention, and I think there is a 80-90% chance there will be, sales will be "considerably higher" I think. Regardless of the amount of mainstream attention that happens I believe that in the long term sales will remain steady and that my second novel will remain in print.
Based on what I know about my publisher, myself, the book, and my other books I do not at all think that my second novel will "fail" the above projection. My other four books are all currently in print and selling steadily and have gone through multiple printings. With each book (or "retarded essay" in The Stranger) I publish all my other books will sell more copies, and I have 2-3 books planned, and will continue to publish essays and other things. I'll probably keep publishing books until I die. I feel it is inevitable that I will receive mainstream attention at some point, if only because of my effect on "the economy," which mainstream journalists can see (and cannot ignore, due to the nature of publicly-owned companies) when they look at Bookscan, at which point sales of all my books will go up again.
My second novel is linear, focused on one relationship, and a "page turner," I think, though also rereadable. While writing it I have been focused on making it so that you both "need to see what happens next" and "can turn to any page and read it and feel interested." If I ever have a book published that sells a lot more copies than any of my other books there is a 60-70% chance it will be my second novel, I think. It will be ~60,000 words I think. My first novel was ~28,500 words. The Easter Parade by Richard Yates is ~54,000 words.
Film, reprint, and serial royalties are included. If my second novel is published in hardcover (60-70% chance, I think) my publisher will most likely sell the softcover rights to another publisher, and I get 50% of that, and you would get 10% of my 50%, which if the softcover rights sold for $30,000 would be $1500.
I think shareholders should, at worst (based on a low projection and no film/reprint/etc. sales), expect to begin making a profit on their investment within 32-40 months, after which they will "make profits every 6 months for the rest of their lives without having to do anything."
WHY AM I DOING THISI quit my job, my last day is in two weeks, this is currently one of my two plans to "make money." My other plan is to just sign another contract for another book, that will "give me" only a month or so though. I think currently I just want money for 3-4 months, at which point I will get some money from the Germany thing probably, I think. People who buy shares will "actually" help me focus more on the novel. I "actually" will work better on my second novel, the way the novel is right now, if I have no obligations or responsibilities at all, I really believe that. There is a 90-95% chance my second novel will be released faster and be higher quality (in my view) if I do not have a "real job," do not feel pressure to sell art or "piles of shit in my room that I draw on" on eBay, and have enough money to without anxiety be able to make "healthy, but sort of expensive" food choices "that make me feel good and healthy and better able to focus on writing instead of feeling like I have eating problems."
That is the "first" reason, without which I might not be doing this, but now that I am doing this there are other reasons also. I think this is another thing people can talk about in terms of me and will "in itself" "increase sales" in the long term. If anyone buys shares they will have concrete motivation to promote me and that also will increase sales. If people buy shares I will probably (55-65%), I think, make even more money than if I had not sold shares of my royalties; and if I do, in the long-term, lose $50,000 or something, after factoring in increased sales from this as a "publicity thing," I feel like I will "definitely feel that it has been worth it, for the experience of being in part a corporation, or 'publicly-owned company.'" I also feel that it will help "fight depression" if I become in some way a corporation instead of a person. I also feel it is "funny" "just to do this offer" which makes me view it like any other "funny" thing I might do in that I feel that something "has already been accomplished" just by making this offer, even if no one buys shares and people "think I'm retarded."
WHY YOU MIGHT WANT TO BUY SHARESPeople who buy shares will also have more meaning in life if they already like and promote my writing, because they can promote my writing and also be making money for themselves, which can be exchanged for "goods" in concrete reality; therefore existential despair due to "having to do what you normally wouldn't be doing if you had a lot of money" can be relieved to some extent. Also it will be "funny" and "interesting" "for everyone" probably if people buy shares. You can call yourself a "producer" of my second novel if you want to do that. This is like a grant or something except it's like the stock market or something. You will be a stockholder in "Tao Lin's Second Novel's U.S. Royalties Corporation." "As people resell their shares the price of each share will go up or down, you will see this conveyed on MSNBC as a number going by on the bottom of the TV screen."
If you don't know what to do with your life, or even if you just want to relieve boredom for the 10-15 minutes it will take to send me a check or paypal me, or email me, I recommend that you buy shares of the royalties of my second novel. I recommend this because you will then know what to do for a while, and if you ever feel bored in the future, and own shares of my second novel, you know you can always promote me in order to make more money for yourself. You will never not know what to do with your life again if you own shares in my second novel, sort of. I think if Joy Williams was 25 and didn't want to have a job anymore so she could work harder on her novel, and was selling shares of that novel, the main reasons I would purchase shares would be "it will be funny if I do it" and "at least it's something different or something" and "I think I will feel less bored with life if I own shares of the royalties of a Joy Williams novel."
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATIONFor more information about sales of my previous books and my royalty rates and other things email me. At any point, if shareholders need money and want to sell their shares back to me, and I have extra money to buy back the shares, I will buy back the shares. If, also, at any point, shareholders want me to try to sell their shares at cost or for a profit I will advertise their share on this blog or some other site that I might make. I "can be trusted," look at my eBay rating. I will create contracts and have them notarized. You can have my phone number, address, etc., I promise I will not kill myself within 5-10 years. Really I don't think "trust" is an issue, I feel like people can trust me.
Email me: binky.tabby [at] gmail.com.
87 comments:
If nobody buys shares, you should sell that entire pitch as an 'art piece' for 12,500. However I think yours is a brilliant idea and if I had the money I would invest in 'eeeee eee eee II' or whatever
be careful
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/med_oblivious_texters
the asian rupert murdoch
go for the gold
Was I the first to call you the Asian Haruki Murakami?
thanks will, i hope you win the lottery or something and invest in me
you may be drew, i don't remember, were you the one who 'actually' came up with that?
