Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The stocks were restricted and if part of the restrictions were the company reaching earnings per share goals or financial targets, then they would not be in the float. In any event they could not be sold back into the market until after Gendarme registered them with the SEC anyways.
Wow! Today at 8AM Ask is saying $10.00 a share!!
I totally agree. I'm not selling at these prices either.
What brokers right now allow you to buy more shares? The last I heard, Scottrade won't trade it (they usually use NITE). Zecco will trade it, but they may add an additional fee from Penson (their clearing firm) up to $700 per transaction.
NITE was asking $5.01 per share!
You seem to have a lot of questions about RCCH, so let me just briefly, as I don't have much time, bring you up to speed on some of the current situations of RCCH, but let me first say happy 1 month anniversary of joining IHub, hypebuster!
The most recent focus has been on the lawsuit against Gendarme Capital Corporation, Ian Lamphere, Ezat Rahimi, and Cassandra Armento. RCCH is just 1 of at least 12 companies that are listed as VICTIMS of this court case. Gendarme allegedly manipulated the system in order to SCAM RCCH and these other companies. View the SEC complaint to get the full details. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21798.pdf
Some have expressed concern that Gene Newton (CEO) even attempted to get money in order to grow the business by selling shares (a common business practice) to Gendarme.
Some have expressed concern that Gene Newton has not made public PRs in a long time.
Some say that information is being withheld until such a time that RCCH can get out of the "naked short selling cellar boxing" stage.
Some say RCCH has no business.
Some say RCCH has dozens of businesses.
I have invested a small amount based on my own DD. You should also make your own decisions based on your own DD.
Best of luck to you!
Could you please post a link to the restrictions on the stock? How do you know they would be unrestricted in a year? Aren't there different restrictions that can be placed on stock such as the company reaching earnings per share goals or financial targets?
How could you know that those shares would hit the market in a year? Please provide a link.
The opinion letters falsely claimed that Gendarme was not an “underwriter,” and thus did not intend to distribute the shares.
I agree with you and know that as it is common practice to do so in order to get funds to grow a business.
Rule 504 of Regulation D of the Securities Act exempts from registration certain limited offerings and sales of securities that do not exceed $1,000,000. But a person who has purchased shares from an issuing company with a view to distributing the securities is an “underwriter” under the Securities Act, and any public resales in the short term (within one year for shares of non-reporting issuers) by that purchaser are not exempt from registration.
...
24.
From early 2008 to at least May 2010, Gendarme bought stock from at least 12 different issuing companies and distributed more than 15 billion shares in the public markets. None of the transactions was registered with the Commission. The transactions are summarized below....
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21798.pdf
You can't prejudge Gendarme. They believe that they had the right to sell the stock.
I agree that it hurt shareholders and RCCH when Gendarme illegally sold shares that were not for resale.
Sadly_RCCH_is_a_VICTIM_in_this_CRIMINAL_CASE_against_GENDARME
I agree with you... It is terrible that RCCH got victimized
Someone will be buying my shares before yours then at .49 x 6 million shares = $294,000.00
I believe you are right.
Rule 13d-1 of the Exchange Act46 requires any person who becomes a beneficial owner of more than five percent of a class of equity security47 to file a statement containing the information required by either Schedule 13D or Schedule 13G.48 Under Exchange Act Rule 13d-3(a),49 a person is deemed to be the beneficial owner of a security, for purposes of Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Exchange Act,50 if that person has or shares voting and/or investment power with respect to the security. The Rule deems a person to be the beneficial owner of a security if that person has the right to acquire beneficial ownership of the security within 60 days, including, but not limited to, a right to acquire it through exercise of an option, warrant, right or through the conversion of another security.51 Any person who acquires the right to acquire a security in this manner with the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer of the security is immediately deemed to be the beneficial owner of the security upon acquisition of the right to acquire the security, regardless of when the right is exercisable.52
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/post_reply.aspx?message_id=73573721
Gene could not have known if Gendarme would violate the 5% threshold rules in the future. Gendarme had at least 10 days to inform the SEC of the acquirement of those shares.
Its obvious that Gene must have known that Gendarme was violating the 5% threshold rules. Gene sold them 2.1+ BILLION shares.
jmo
Gendarme did not acquire those shares illegally. Gendarme sold them illegally.
Gene had a DUTY as CEO to ensure that those buying shares from him were not doing so Illegally.
Gene KNEW that Gendarme was violating the 5% threshold limits and sold them the shares.
