World Moto, Inc. FARE (last ticker on record)
CIK 1492151Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- 95% wipeout
- Restatement
- Went dark (not a red flag)
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 2
- Newest began Nov 2014
- Largest fall in its shares
- 99%
- Nov 2012 to Mar 2016
- Law firms
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- SEC action against a company that stopped filingSEC order (opens in a new tab)
- SEC action against a company that stopped filingSEC order (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Shares down 95% from their high
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Greenberg TraurigFirst linked May 2014 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,223 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.01× · Went dark 1.03× · 95% wipeout 1.10×
- The Loev Law Firm, PCFirst linked Jun 2010 · Named in SEC correspondence · 91 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.27× · Went dark 1.16× · 95% wipeout 1.07×
- Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLPFirst linked Jun 2014 · Text search only · 55 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.59× · Went dark 1.50× · 95% wipeout 1.41×
- Sichenzia Ross Ference LLPFirst linked Jun 2014 · Text search only · 1,005 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.27× · Went dark 1.62× · 95% wipeout 1.26×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenberg Traurig | May 2014 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,223 | 1.01 | 1.03 | 1.10 |
| The Loev Law Firm, PC | Jun 2010 | Named in SEC correspondence | 91 | 1.27 | 1.16 | 1.07 |
| Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP | Jun 2014 | Text search only | 55 | 0.59 | 1.50 | 1.41 |
| Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP | Jun 2014 | Text search only | 1,005 | 1.27 | 1.62 | 1.26 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Mark C. LeeGreenberg TraurigFirst linked May 2014 · Named in SEC correspondence · 44 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.70× · Went dark 3.20× · 95% wipeout 1.75×
- Sung KimGreenberg TraurigFirst linked May 2014 · Named in a filing · 6 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.24× · Went dark 6.24× · 95% wipeout 1.34×
- David M. LoevThe Loev Law Firm, PCFirst linked Jun 2010 · Named in SEC correspondence · 83 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.35× · Went dark 1.43× · 95% wipeout 1.12×
- John S. GilliesThe Loev Law Firm, PCFirst linked Jun 2010 · Named in SEC correspondence · 63 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.80× · Went dark 1.66× · 95% wipeout 1.41×
- Andrew D. HuddersGolenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLPFirst linked Jun 2014 · Text search only · 53 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.70× · Went dark 1.65× · 95% wipeout 1.32×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark C. LeeGreenberg Traurig | May 2014 | Named in SEC correspondence | 44 | 0.70 | 3.20 | 1.75 |
| Sung KimGreenberg Traurig | May 2014 | Named in a filing | 6 | 1.24 | 6.24 | 1.34 |
| David M. LoevThe Loev Law Firm, PC | Jun 2010 | Named in SEC correspondence | 83 | 1.35 | 1.43 | 1.12 |
| John S. GilliesThe Loev Law Firm, PC | Jun 2010 | Named in SEC correspondence | 63 | 0.80 | 1.66 | 1.41 |
| Andrew D. HuddersGolenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP | Jun 2014 | Text search only | 53 | 0.70 | 1.65 | 1.32 |