If I buy a share, will you stop using quotation marks to a sarcastic effect?
yes, email me
What will the penalties be if you do use quotation marks to sarcastic effect? They must be harsh, unyielding, and disproportionately cruel.
i'll just include it in the contract for 10% royalties and you can sue me if i 'break' the contract
Neil Simon sold the TV rights to The Odd Couple back when it was just a playscript, for something like $500. Oops.
do you mean the 'zachary german' publisher? as in 'the name of this band is the talking heads,' the new, extremely limited edition poetry magazine? google "can i tuck in a sweater"
I don't have 2,000$ for this.....could I just do 500$ if I send you my W2's to prove that I'm poor???? (and thus I would get 2.5% of royalties)
i think this is a good idea. i hope this works.
the print on your blog is too small
jeni, that can happen, email me
olalekan, i thought about the font being too small but then i thought i liked how it looks like this and if people want to read my writing in larger font they can buy my books
tao,
i can empathize with having people call your font "too small"
i increased the font size
did anyone like it better with smaller font?
1. Aside from your own personal happiness, what financial incentive would someone have to spend $1,250 now only to receive intermittent payments of about a hundred dollars at a time over the next two years? Can you make any assurances based on very real and credible plans to the investors that they will see a return on their investment?
2. What are the precise figures that your last four books have sold? Can you be transparent about how they have sold by date? If you cannot do this in public (as others have), then you need to offer some approximation of this in this post. Can you demonstrate that specific media writeups or marketing maneuvers on your part have led to the selling of more units? On what basis do you believe that there is 80-90% of a chance that there will be more mainstream attention for your second novel?
3. Why are you unrolling this scheme? Are you not getting a suitable advance from MH? Generally, when an author sells many books, he is in the position to negotiate a reasonable advance. You may be trusted because of your eBay rating. But an investor will also need to have assurances that MH (who will be rolling out the checks) can be trusted.
These are questions that any investor is going to ask. I would suggest being as transparent as possible, adding answers to these questions in this post, so that you are on more solid ground.
'trust fund willed to tao lin'
Tao Lin once asked his readers to buy one of his books through Pay Pal, and then announced that he would be keeping the money and not shipping the books.
Perhaps he learned his techniques for encouraging investment from his parents, who were indicted for securities fraud. (I believe his father actually served time in the federal pen. See Tao Lin's discussion in the comments below this post: http://www.edrants.com/roundup-222/.)
Last year Lin went to American Apparel and stole some clothing so as to have something to write about for Vice magazine.
People should probably know these facts before they buy a "share" in his book.
I mean, who knows, maybe he'd follow through this time, but it would suck to shell out $2000 merely to become the subject of a fictionalized essay in which Mr. Lin justified his stealing with "rationales" similar to the one he offered in Vice: "I'm just saying, don't hate me for stealing from an independent clothing company, because then you'd be basing your hatred on something that isn't real."
Besides the obvious questions any investor would have about prior performance, are you going to let potential investors - at least those signing an NDA - see your current progress on the book in order to perform their due diligence?
Also, what else might be available for investment? Would you consider optioning film/television rights before the book is complete at a significant discount?
On that point, I see that you intend for shareholders to receive 10% of all royalties. Do you actually mean each time your book is potentially optioned for film your shareholders will receive 10% of that money, or are you referring to more hypothetical residuals on an adaptation you yourself might write?
everything looks better with small font
i'm eating chicken wings
i bought them at duane reade
for four dollars
there are eight of them
they were frozen
i microwaved them
the package says something about 't.g.i. friday's'
people with $100,000 don't care about those things ed
thank you maud, i don't believe that is really you though, i believe it is 'fran' probably
r.a., the answer to your questions is 'no'
but i will answer your questions ed
"1. Aside from your own personal happiness, what financial incentive would someone have to spend $1,250 now only to receive intermittent payments of about a hundred dollars at a time over the next two years? Can you make any assurances based on very real and credible plans to the investors that they will see a return on their investment?"
yes, i emailed more detailed information to people who emailed me
also i listed reasons in the post
i don't have anything to add really
"2. What are the precise figures that your last four books have sold? Can you be transparent about how they have sold by date? If you cannot do this in public (as others have), then you need to offer some approximation of this in this post. Can you demonstrate that specific media writeups or marketing maneuvers on your part have led to the selling of more units? On what basis do you believe that there is 80-90% of a chance that there will be more mainstream attention for your second novel?"
yes, i provide these things to people who emailed me
on the basis that 'i feel like' and the things i typed in the post, i don't really have more things to add to that either
"3. Why are you unrolling this scheme? Are you not getting a suitable advance from MH? Generally, when an author sells many books, he is in the position to negotiate a reasonable advance. You may be trusted because of your eBay rating. But an investor will also need to have assurances that MH (who will be rolling out the checks) can be trusted."
i am doing this so i can get some money right now, because i don't have any money right now, and also because it will sell more copies 'in the long term' i think, like i said in the post
melville house is probably the most professional independent publisher i know of, i eat dinner with them a lot, i don't understand how they can be viewed as untrustable, they have published like 100 books, many of them with people who previously published with larger houses like knopf
i 'don't really' want to negotiate a higher advance for future books or whatever since advances are just 'advances on royalties' and will just mean i will get a lot of money at one time instead of spread out
if you do a find/replace for the word 'the' and instead insert 'Beezus and Ramona' I bet I can get a good kitty together via interested parties to fund the value.
sorry, i am just listening to myself type at this point
zach's 2nd comment wins
i wish that had really been maud newton
'for the record' one time i changed the name of this blog to 'fuck everyone who pre-ordered my book' and blogged that i wasn't sending anyone their book and i wasn't refunding their money
but it was done 'as a joke'
everyone did get their book
Will the novel be as awesomely written as this pitch do you think, do you figure, do you guess?
'i worked a lot harder on the novel than on this pitch'
maud,
jeeze. tao stole a shirt because he had a reading and couldnt afford anything to wear for it, but wanted to make a professional impression. poverty leads to depravity. whatever, shut yer face or ill break it.
i steal clothes a lot
i may be a "kleptomaniac"
kendra, you should break some faces and videotape it
it could be the next big comedy of the summer
coming to a theater near you!