So you are saying that it is Gene Newton's responsibility to make sure that others follow the law? Get real!
This is what happened to RCCH:
The warrant agreements represented to issuers, among other things, that Gendarme was purchasing shares for investment purposes only – a term commonly understood to mean not for the purpose of resale. Armento expected Gendarme to exercise the warrants and purchase the shares, but drafted the warrant agreements without determining what Gendarme intended to do with the shares it would purchase.
28.
From at least early 2008 to at least mid-2010, Armento drafted more than 50 opinion letters for Gendarme. In the letters, Armento opined to transfer agents that Gendarme had acquired the shares in transactions exempt from registration under Rule 504 of the Securities Act and share certificates could be issued to Gendarme without a restrictive legend.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21798.pdf
Wouldn't Gendarme be required to file 5% and not RCCH if the shares had voting and/or investment power?
Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements: Exchange Act Regulation 13D45
Rule 13d-1 of the Exchange Act46 requires any person who becomes a beneficial owner of more than five percent of a class of equity security47 to file a statement containing the information required by either Schedule 13D or Schedule 13G.48 Under Exchange Act Rule 13d-3(a),49 a person is deemed to be the beneficial owner of a security, for purposes of Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Exchange Act,50 if that person has or shares voting and/or investment power with respect to the security. The Rule deems a person to be the beneficial owner of a security if that person has the right to acquire beneficial ownership of the security within 60 days, including, but not limited to, a right to acquire it through exercise of an option, warrant, right or through the conversion of another security.51 Any person who acquires the right to acquire a security in this manner with the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer of the security is immediately deemed to be the beneficial owner of the security upon acquisition of the right to acquire the security, regardless of when the right is exercisable.52
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8107.htm
RCCH not required to file 5% rule
The way I read it is that if the shares were restricted and had no voting rights, then RCCH would not be in violation of the 5% rule.
Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements: Exchange Act Regulation 13D45
Rule 13d-1 of the Exchange Act46 requires any person who becomes a beneficial owner of more than five percent of a class of equity security47 to file a statement containing the information required by either Schedule 13D or Schedule 13G.48 Under Exchange Act Rule 13d-3(a),49 a person is deemed to be the beneficial owner of a security, for purposes of Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Exchange Act,50 if that person has or shares voting and/or investment power with respect to the security. The Rule deems a person to be the beneficial owner of a security if that person has the right to acquire beneficial ownership of the security within 60 days, including, but not limited to, a right to acquire it through exercise of an option, warrant, right or through the conversion of another security.51 Any person who acquires the right to acquire a security in this manner with the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer of the security is immediately deemed to be the beneficial owner of the security upon acquisition of the right to acquire the security, regardless of when the right is exercisable.52
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8107.htm
Known Non-DTC Eligible List
RCCH used to be listed on this list. https://www.zecco.com/forms/known-non-dtc-eligible-list/downloadform.aspx
Is RCCH eligible again?
I agree. Gene has better things to do with his time than bother with message boards. I know I do. Unlike Gene, I read all posts. It does have it's entertainment value.
I'm waiting for this Gendarme issue to be wrapped up. I think that this has to be wrapped up before the DTC chill on RCCH will be lifted.
I at this point would not invest more than what I consider a minimal investment into RCCH (what minimal investment means to you depends on your own portfolio) because there is no real verifiable support in either direction as to what is actually happening behind he scenes.
I do suggest to those that are new to RCCH to keep an eye on things to come with RCCH! If RCCH was in any wrong doing with the Gendarme scandal the SEC would have been all over them by now. The SEC is not, just Gendarme.
The way I see events unfolding with RCCH is that first, the Gendarme issue is resolved. Then RCCH finally becomes current with financial filings (Bring on the statements haters... ZERO Business? Prove it! Bring on the statements lovers... 50+ companies? Prove it! It can't be proven either way). I, personally, do think that there is business going on behind the scenes (not saying 50+ companies) that won't get released until the Gendarme issue is resolved and RCCH becomes current with their filings. I am just VERY happy that Gendarme is finally going to trial!
What are your thoughts? Anyone?
Not everything is listed as eligible. Just try SPNGQ for example. I assume they have a list of non-eligible stocks and if what you entered doesn't match any they just say it is eligible, but it doesn't seem like they are even close to having a current list of non-eligible stocks, so I wouldn't trust that list either.
I agree with you that RCCH will come in!
