Originally Syndicated on June 11, 2024 @ 3:07 pm
It was revealed that Solomon RC Ali was subject to the accusations brought by the SEC in connection with the fraudulent schemes. There was a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the well-known businessman Solomon RC Ali. According to the findings of the investigation conducted by the SEC, he is a scammer. We must go into the narrative of the case to figure out all of the aspects of this inquiry. To begin, we must get knowledge of the history of Solomon RC Ali.
Solomon RC Ali: An Analytical Synopsis
Solomon RC Ali, who is also known by the surname Richard M. Carter, portrays himself as a successful businessman and a billionaire who has achieved his fortune through his efforts.
He asserts that he is the founder of Solomon RC Ali Corporation, a company that ostensibly offers business and fiscal advising services to both privately held and publicly listed firms, with a particular emphasis on public markets and mergers and acquisitions.
Throughout his career, he has held positions as a security banker, financier, founder of a private equity business, and consultant. He has also managed and completed more than 140 mergers and acquisitions.
A more in-depth examination of Solomon RC Ali’s actions, on the other hand, raises significant concerns about the veracity of the accomplishments that he claims to have accomplished. Some of the criticisms revolve around the fact that he promoted his image and commercial endeavors via the use of public relations strategies that were deceptive. According to the allegations, he has allegedly used fake press releases and made assertions that are inflated to improve his image as an entrepreneur.
In addition to this, Solomon RC Ali’s career has been plagued by a great deal of complicated legal matters. Because of these cases, his professional behavior is called into question, and doubts are raised about the ethical standards he upholds in his business dealings.
According to his detractors, the fact that he employs misleading techniques and is confronted with legal issues is indicative of a dangerous trend that runs counter to the success narrative that he depicts.
In conclusion, Solomon RC Ali portrays himself as a prosperous business figure; yet, upon closer inspection, his story is shown to be riddled with controversy and legal issues, which raises questions about the veracity of his alleged achievements.
Charges Filed Against Solomon RC Ali by the SEC
The Charlotte, North Carolina-based public firm and its CEO and colleagues are under scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for what they are said to have done to mislead investors using dishonest means.
Federal securities laws include anti-fraud and reporting rules that the SEC has accused Solomon RC Ali and REVO of breaching in a lawsuit filed in a federal court in Atlanta, Georgia.
Allegedly, REVO, while under Ali’s leadership, engaged in transactions with people with whom he was personally acquainted, and the group knowingly neglected to disclose this fact in its public filings. In addition, the business is said to have issued press releases and filed documents with the SEC that included deceptive and inaccurate information on these deals.
The allegations against Ali and his accomplices reveal a disturbing trend of alleged wrongdoing that violated federal securities laws and eroded investor confidence.
Nicole C. Singletary and Rainco Industries, Inc., two entities with links to Solomon RC Ali, have been added to the SEC’s list of individuals it accuses of aiding and abetting fraudulent conduct.
The federal securities laws are allegedly violated by Solomon RC Ali, Rainco, Singletary, and Earnest H. (Woody) DeLong, Jr., an Atlanta lawyer, according to the SEC’s case. Equally accused of comparable anti-fraud and reporting infractions is another firm, Universal Bioenergy, Inc. (UBRG).
By settling out of court, REVO, Rainco, Singletary, and DeLong have all responded to the SEC’s accusations without taking a position on them. Each defendant is required to pay a civil fine of $25,000. On top of that, they have consented to long-term injunctions that will cover particular sections of the 1933 and 1934 securities acts, which will stop them from breaking those acts again.
There will be a five-year prohibition on Rainco and Singletary dealing with penny stocks, and Singletary will also be unable to hold the position of director or officer during that time. In addition to the five-year limitation on serving as an officer or director and dealing with penny stocks, DeLong will also be subject to prohibitions about Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 16(a). In addition, until the judge decides, DeLong has agreed to a restraining order that will prevent him from representing clients in SEC proceedings.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has also levied administrative penalties against REVO and UBRG for failing to meet reporting requirements under Section 12(j) of the 1934 Act. REVO has consented to the revocation of its securities registrations per an administrative decision, and an administrative law judge will assess UBRG’s case to decide what to do next.
Lucy Graetz of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office oversaw the investigation, with help from the Microcap Fraud Task Force, which was supervised by Aaron Lipson and Natalie Brunson. H. B. Roback and Graham Loomis are the primary lawyers representing the case. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FINRA) has been helpful to the SEC throughout its investigation.
What aspects of revolutionary concepts are you aware of?
During the process of gaining the exclusive licensee Eyetalk 365 LLC for Revolutionary Concepts Inc.’s (REVO) unique mobile video communication and security alarm technology, Solomon Ali, President and Director of REVO, provided strategic assistance to the company.
Axis, CPI, Sky Bell, and RING (which is owned by Amazon) are just some of the companies that have licensed Eyetalk 365’s technology. Eyetalk 365 is the exclusive licensee of the technology.