'i can be trusted, look at my ebay rating'
Um, good point, Kendra. Have you considered a career in criminal law?
i can't believe you
i think this is a great idea and i only wish i had that much extra money.
good luck, really.
According to an Orlando Business Journal (available online to anyone who does a search) article on December 18, 2002, your father J.T. Lin, thefounder and former chief executive of Orlando-based Surgilight Inc. was convicted by a Brooklyn jury of fraud and money laundering. I quote:
"According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, J.T. Lin was convicted for manipulating Surgilight's stock price by stating in press releases that it developed a way to cure presbyiopia, an age-related deterioration of eyesight.
Those statements were false, the SEC maintains.
Shares in Surgilight climbed from about $2.50 to $25 on that information. According to the SEC, which regulates publicly traded companies, Lin then sold off Surgilight shares he controlled for a profit of about $1.5 million. He then wired that money overseas.
Lin stepped down as CEO of Surgilight in August 2001.
Surgilight placed Lin, a former University of Central Florida professor, on leave when he was indicted on the fraud and money laundering charges in April 2002. He remained on the company payroll as a consultant until July 31.
In addition to the criminal case in Brooklyn, Lin and his wife, Suchin Lin, face civil charges for violating laws governing securities trading. The SEC is seeking to recover the $1.5 million in question plus interest and other penalties.
The Lins had previously settled a civil action filed against them involving another laser eye surgery company in September 1998."
You are obviously continuing your family's proud tradition of enriching itself by defrauding investors. I bet your mom is very proud of you.
i know, i think almost everyone already knows about that
it's in a story in 'bed'
i also wrote an essay about it
thank you 'dottie'
the 'tao lin' that posted the article about j.t. lin isn't 'me' 'by the way'
why would someone talk shit about someone else's parents. that's one step away from saying "my dad can beat up your dad".
one time i looked up your address on directory assistance, tao lin
do you have facebook 'victoria'
yes but it uses a different identity than my blogger one
right now i'm leaving facebook groups in a desperate attempt to make the identities line up
add me on facebook
i feel scared
there are three pages of tao lins on facebook
i'm the one with the sideways head
what is your network
nyu or new york city i think
you can also go to the side of this page and click 'facebook'
if anyone is bored go to these places and type things about me
fran
the cyber mark david chapman
Tao,
They are discussing the issue of you on Metafilter. http://www.metafilter.com/73800/Unusual-Public-Offering
Here's a comment on another blog that explains why there will be a complaint filed against Melville House with the Securities and Exchange Commission at 9 a.m. on Monday morning, August 4. You have even less respect for the law than your jailbird father:
It's been a long time since I've gone through the US Series Seven material, but central to understanding what the SEC does is the fact that they exist to protect the general public. Before the SEC this type of stuff went on all the time, and it was very, very difficult for the retail investor to operate in the stock market, to pick good securities from questionable schemes.
So the SEC very carefully proscribes how and when the general public (e.g., the readers of Lin's blog) can be approached, and what information can / can not be communicated.
It appears what Lin is doing either is very questionable, and for many reasons. For example, he can't be approaching the public directly like this - the typical mode of engagement, at least at the outset, is paper, paper, paper. Throughly document what the firm does, how it does it, revenue, earning, etc.
And after all the paperwork has been filed for an IPO (and there is lots of paperwork, far more than the word count of one of his poetry books) we enter what's known as a "quiet period", where management (effectively Lim himself) simply can not discuss the future prospects of the firm. By speculating about film rights, etc, he's violated that SEC constraint, something that's caused IPOs in the past to be canceled or delayed. Even with the guidance of an investment bank, Google came very close to delaying their IPO in 2004. Salesforce.com wasn't so lucky and had to delay their IPO after a New York Times bio on the founder.
And he's also speculated about a secondary market in shares that apparently he'd provide liquidity in and control; once again, such talk is best avoided, especially so if it could be construed as an inducement to purchase shares i.e., guarantee of future value. Further causing him problems, he qualifies the existence of this market with statements such as "...if shareholders need money and want to sell their shares back to me, and I have extra money to buy back the shares, I will buy back the shares.". The SEC doesn't like such waffling - does the market exist or not? At what price will shares be purchased? This is how the SEC protects the retail investor. That single blog sentence could cost him, big time.
Even if he descopes his terms and conditions somewhat, and privately qualifies all investors, if he consummates a single sale after so openly speculating about future prospects - and if the SEC doesn't engage - he's opened himself for personal lawsuits that could potentially dwarf any monetary gain he'd realise from all of his publishing activities, past, present and future.
Seems like he would have been better off quietly looking for an angel investor. Finding a patron of the arts isn't that difficult, and he must already know of somebody who could help. Perhaps one of his blog readers does - that would have been a far more appropriate way to realise his goal.
This was not a good idea. I'm betting he'll take that post down very fast sometime next week.
posted by Mutant at 2:57 AM on August 3
Here is a document from the SEC people might want to consider. It explains why Melville House - obviously a party to this transaction since they hold the contract to the book in question - is going down tomorrow!:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SURGILIGHT INC., JUI-TENG LIN,
YUCHIN LIN and AARON TSAI
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S
COMPLAINT FOR
PERMANENT INJUCTION
ND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission" or "SEC") alleges as follows:
Summary
1. The SEC brings this civil fraud action against two securities fraud recidivists, Dr. Jui-Teng Lin ("Dr. Lin") and his wife, Yuchin Lin ("Mrs. Lin") (collectively "the Lins"), as well as Surgilight, Inc. ("Surgilight") and Aaron Tsai ("Tsai"). The Lins and their accomplices defrauded innocent investors of million of dollars through an unlawful pump and dump manipulation scheme. Incredibly, the Lins launched this scam barely a year after being adjudged securities fraudsters and enjoined from such activity by another federal court.