I'll tell you at least one other thing... and probably more that you already know...
why would people post my business
How many have "No Opinion" or are "On the Fence"? Is that what the "No Answer" is for?
See! Some of my predictions come true! LOL, or in the words of others "lolol"! Which sounds redundant to me. Why would you laugh out loud out loud?
I agree something is going on, more lawsuits against newton, court sent the $100 public defender fee for collection and newton car has been repo'd
I will get negative, half truth replies to this post
I agree with Jimthorpe that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes concerning RCCH. I have also stated before that I think Gene Newton is trying to keep most of the info hidden until a certain point where he releases everything at once and the price skyrockets like mad. (http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68661555). So, some have asked
"For What Purpose?"
"What you are saying makes ZERO Sense!"
"WHEN DOES THE HAMMER DROP?"
Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing!
Nitwit! Good to see you man! You haven't posted here in such a long time! What has brought you by? What are your thoughts on RCCH?
why do you think RCCH is still under a DTC chill/lock
My opinion is that it is still under a chill/lock until the Gendarme case is settled, but who knows? I believe Gendarme will be going down! In this document http://www.scribd.com/doc/55359703/RCCH-Gendarme
B. Armento’s False Legal Opinions
When shares are sold in an offering that purports to be exempt from registration (such as anoffering under Rule 504) the shares may contain a restrictive legend, which may restrict the holder’s ability to resell them.
Id.
¶ 15.In order to issue such shares without a restrictive legend, a company’s transfer agent (who administers the company’s securities) may require an attorney’s opinion explaining why it would be legal for the agent to issue the shares without such a legend.
Id.
Armento is an attorney who has represented Gendarme in its acquisition of stock in many purported Rule 504 offerings.
Id.
¶¶ 11, 28.From at least early 2008 to at least mid-2010, Armento drafted more than 50 opinion letters for Gendarme. In the letters, Armento opined to transfer agents that Gendarme had acquired shares in transactions exempt from registration under Rule 504 and that share certificates could be issued to Gendarme without a restrictive legend.
Id.
¶ 28. Although Armento made no inquiry into whether Gendarme intended to hold the stock, the opinion letters falsely represented that Gendarme was not acting as an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act --
i.e.
, that Gendarme did not intend to quickly resell the shares to the public.
Id.
¶¶ 28-29.Armento sent the opinion letters to the issuing companies’ stock transfer agents, which relied on the opinion letters in issuing share certificates without restrictive legends to Gendarme
Just goes to show you how RCCH really got screwed! And people post "deep discounted shares".... Give me a break! The company attempted to get some funds, shares were not to be sold, but Gendarme illegally sold those shares.
I posted that stuff 2 weeks ago about powerhouse
Listed under "Definitions"
“PowerHouse” PowerHouse Energy, Inc., a corporation registered in
California, USA under number C3190913
http://www.powerhouseenergy.net/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=936&EID=58147837
So why does it say that "PowerHouse" listed in this document refers to a corporation registered in California? Is this RCCH's PowerHouse? Why does the England PowerHouse website http://www.powerhouseenergy.net refer to the company in california? Because that is where the company started. "PowerHouse was originally founded in 2002 and is based in California, with representative offices in London and New York." http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/article/idUS57575+01-Apr-2011+RNS20110401?irpc=932 (keep in mind London, England is one of the offices listed on the RCCH contact us page).
WHAT?!
The one in the UK is a public company in its own right
Correct!
BidTimes acquired PowerHouse Energy Inc.
PowerHouse Energy Inc. and Power House Energy Solutions Inc. are two entirely different companies.
Correct! PowerHouse Energy Inc is a public company trading on AIM following a capital reorganization. Trading as of 29 June 2011 under the new ISIN GB00B4WQVY43. This is probably the company RCCH refers to here "RCC Holdings, Corp. (Pink Sheets: RCCH) Acquires Power House Energy Solutions, Inc. (http://rccholdings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97:rcc-holdings-corp-pink-sheets-rcch-acquires-power-house-energy-solutions-inc&catid=1:news&Itemid=8)"
This news was released by RCCH on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 08:06
jmo
I have been following RCCH pretty closely and have found, what I think, are some pretty interesting details and a lot of circumstantial data. Unfortunately I have not gotten in contact with Mr. Newton, but I think the CEO, Gene Newton, is trying to keep most of the info hidden until a certain point where he releases everything at once and the price skyrockets like mad.
