Gods of Frauds: Board Whores Edition
October 2, 2014
This Case Study: Startups will highlight how incestuous startup boards are with the incubator (ideas) and the company doing the funding of the ideas or venture capital. The goal is to look for signs of possible fraud or conflicts of interest in this cycle while keeping in mind the characteristics of The Sociopathic Business Model™ .
Start to note how many times the same names are appearing on different boards. The industry notion is that the DOJ under-regulates startup devices (easier to commit fraud) the same is often thought of the relationship between incubators and the venture capitalist, as these incubator startups not publically traded companies or regulated by the SEC.
Earlens was funded by 22 unnamed investors for $36 million (hoping for $38). Why no transparency here? I sure hope the SEC is paying attention, since this information is being concealed.
UPDATED: Neotract updated their Board of Directors (as of 11/7/2014) William (Bill) Facteau is back on with a cut and paste from his Earlense bio and another name that’s familiar is added back to the Board, John Nehra who was previously missing.
Whoops perhaps in haste to update the website quickly to reflect the changes but it’s mentioned in William M. (Bill) Facteau’s Bio on the Neotract website (screenshot above) that he’s on the Board of Neotract as are all the other memebers of the Board on the Board of Neotract and yet it’s not in any of the other member’s bios (screenshots above). On the Board off the Board tough to keep up with the shuffle but that’s certainly inconsistent & contradictory language to action.
Let’s do a little recap of the characteristics:
The FBI previously stated the goal of the BAU was to learn once a crime was committed and under the design of The Sociopathic Business Model™ it is possible to prevent a crime from happening if we’re able to spot patterns.
We’ll be following these companies closely over the next few months.