2. From late 1999 through early 2000 the Lins' with assistance of codefendant Tsai fraudulently drove up the stock price of Surgilight, and unloaded
thousands of shares of that stock onto an unsuspecting investing public, reaping over $3,000,000 in ill-gotten gains from their efforts. Specifically, the Lins deceived investors into believing that Surgilight had completed the development of a revolutionary laser technology that was capable of curing "Presbyopia," a previously untreatable and incurable eye disorder that affects virtually 100% of the world's population over age 40. Consequently, Presbyopia reversal is generally considered the "holy grail" of vision correction surgery. In reality, Surgilight's claims were baseless. At the time Surgilight published this information, the company had built only one laser and had not yet tested it in any Presbyopia procedures. In plain language, the Lins and Surgilight's claim was a lie.
3. At the same time, the Lins, with the assistance of Tsai, used nominee brokerage accounts that they secretly controlled to execute manipulative securities transactions in Surgilight stock. Through the defendants' activities, the market price of Surgilight common stock surged from approximately $2.50 to a height of $25 per share (split adjusted basis). By April 8, 2002, Surgilight had collapsed to $.30 per share. As such, Investors lost millions of dollars buying Surgilight stock at inflated prices.
4. By engaging in such conduct each of the defendants violated various provisions of the federal securities laws as set forth below, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to violate such provisions.
Jurisdiction
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")[15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(e) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(e) and 78aa].
6.Defendants have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails in connection with the transactions described in this Complaint.
7. Dr. Lin violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b), 13(d), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78m(d), 78p(a)] and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3] thereunder.
8. Mrs. Lin and Surgilight violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] 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.
9. Tsai violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)] and violated Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78t(e)] by aiding and abetting Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder.
Defendants
10. Surgilight is a Florida corporation headquartered in Orlando. Surgilight's primary business activity is the acquisition and development of laser technologies for applications in ophthalmology and dermatology. On March 31, 1999, Surgilight went public through a reverse merger with MAS Acquisition III Corp. ("MAS III"), a publicly held shell company owned by Tsai. Surgilight's securities are registered with the Commission under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l(g)] and trade on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol "SRGL."
11. Dr. Jui-Teng Lin, age 54, was the chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Surgilight at all relevant times. He also controlled approximately 65.5% of Surgilight's common stock at all relevant times. Dr. Lin was born in Taiwan and is a U.S. citizen. He lives in Oviedo, Florida with his wife, Yuchin Lin.
12. Yuchin Lin, age 50, was Surgilight's bookkeeper at all relevant times. She was born in Taiwan and is a U.S. citizen. She is married to Dr. Jui-Teng Lin.
13. In September 1998, the Commission filed a civil action against Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin charging them with violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws. Dr. Lin served as the president and chief executive officer of LaserSight, Inc., a company engaged in developing lasers for medical applications. Mrs. Lin was LaserSight's bookkeeper. The Commission alleged that, while in those positions, the Lins engaged in a series of sham transactions to sell unregistered LaserSight securities. The Commission also alleged that the Lins employed a system of nominees to move funds and securities back and forth from the U.S. to Taiwan in furtherance of their scheme. On September 10, 1998, the Lins consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] 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].
14. Aaron Tsai, age 33, is the president and chief executive officer of MAS Capital, Inc., a firm that provides services to companies seeking to be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. Tsai lives in Henderson, Kentucky. Through MAS Capital and affiliate companies, Tsai has registered approximately fifty shell companies with the Commission and has sold more then twenty shell companies in reverse mergers. He was the owner of the publicly held shell company that merged with Surgilight.
The Reverse Merger and Groundwork for the Scheme
15. In winter 1999, Dr. Lin was introduced to Tsai as an individual that could assist Dr. Lin in bringing his private company, Surgilight, public through a transaction commonly known as a reverse merger. In a reverse merger, a private company merges with a publicly held shell company, which allows the stock of the formerly private company to be traded publicly.
16. On March 31, 1999, MAS III, a shell company owned by Tsai, executed agreements to merge with Surgilight. As part of the reverse merger, Tsai received approximately 8.7% of the common stock of Surgilight plus $100,000. Dr. Lin controlled approximately 65.5% of Surgilight common stock after the reverse merger. On that same day, the board of directors of Surgilight, including Tsai, resigned and a new board of directors, including Dr. Lin as the chairman, was appointed.
17. After the merger, Tsai prepared and filed the reports and filings required by the federal securities laws and rules of the Commission for the next several months. One such filing that Tsai assisted the company with was a Schedule 13D filed on April 12, 1999 on behalf of Dr. Lin. In the filing, Dr. Lin stated that he had not been enjoined by a court against future violations of the federal securities laws during the past five years. This representation was false because, as explained above, Dr. Lin was enjoined by a federal court against future violations of the federal securities laws in September 1998.
18. Tsai then took the steps necessary for Surgilight common stock to be sold to public investors by getting Surgilight common stock quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. As part of this process, Tsai enlisted the services of a market maker, Kensington Capital Corp., to help maintain an orderly market for Surgilight securities.
The Pump and Dump Scheme
19. After the reverse merger, the Lins set into motion their scheme to defraud the investing public. As set forth in greater detail below, Dr. Lin created and caused false and misleading press releases to be issued, touting Surgilight as, among other things, having completed development of laser technologies that could reverse the effects of Presbyopia. Dr. Lin also hired an individual to disseminate this information in Internet discussion foruMrs. While Dr. Lin was issuing these press releases, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, with Tsai's assistance, used nominee accounts to create the false appearance of an active market in Surgilight securities and sell Surgilight stock they controlled to the public. The Lins' fraudulent efforts generated them approximately $1,700,000 in illicit proceeds.