The latest update that was noticed on the RCCH website is the update of their contact page. I believe they used to have 1 address for their location on the contact page. The new page shows many more, including international locations! http://rccholdings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=5.
Some of the other info I have seen is "Bidtimes PLC - Proposed acquisition of PowerHouse Energy, Inc." and "PowerHouse was originally founded in 2002 and is based in California, with representative offices in London and New York." http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/article/idUS57575+01-Apr-2011+RNS20110401?irpc=932 (keep in mind London, England is one of the offices listed on the RCCH contact us page).
Next "Bidtimes plc, to be renamed PowerHouse Energy Group plc" http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8643. That link contains the old website of http://www.bidtimes.com which says "The Company (Bidtimes) confirms that the current line of stock, with ISIN GB0007773046, has ceased trading as of 6.00 p.m. on 28 June 2011 and the Enlarged Group, trading under the new name PowerHouse Energy Group plc and with a new line of stock (ISIN GB00B4WQVY43), following a capital reorganisation, has been admitted to trading on AIM on 29 June 2011. Please visit www.powerhouseenergy.net for information on PowerHouse Energy Group plc"
It just so happens that on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 08:06 RCCH releases this news "RCCC Holdings, Corp. (Pink Sheets: RCCH) Acquires Power House Energy Solutions, Inc." (http://rccholdings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97:rcc-holdings-corp-pink-sheets-rcch-acquires-power-house-energy-solutions-inc&catid=1:news&Itemid=8).
Is this just a coincidence that on the same day as RCCH releases the news that it Acquires Power House Energy Solutions, Inc. is the same day that PowerHouse Energy Group plc starts trading under a new ISIN? I don't think so. Could it be that this is the Power House RCCH refers to? I think it is!
Monday, 17 October 2011 09:55 RCC Holdings Corp. (Pink Sheets: RCCH) Announces Success Green International Energy Platform (Affordable Water – Power - Housing) (http://rccholdings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:rcc-holdings-corp-pink-sheets-rcch-announces-success-green-international-energy-platform-affordable-water--power-housing&catid=1:news&Itemid=8), which states "Our relationship with the Ex-Im Bank just quadrupled by committing to provide our sole subsidiary energy resources to those Nations and communities that are in dire straits for clean water and clean efficient renewable power." This just so happens to be released 2 days before Ex-Im bank releases on October 19, 2011 "U.S. Ex-Im Bank, Nigerian Ministry of Power Sign Agreement for up to $1.5 Billion to Increase Power Output in Nigeria" http://www.exim.gov/pressrelease.cfm/1CE1DB77-B747-FE74-FD4964734030533B/2wq n (keep in mind Gabon, Africa is one of the offices listed on the RCCH contact us page (not that you need an office in Africa to do business with Ex-Im bank and Nigeria)).
If "Our relationship with the Ex-Im Bank just quadrupled" what was the original number that got quadrupled? Well, on http://powerhouse-development.blogspot.com/ John Lux posts "we have obtained a $115,000,000 dollar commitment from The US ExIm Bank for 3.74% currently for 18 years." For those of you who don't know the relationship between Gene Newton (RCCH) and John Lux http://short-stoppers.com/index.php?option=com_contact&view=category&catid=2&Itemid=6 (and I think it is more involved than that). So if the original number was $115,000,000, then quadrupled would be $460,000,000!
If there is a $460,000,000 commitment then why can't we find RCCH or one of it's subs on http://www.exim.gov/congmap/? First, all we know is that there is a commitment, not necessarily that the funds have been disbursed. Secondly, all of the companies listed there have "Total Export Sales Supported" and who knows how long it takes to compile that data and update it on the site?
This is just some of the recent DD that I have come across and there is plenty more if you just keep digging!
Thanks to the other posters that have posted links to some of this information, which I used to keep digging!
JMO
Thanks Jim! You just removed a lot of my fear and doubt concerning RCCH. How do you say it? Holden the Golden!
Looking at the dates and what had been released is what got me thinking! RCCH released their news before Ex-Im did, so we know Gene didn't just read the news off the Ex-Im site.
Is RCCH and it's subs doing business behind the scenes contrary to what others have posted? I bet they are! Go RCCH!
RCCH said on Monday, 17 October 2011 “Our relationship with the Ex-Im Bank just quadrupled by committing to provide our sole subsidiary energy resources to those Nations and communities that are in dire straits for clean water and clean efficient renewable power."
hmmmm
32,143,376 @ .0002
I'm seeing ask back at .0002...