Posted by unregistered user at 1/10/08 4:30 p.m.

So Jain escaped jail the first time due to lax SEC enforcement and luck, and now is going to try his luck again? How short are investors memories?

Posted by thatsucks at 1/10/08 7:09 p.m.

Who in thier right mind would invest in NAVEEN JAIN again?!?!?!

How stupid are people?

Kiss your $$ goodbye!

Posted by unregistered user at 1/10/08 9:20 p.m.

Way to miss facts underneath your nose, John. On the cap table on page 102, it says "Atul Jain as Trustee of Knight and Orchid Irrevocable Trusts " with an additional 24.5% of the stock of Intelius. Who do you think owns that.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/10/08 10:56 p.m.

If Naveen manages to pull this off, all I can say is Web 2.0 BUBBLE COMPLETED. Sell every interent stock ASAP.

I can't believe any reputable I-bank would run this deal.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/11/08 8:32 a.m.

How on earth did this crook get away with it the first time? And now he is trying again?

You know the old saying - a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.

I cannot believe with all the bad press Jain got in this town, including a multi-part investigation in the Times which was absolutely damning, he can even raise money let alone be anywhere within range of an IPO.

Posted by John Cook at 1/11/08 9:06 a.m.

Thanks for pointing out that Atul Jain and the trust owns about a quarter of the company. I did see that in the filing.

Atul is Naveen's brother.

It does provide more evidence that the company is closely held by managers and those close to Naveen Jain --something I addressed in the post.

Is there something else I am missing other than the family connection?

I realize that Atul was tied into some of the activities at InfoSpace highlighted in the Times investigation.

Let me know if there is something more there. Thanks.

John Cook

Posted by unregistered user at 1/11/08 9:33 a.m.

A lot has changed since the dot-bomb, including regulations, processes and checks and balances that better protect investors and ensure more transparency in business.

I-banks care about a profitable, stable business with a game plan to succeed now, tomorrow, and far in the future. These are reputable banks. Surely you don't think they've not done their due diligence?

Posted by unregistered user at 1/11/08 10:07 a.m.

Most of you are clueless on the way up and clueless on the way down. First John, Atul Jain is only the Trustee; it doesn't mean that Atul Jain necessarily owns any of the shares in the trust. In fact, I doubt it. The 24.5% is probably a way to indirectly own the shares without people getting all up in his grille.

Second, do you see how profitable the business is. Most of you are chearleading companies that raise gobs of money. Here is a company that has paid federal taxes on profits since its second year in existence. It generated over $4 million in its first year of existence. He knows how to start companies and own a lot of it at IPO. There is only one way to do it. Invest in yourself, ramp up revenues out the gate, get it to profitability fast. No dilution, no nonsense.

On thing that is really funny is that the filing states that Naveen Jain personally put $3 million to $4 million each year on his credit card to finance marketing, which was then reimbursed by the company. So there you go. Intelius was bootstrapped with credit cards.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/11/08 10:12 a.m.

also, most of you whiners and complainers don't actually read filings, only message boards.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/11/08 10:54 a.m.

Ahhh, nice to see all the Jain faithful start the pumping pre-IPO!!!

"I-banks care about a profitable, stable business with a game plan to succeed now, tomorrow, and far in the future." ARE YOU CRAZY???

They care about getting their fees, PERIOD, they don't give a rats @$! about what the company does after the IPO

Posted by John Cook at 1/11/08 11:14 a.m.

I did not see the tidbit about Naveen Jain financing the marketing of Intelius on credit cards. Thanks for pointing that out.

It is interesting to see a company that has been built with little outside investment. That's why I pointed it out in the post.

Reminds me a bit of Seattle-based Marchex, which at the time of its IPO filing had 77.5 percent of the shares in the hands of officers and directors. Through the Class A shares the founding officers of Marchex also controled 98 percent of the voting stock.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Marchex was founded by the Go2Net team, which sold out to InfoSpace back in the dot com boom?

Both Marchex's Russell Horowitz and Intelius' Naveen Jain built companies without venture dollars. (In fact, Jain has been openly hostile in his criticism of VCs.)

Interestingly, Seattle biotech Omeros -- which filed to go public this week -- only lists one venture capital firm with a stake of more than 5 percent. (Arch owns 5.2 percent.) Omeros has raised large amounts of capital from VCs ($63 million last year), which is common for biotech upstarts.

Still, Chief Executive Gregory Demopulos has somehow retained the largest stake in the company at 15 percent. It is worth noting that many of the VCs got involved in the company after Omeros bought Nura.

Sorry for the long comment. But this is a fascinating subject on whether you can guide a company to IPO without VC dollars.

Of course, there are examples of companies that have raised VC before heading out for an IPO: Isilon, Trubion, Norhtstar Neuroscience, etc.

John Cook

Posted by unregistered user at 1/12/08 10:53 a.m.

I'm sure many local entrepeneurs would love to fund their companies without VC help as well.

Of course, it's a lot easier if you managed to line your pockets thanks to a previous overhyped IPO and subsequent shenanigans, and only got a slap on the wrist for your role.

What people are upset about is that Jain never got the sort of punishment handed out to Enron or Tyco but instead got off relatively scott free, and to make matters worse he is doing it again.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/14/08 11:31 a.m.

Agree with previous comments that Jain got away scot-free the first time, and now pulling the same stunt again.

Why would anyone back this guy a second time?? Looks to me like another... C-ONAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 1/14/08 10:48 p.m.

One thing that I am curious about is they say they pull data from public records. How are they genreating that much revenue on that? Where are the dollars coming from?

Posted by unregistered user at 1/19/08 11:20 a.m.

Wow, a bunch of people, with no money to invest of their own, think the rest of us are crazy to invest in Jain again. Well, he made me money the first time, and I believe he will again. This isn't a sporting event where you root for teams that you like - it is a dispassionate investment strategy, and it is why those of us without egos have money, and the rest of you don't.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/20/08 9:50 p.m.

Yeah, it doesn't matter if the CEO is a crook or not as long as you make your money. I suppose you have no problem with Lay, Skilling, Kozwalski, et al, as long as you cashed out before the s#$* hit the fan at Enron and Tyco.

I almost forgot, I do have money to invest as well.

You would be better off trying to pump this anywhere but Seattle ;)

Posted by unregistered user at 3/15/08 11:21 a.m.

i dont get this

Posted by unregistered user at 4/8/08 1:53 p.m.

I'm sick of investors getting screwed over. Naveen Jain is a crook and all investors should know about his shady past before investing anything with him. This sounds like another Dot Con Job, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/business/infospace/.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/7/08 2:55 a.m.

Quote-- One thing that I am curious about is they say they pull data from public records. How are they genreating that much revenue on that? Where are the dollars coming from? --

good question - large part of their data comes from private sources (credit card application, magazine subscription, etc). They started sneaking in Canadian information as well. And the damage it can do to privacy of not just American people, but now InteliUS is extending its tenticles to Canada and god knows wherre, is just amazing.

I think I am lucky that I don't have to make money by violating other people's life like InteliUS.