Surgilight's False and Misleading Press Releases
20. On or about December 13, 1999, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated, "Surgilight, Inc. (OTCBB:SRGL) announced that it has completed development of two new technologies for vision correction using infrared (IR) lasers . . . ." With regard to a device known as Model IR-3000, the press release stated: "It is the most compact solid-state IR laser capable of performing the new procedure for presbyopia correction." With regard to a device known as Model IR-3001, the release stated that it "will be used for vision correction, including . . . presbyopia correction." Each of these statements was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin well knew, Surgilight at that time had not completed development of any technology for vision correction using infrared lasers or tested any infrared lasers in Presbyopia correction procedures.
21. Dr. Lin also omitted significant material facts from the December 13, 1999 press release concerning U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulatory hurdles that Surgilight was required to clear before its lasers could be tested, marketed, or sold. These omissions are material because obtaining FDA clearance in the laser eye care industry is an enormous undertaking, which takes several years to complete, with no guarantee of success. Dr. Lin was well aware of these regulatory hurdles and yet failed to mention that Surgilight had not taken even the first step in the FDA regulatory process.
22. On or about January 11, 2000, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole, or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated: "Surgilight, Inc. (OTCBB:SRGL) announced today that it had submitted a clinical trial Protocol to Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City for a new procedure called Laser Presbyopia Reversal (LPR)." This statement contained a misleading omission of material fact in that, as Dr. Lin well knew, the press release did not divulge that the protocol submitted to Mt. Sinai Hospital was wholly insufficient so as to render approval of the protocol impossible.
23. On or about January 26, 2000, Surgilight issued two press releases, which were prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, both press releases stated that "The company's IR-3000 . . . is the world's first system with reported clinical results for the presbyopia correction." This statement was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin well knew, at that time no reported clinical results existed for a Presbyopia correction procedure that were obtained with the IR-3000 or any other infrared laser.
24. On or about February 17, 2000, Surgilight issued a press release, which was prepared in whole or in part by Dr. Lin and which contained false and misleading statements of material fact. For example, the press release stated that Surgilight was at that time focusing on its "new infrared lasers and the related ongoing clinical trials in Canada, Europe and Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City." This statement was false and misleading because, as Dr. Lin knew at that time, no such clinical trials were ongoing in Canada or Europe and no clinical trials relating to infrared lasers were ongoing at Mt. Sinai hospital.
25. On or about December 1, 1999, Dr. Lin hired an "investor relations consultant" to further disseminate false and misleading information to the public regarding Surgilight. In December 1999, this individual contacted Raging Bull and America Online's securities bulletin boards and requested that these Internet sites create Surgilight discussion fora.
26. After the fora were established, the "investor relations consultant" posted information directing the board's participants to Surgilight's false and misleading press releases. This individual also posted information touting Surgilight's technology and the economic effect such technology was to have on the price of Surgilight's common stock. In total, during the three-month period from December 1999 to February 2000, the "investor relations consultant" posted approximately 100 messages regarding Surgilight and its technology on Internet discussion fora.
27. The false and misleading statements set forth above were intended to influence and did influence the price of Surgilight common stock, as set forth below:
Date of Press Release Price of Surgilight stock day before press release Price of Surgilight stock on day after press release % Change
12/13/99 $2.63 $6.25 + 137%
1/11/00 $5.50 $6.63 + 21%
1/26/00 $16.50 $23.50 + 42%
2/17/00 $13.50 $13.75 +0.02%
The Lins' Unise Nominee Accounts and Manipulative Trading Program
28. Approximately two days before the reverse merger, on or about March 29, 1999, Mrs. Lin caused a brokerage account to be opened at the Unise Investment Corp. of Flushing, New York ("Unise") in the name of Huei Lee, 6th Floor, No. 6, Nong 32, Lane 1, Chang-long Street, Taipei, Taiwan (the "Lee Unise Account"). In an effort to conceal their control over the Lee Unise Account, the Lins directed Jianhua Zou, a Surgilight employee, to sign a form purporting to authorize that employee to order trades in the Lee Unise Account on behalf of Huei Lee. Jianhua Zou never ordered a transaction in the Lee Unise Account and had no further contact with the Lee Unise Account or Unise.
29. On or about April 20, 1999, Mrs. Lin caused a brokerage account to be opened at Unise in the name of Hsueh-Yueh Chang, 17 F-3, No. 311, 12th Street, Ta-Tun, Taichung, Taiwan (the "Chang Unise Account"). In an effort to conceal their control of the Chang Unise Account, the Lins directed Hang Liu, a Surgilight employee, to sign a form purporting to authorize Hang Liu to order trades in the Chang Unise Account on behalf of Hsueh-Yueh Chang. Hang Liu never ordered a transaction in the Chang Unise account and had no further contact with the Chang Unise Account or Unise.
30. From August through November 1999, the Lins and Tsai caused approximately 99,750 shares of Surgilight common stock to be deposited into the Lee Unise Account and approximately 181,600 shares of Surgilight common stock to be deposited into the Chang Unise account. The original source of the stock deposited into the Unise nominee accounts was the block of shares Tsai received as part of the reverse merger.
31. On at least one occasion, Tsai transferred Surgilight stock directly to the Unise nominee accounts and in other instances, Tsai employed more deceptive measures. In one such instance, to conceal his direct involvement, Tsai caused a total of 100,000 shares to be transferred nominally into the names of friends without their knowledge. Tsai then knowingly or recklessly caused portions of these shares to be transferred into the Unise nominee accounts. Tsai did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transfers and these transfers did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
32. In another series of transactions, Tsai knowingly or recklessly facilitated a series of transactions that resulted in the deposit of thousands of shares into the Unise nominee accounts. Acting in concert with the Lins, Tsai caused approximately 536,450 shares of Surgilight stock to be transferred to approximately twenty individuals that purportedly reside in Taiwan. Approximately one month later, the Lins and Tsai caused large portions of shares to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts. Neither Tsai nor the Lins filed a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transfers, and these transfers did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
33. Beginning in November 1999 and going through at least March 2000, the Lins caused hundreds of manipulative transactions in Surgilight common stock to be made in the Unise nominee accounts. On a daily basis during this time period, the Lins placed telephone calls to Unise and ordered their broker to execute both purchases and sales in the Unise nominee accounts, as many as thirty per day.