Two-way audio and video communication is used in the smart homes of today. This approach is triggered by motion sensors, which then transmit the signal to a smart device such as a smartphone, computer, panel, iPad, or any other smart device. The technology has been patented and is used in today’s smart homes.
How did Solomon RC Ali feel about this lawsuit?
Solomon RC Ali, chairman of Revolutionary Concepts Inc. (REVO) and a successful entrepreneur, intended to file a $1.3 billion lawsuit against the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for libel, civil rights violations, and discrimination based on his race. According to him, his enterprises lost tens of millions of dollars in income because of the SEC’s activities.
A civil complaint (lawsuit) was filed by the SEC in April 2018 accusing Solomon RC Ali and REVO of violating many federal securities laws, as previously stated.
Solomon RC Ali denies the allegations made in the lawsuit, stating that they are false, misleading, and unfounded. Solomon RC Ali asserts that the SEC’s allegations against him are baseless and devoid of substance and that the agency has failed to provide any proof to support these assertions.
Despite the SEC’s offer to settle the matter with certain concealed conditions, Ali said that he chose to protect his honor, standing, and reputation instead. He decided to do this by asserting his rights under the United States Constitution, bringing his case to trial, and ultimately settling it via the legal system.
The SEC, Ali claims, has harassed him, accused him of racism, and used ambush investigative methods, undue pressure, and harassment, all in violation of his civil and constitutional rights.
As a result of systemic racism, African Americans in the United States continue to be denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes acts of physical assault committed by racist police officers and other racists who are embedded in various organizations and government bodies.
Solomon RC Ali, a renowned novelist and regular media participant, claims that the African-American community must amass wealth to preserve its power in the US. He believed that the inability of African Americans to attain economic success was a direct result of systematic racism, which in turn led to police brutality.
In his lawsuit, Solomon RC Ali said that the SEC is involved in a racial “witch hunt,” and that the agency was the one who brought the civil suit and partially moved for summary judgment.
In an incorrect effort to increase the number of cases prosecuted, it included several additional false assertions, fraudulent claims, errors, and contested facts to unjustly accuse and slander him and violate his civil and constitutional rights. Institutional racism is the only word that can describe this.
Solomon RC Ali believed the SEC had approached him with an aggressive and racially biased attitude in the early phases of this action.
He came to this conclusion after incurring enormous legal fees in his defense against a civil case filed by the SEC. The other two defendants in the SEC’s complaint also wanted to settle because of the huge financial burden. A Tolling Agreement was a component of the settlement that needed Solomon RC Ali’s approval.
This agreement essentially allowed the SEC extra time to sue him as it extended the five-year limitation period in this case. For Solomon RC Ali, signing the deal seemed like giving in to pressure since he was left with no other option.
All defendants were informed by the SEC that the Tolling Agreement had to be signed by all parties involved. The parties agreed that the case would go to trial if any party declined to sign, as the SEC would not engage in settlement talks with any of them.
In addition to his strong opposition to carrying out the Tolling Agreement, Solomon RC Ali flat-out refused to engage in any negotiations with the other defendants. He said that he was subjected to intense coercion, threats, and intimidation by the SEC when he was signing the contract.
Further, the affidavits or declarations submitted by Ali’s two co-defendants to the U.S. District Court in Atlanta proved that Solomon RC Ali was forced to sign the Tolling Agreement without his will, bolstering his accusations.
Conclusion
A huge legal dispute has engulfed Solomon RC Ali, whose real name is Richard M. Carter, over allegations of fraud leveled by the SEC. The SEC has accused Ali of using misleading tactics to trick investors. Ali portrays himself as an accomplished businessman and the creator of the Solomon RC Ali Corporation.
Ali and his collaborators, including Rainco Industries, Inc., Nicole C. Singletary, and Earnest H. (Woody) DeLong, Jr., are accused by the SEC of breaching federal securities laws via hidden transactions and misleading public statements in a federal court lawsuit. Another company, UBRG, or Universal Bioenergy, Inc., is also involved.
The other defendants, including Solomon RC Ali, settled with the SEC without admitting guilt. As part of the settlement, they accepted long-term injunctions to stop further infractions and paid $25,000 each in civil penalties. Limitations on serving as a director or officer of a company and prohibitions on dealing in penny stocks were also included in these agreements.
In response to the SEC’s actions, Ali said that the agency had engaged in racial discrimination and had violated his constitutional rights. He sued the SEC for $1.3 billion, claiming their probe was prejudiced against him because of his race and that it damaged his image and finances.
Settlements show that Ali’s business tactics were a major problem, even if he denies the accusations and claims systemic racism impacted the SEC’s actions. This example illustrates the difficulty in upholding securities laws and safeguarding investors, as it contrasts his assertions of economic success with the fact that he is subject to legal and ethical scrutiny.