34. During the three-month period of December 1999 to February 2000, the Lins caused a total of 296 sales and 244 purchases of Surgilight securities to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts. These transactions accounted for approximately one-third of the total trading volume for Surgilight common stock during that time period. The Lins did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these transactions and these transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
35. The Lins' trading program served two illicit purposes. First, in the days between the publications of each press release, the Lins executed nearly equal amounts of purchases and sales of Surgilight securities. The Lins' buying and selling efforts stabilized the price of Surgilight common stock while it created the false appearance of an active and liquid market for the securities. Second, to capitalize on the surge in price of Surgilight common stock after the publication of each press release, the Lins dumped their Surgilight securities on publication day and the days immediately following the publication of the false press releases. The net effect of this manipulative pattern of trading was the accumulation of approximately $1,700,000 in the Unise nominee accounts by the beginning of March 2000.
36. Tsai also sold his Surgilight common stock into the inflated market that he helped create. Acting with knowledge, Tsai waited until the time period of January 18, 2000 to January 31, 2000, the days when Surgilight was trading at its absolute height, to begin selling his Surgilight stock. At that time, he sold 63,200 shares of Surgilight common stock and earned at least $1,000,000 from these sales. Tsai did not file a valid registration statement with the Commission for any of these sales and these sales did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
37. On or about March 1, 2000, the Lins caused two written wire transfer instructions to be sent to Unise. One instructed that $710,000 be transferred from the Chang Unise Account to an account maintained in the name of Hsueh-Yueh Chang at a branch of Hua Nan Commercial Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Chang Bank Account"). The other instructed that $766,000 be transferred from the Lee Unise Account to an account maintained in the name of Huei Lee at a branch of Overseas Chinese Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Lee Bank Account").
38. In accordance with the wire transfer instructions described in the preceding paragraph, on or about March 1, 2000, $766,000 was wire transferred from the Lee Unise Account to the Lee Bank Account, and $710,000 was wire transferred from the Chang Unise Account to the Chang Bank Account.
39. On or about March 6, 2000, the Lins caused approximately $524,055 to be wire transferred from the Lee Bank Account to the Chang Bank Account.
40. On or about March 8, 2000, the Lins caused approximately $1,232,000 to be transferred from the Chang Bank Account to an account maintained in the name of Su Jung Lee at a branch of Hua Nan Commercial Bank in Taipei, Taiwan (the "Su Jung Lee Bank Account").
41. On or about March 8, 2000, the Lins caused $1,232,000 to be wire transferred from the Su Jung Lee Bank Account to an account maintained in the name of Surgilight at First Union National Bank in Orlando, Florida, which they controlled.
First Claim
(Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by Defendants Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin and Surgilight)
42. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein.
43. Defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin, with the intent to induce others to purchase Surgilight securities, did knowingly or recklessly misstate material facts and omit material facts when Dr. Lin created in whole or in part the press releases described in the previous paragraphs and when defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin caused the press releases described in the previous paragraphs to be issued to the investing public.
44. Defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin engaged in transactions and practices or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of Surgilight securities when they caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight stock to be executed in the Unuse nominee accounts.
45. In the manner described above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use of means or instruments of interstate commerce or by the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
Second Claim
(Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by all defendants)
46. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin, with the intent to induce others to purchase Surgilight securities, did knowingly or recklessly misstate material facts and omit material facts when Dr. Lin created in whole or in part the press releases described in the previous paragraphs and when defendants Surgilight and Dr. Lin caused the press releases described in the previous paragraphs to be issued to the investing public.
48. Defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin engaged in transactions and practices or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of Surgilight securities when they caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight stock to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts.
49. In the manner described above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon persons, in 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.
Third Claim
(Aiding and Abetting by Tsai)
50. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
51. Defendant Tsai knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by among other things, providing them a publicly held shell company; directly and indirectly causing Surgilight stock to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts under circumstance which indicate that he knew or should have known that the Lins controlled; facilitating Surgilight's trading on the OTC Bulletin Board; and preparing and filing with the Commission documents required by the federal securities laws and rules of the Commission, which at least one of was patently false.
52. In the manner described above, defendant Tsai aided and abetted defendants Dr. Lin and Mrs. Lin's violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by knowingly providing substantial assistance to such defendants in violation of Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78t(e)].
Fourth Claim
(Violations of the Registration Provisions by all Defendants)
53. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 52 as if fully set forth herein.
54. Defendants Surgilight and the Lins caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight securities to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts when a valid registration statement was not in effect as to such transactions and the transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
55. Defendant Tsai caused approximately 536,450 shares of Surgilight common stock to be transferred to approximately twenty individuals that purportedly reside in Taiwan and caused 100,000 shares of Surgilight common stock to be transferred to two of his friends, and subsequently caused portions of such shares to be transferred to the Unise nominee accounts. At the time of all transfers of Surgilight securities described in this paragraph, a valid registration statement was not in effect as to such transactions and the transactions did not qualify for any exemption from registration.
56. In the manner set forth above, defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai directly or indirectly (a) without a registration statement in effect as to the securities, (i) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication or the mails to sell such securities through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise, or (ii) carried or caused to be carried through the mails, or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, such securities for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, and (b) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to sell through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise securities for which a registration statement had not been filed as to such securities, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
Fifth Claim
(Violations of the Ownership Provisions by Dr. Lin)
57. Plaintiff SEC hereby incorporates ¶¶ 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein.
58. Defendant Dr. Lin caused hundreds of purchases and sales of Surgilight common stock to be executed in the Unise nominee accounts. Defendant Dr. Lin was the beneficial owner of the securities transacted in the Unise nominee accounts.
59. Defendant Dr. Lin failed to timely report his beneficial ownership of the securities in the Unise nominee accounts and changes thereto with the Commission as required by various provisions of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder.
60. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Dr. Lin violated Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(d) and 78p(a)] and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240. 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3].
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment:
(i) permanently enjoining defendant Dr. Lin, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with him, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b), 13(d), and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78m(d) and 78p(a)] and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and 240.16a-3];
(ii) permanently enjoining defendants Surgilight and Mrs. Lin, and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q(a)] and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78o(a)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder;
(iii) permanently enjoining defendant Tsai, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with him, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)] 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];
(iv) ordering defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai to provide an accounting and disgorge all ill-gotten gains from the conduct alleged herein, with prejudgment interest;
(v) ordering defendants Surgilight, Dr. Lin, Mrs. Lin, and Tsai to pay civil money penalties pursuant to 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)];
(vi) permanently barring defendant Dr. Lin from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(e)] and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)]; and
(vii) granting such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
Dated: April 11, 2002
United States Securities
and Exchange Commission
By_____________________________
Thomas C. Newkirk
Eric N. Miller (Trial Attorney)
Cheryl J. Scarboro
Reid A. Muoio
Sean Patrick Casey
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0911
(tel) 202/942-7275 (Miller)
(fax) 202/942-9569
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17469.htm
Some heinous shit going on in this thread.
You mean people are describing heinous shit done to defraud innocent investors by Jui-Teng Lin, Suchin Lin and now Tao Lin?
Tao Lin defrauded me of a domestic house cat.
there are now two 'tao lin' commenters on the internet
one 'tao lin' only comments to talk shit about the other 'tao lin' a lot in a serious tone
one 'tao lin' talks shit about himself sometimes in a 'detached, "sarcastic" tone'
someones really angry with tao lin. i feel sad. i like to laugh, but now i feel sad. boohoo.
I think Morrissey sang it best: "There are some baaaaaad people on the right."
I believe it is well-known that it is a criminal act in America to try to feed yourself, or provide shelter for yourself.
Unless you were born with plenty of both.
Yes, I have done your bidding, O Tao One.
“Eeeee Eee Eeee Reeeeevieeeweeeed”
by Michael Jahng
Somebody is never going to adapt the novel Eeeee Eee Eeee by Tao Lin into a movie and nobody ever should. Somebody explain how this overrated monotone voiced Asian got so famous? How did this happen? Just because someone self-promotes themselves into a literary star by name does not automatically make them a genius with a book contract and legions of internet fans.
His prose is juvenile even to juvenile standards. “See Dick run. Run, dick, run” has more literary panache, brilliance and heartfelt emotion in one sentence than all of Tao Lin’s entire writing archive put together.
I am not saying this to be mean. It is an honest observation of facts. Another wonder is how he got a superstar in the hipster world, the waifish Miranda July to give him a glowing blurb for his books. Did he hold her captive after daterape-drugging her and forcing her to talk into his tape recorder like in that movie about that guy who ate those guys? Is the gender role reversal a mark of brilliance on Tao Lin’s part? I am not jealous. This is a serious critique. Would Miranda July look hotter with breast implants made of organic soy protein and could they put in an IV bag inside to save materials, since she is open to innovative experimentation?
Why hasn’t Elijah Wood sued yet? Surely he does not appreciate being the semifictional subject to a mess of words glued together by Taco Bell and Kinko’s paper and Officemax staples.
The anooyingly precious “I’m so cute in my selfish emo dribble, wink wink, I am existential” Tao Lin fails to evoke even a genuine emotion in any part of the novel, and even a strung-together hack filmmaker like Georgia Lee cannot save this mess of a novel in any form of screenplay as it fails so utterly as a book. The only saving quality is that Tao Lin’s use of talking animals and the blandness of his style to disguise the lack of literary skill and talent and things of substance to write about is no doubt misinterpreted as intentional on his part, thus making him a genius in their eyes.
Even the title of the novel is pretentious and failing at trying to be cute. Yes, trying counts even as failing when it’s done at this level. I would quote excerpts of exceptionally bad sentences to let you see for yourself how exceptionally bad the sentences are which the reader will find all throughout the book but I don’t have the patience to type exceptionally bad sentences – at least when they are this bad. Maybe if Tao Lin would be kind enough to provide a digital copy of his original Microsoft Word .doc file to his reviewers it would result in better reviews and in excerpts as they can just copy and paste the selections. Please take this hint.
I do not dislike the author as a person. In fact, I also am a vegan and Asian. But wow, Tao Lin. I bought your book because even I was swept up in the hype you created for yourself in the literary scene. You owe me time from my life back, Tao Lin. You owe me $14.95 plus tax, Tao Lin. You owe me a free book you promised for my writing this, Tao Lin. You owe another free book because the book I paid for that you wrote has so robbed me of time and money and life, Tao Lin.
I will email you, Tao Lin. Be waiting for my email.
"Hear my cries. Hear my call. Where I met you. I'm a take you with me. Come with me. Uh huh. Yeah."
-Ripping off Puff-Puffy-P. Daddy-Diddy-Daddy's unoriginal career since 1966
Reviewed by
Michael Jahng, Self-Proclaimed Tao Lin Intern #21
Hmmm ... I am not certain that I want to add to the previous comment but for the sake of kindness I will say this – I DO envy Tao Lin's confidence – in fact I think that once upon a time (perhaps when I was about his age – 25?) I had it, although perhaps not as profoundly as he seems to. In fact, when I do read this blog (occasionally) I feel a little nostalgic for my own ego. It's still around, but it has become a little shopworn over time. A lot of things have happened since I was 25 (which is 25 years ago) but perhaps the most powerful antidote to cockiness (mine) has just been my own relentless exposure to the degree of rich talent that is out there – whether it is in the simplicity, athleticism and beauty of writers like James Tate and Ron Padgett, or the extraordinary architecture of the old timers like Lord Byron, George Eliot, Marvell, Viereck, Moore. The only thing that hasn't changed is that I still adore to read anything that takes my breath away – and I wish that it could happen more often – and I find that it still happens when I read writing that is pure and emotional and true – away goes my breath and my heart – something that I hope happens to everyone, and I certainly hope that it happens to Tao Lin...
i hope you also hope that it (the good thing you talked about, taking away your life breath and all) happens to me too mr. tortilla machine. but i don't want to take your life breath away or you will not live anymore and that is sad and not just sad like the fake sad that ineffective young writers love to dwell on so selfishly, but the real kind of sad that makes real people really truly sad.
i am drunk writing this. don't take it the wrong way.
i have no life either.
and i didn't write what i did about binky's books all too seriously. i just did it as part of a deal with him where he would send me a free book for talking shit.
i think he doesn't want to send me the book though. at least not an ebook version of it.
which doesn't make sense for him to spend money on postage and on the special media packaging envelopes from the post office to send the book in. wasn't the point of selling his royalties supposed to be to get some money right now?
i don't know. no one know the dolphin and hamster infested mind that is the tao lin contagion.
i am a fan of James Tate however. Good taste my man.
tortilla,
i think that happened to me before 'to some degree'
it looks like i'm fucked
i dont know what to do
why are you fucked
i want to be fucked by anne hathaway.
or maybe i want to fuck anne hathaway instead.
either way
i want to get laid by/with anne hathaway.
or maybe i just need to get a life.
i think a beer will do.
You will be a stockholder in "Tao Lin's Second Novel's U.S. Royalties Corporation."
"What he’s done is in violation of SEC rules. You can’t offer shares in a nonesxistent corporation to the general public without first going through the admittedly cumbersome process of filing the proper documents and making sure that you make the offer on paper ONLY to 'qualified investors.'
...It would behoove you to do some research before touting a scheme that is risky to investors, possibly totally fraudulent and certainly in violation of current federal securities investigations. It would be dangerous for any other writers to emulate him in this.
...A complaint has been filed with the SEC regarding this matter, including in it Melville House, Mr. Lin’s publisher, who has a contract for the novel in question. He, in fact, has gone behind their back to sell shares in his royalties paid for by them. Thus he has subjected them (with the firm’s assumed deeper pockets - if Mr. Lin is this desperate for money, he is obviously judgment-proof) to liability in this matter." [source]
"I can only assume Mr. Lim hasn’t bothered to register this offering with the SEC (typically a six-figure proposition). If I’m correct, Mr. Lim could only be operating under an exemption from registration, which generally require the offering to be restricted to those with whom the offeror (in this case, the author) has a substantive and pre-existing prior relationship. This means he can’t advertise the offering in a public forum (i.e. a blog). Also, unregistered shares (meaning shares offered wtihout the benefit of registration) generally are very restricted in their resale (by law). However, Mr. Lim’s blog assures potential investors there are no restrictions.
Accordingly, Mr. Lim appears to be offering shares without any regard for federal and state law applicable to this activity. In this respect, he’s on very dangerous ground. By handling this offering in such a sloppy fashion, Mr. Lim is essentially handing his future shareholders a free put. If they lose money, a smart plaintiff’s lawyer could easily get it back from Mr. Lim, as he appears to be violating every rule in the book." [source]
read the last comment in the nytimes thread by richard grayson for a response to ericb
Tao Lin --
With your specific reference to Richard Grayson's NYT's blog post which identifies your offer as being just satire you confirm my early suspicion of Sunday morning that "this is all a stunt or joke."
everything i do is 'a joke' but also people who give me money will get royalties from me as stated in this post
everything i do is 'a joke' but also people who give me money will get royalties from me as stated in this post
I'm confused. So, have you taken money (e.g. investment dollars solicited over the Internet) from folks in exchange for shares in a company ("You will be a stockholder in "Tao Lin's Second Novel's U.S. Royalties Corporation.") with promises of future returns?
Or, have you merely taken "loans" from these folks with a promise of repayment (principal + interest)?
The former runs afoul of numerous state and federal regulations. The latter is fine and clear.
ericb, i'm not really creating a corporation, this is not an 'IPO,' those terms were used 'in fun,' or 'as a joke,' this is not how a corporation works, a corporation isn't 'selling shares of one's royalties,' a book's royalties cannot be a corporation, a person cannot be a corporation, the 6 'shares' i sold will not be listed on the NASDAQ or DOW JONES, a book does not have a market cap, so in that way it is 'a joke'
i'll quote ryan's comment from the other thread:
to ericb - nothing illegal about selling shares in future royalties... nothing but a one page contract needed (which doesnt even require a lawyer if he doesnt wany) to make it "legit" - usually have to put anything over 500 dollars in writing to make it hold for contract law... but an email would prob suffice for something of this value even...
the buyer might want a contract to cover various things, like requiring tao to retain the 40% interest etc etc to ensure he's motivated to increase sales, or something... but it isn't the same as equity in a company, and doesnt need SEC filing certainly. rock on tao! hope you take care of your financial needs through your securitizing the royalties. cant wait to read the new novel
Sounded good until you talked about giving you money to live, and that the money will "probably" make you write better. Doesn't instil(l)?? that much confidence in you in my humble opinion.
Why don't you try advertising this using a video, maybe on a youtube site or a promotional site like http://pr.omote.me
i am pretty much broke so thus far i have only been able to enjoy tao's work on the internet as well as within 'the stranger', a lovely alternative weekly published in seattle.
but i do treasure his writing and feel that if i ever get enough courage to write monsieur lin an email or postcard he would probably write back (promptly) with a response that contained at least one thing that made a smile on my face. thus far tao lin's effect on my life has been 'for the better'.
prostitution is going to save the world.
You got an agent?
(It's Stressmas, family's all 'round the tree and the table drivin' me nuts, and I just discovered your blog and this proposal. Interesting idea.)
thans so the article
If nobody buys shares, you should sell that entire pitch as an 'art piece' for 12,500. However I think yours is a brilliant idea and if I had the money I would invest in 'eeeee eee eee II'.
=======================
http://www.mastercards.info
wish I could have gotten in on this.
Post a Comment