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.
Please show me where I stated Megas was dirty.
All I have been saying is that all options need to be on the table before I donate, and from the garbage and fabrications of what I am saying, it is becoming clear to me that the donation fund is purely to defend Megas.
Until it is stipulated that all options are to be considered by any defense, I will not donate. It is not in the best interest of the real or fake shareholders.
Megas as fiduciary responsibility. If you want to call not filing or failing to report a crime 'dirty', then that is your words not mine. I call it not fulfilling fiduciary responsibility. This is what should be looked at by any court system.
Point I am making is Megas does have fiduciary responsibility and the SEC is asking him to comply with that requirement to begin trading. Yes, again, but apparently things have changed with share structure and SEC is wanting it in filing so they can validate and verify.
I have stated this before, just because a person is not charged with a crime does not mean they are not guilty. I have not read anything that stated Megas was innocent.
If you disagree, please show me.
Megas didn't attend high school in the U.S., so he is not familiar with the way the U.S. operates. Yes DTCC, SEC, and brokers have not performed perfectly, but this could have been handled in the court of law or settled provided the BCIT Board of Directors would have handled the Pino/Pammy issue with fiduciary responsibility. I guess this is hindsight at this time and it doesn't matter how well educated and wealthy one is.
Megas handled the BCIT situation his way and five years later BCIT is still not trading.
realwood:
Don't you know one of Megas's spokespersons Arkait has stated that Megas has no responsibility for the fake shareholders. It is all about Megas. Since we are fake shareholders that were created by the market, he does not need to account for the share structure, even though he has fiduciary responsibility for BCIT. Maybe Arkait, OP, Molson and the rest of the Megasites can be appointed by Megas on the BCIT Board of Directors. This may be a good payoff for their loyalty.
Oh, that's right, BCIT is not trading nor has revenue. But it is going to be great! It may take another five years to get it going.
What really makes one sick is when people refuse to use common sense and end up talking like fools to the point it becomes comical
Don't have to comment on the $50,000. That is all a part of filing, which Megas in his last filings did not include. Hmmmm.
You and Molson make me laugh. This is better than Saturday Night Live. The difference here is this is real life and real rules are made and broken. Real people have been financially hurt. Now it appears obvious that DTCC violated rules and that given Megas would have operated with fiduciary responsibility when he discovered the identity theft of BCIT, this should have been a cake walk and attorneys would be lined up trying to help.
Five years later that has not happened. Hmmm. Wonder why?
The key to this whole mess is "fiduciary responsibility" and his duties were "not" fulfilled as to what was in the best interest of the company. Megas had a conflict of interest(you did read the post about conflict of interest-post# 129340- didn't you?) regarding an outside entity of the company when he negotiated a deal with Pino when a crime was committed. All this is IMO.
You only make your arguments look more foolish by refusing to look at Megas not operating with the best interest of the company, where the conflict appeared to be in the best interest of Megas. Thus, the conflict of interest because Megas operated in his personal best interest and not BCIT's, the company.
Again, you guys are a riot. Please, bring on some more funny stuff. I am about to bust a gut with laughter.
Obviously you have failed to read any of my posts or understand them. Otherwise you would not be asking me this question. Once you go back and read my posts, then maybe you may want to retract the question.
Fiduciary responsibility:
(please note specifically "Conflict of Interest" below as it may apply to Megas and Pino/Pammy)
A person who occupies a position of such power and confidence with regard to the property of another that the law requires him to act solely in the interest of the person whom he represents. (source: m-w.com)
The president and the elected board of directors are all fiduciaries to your chapter membership.
The appointed board members are the responsibility of the elected members.
Translation: Responsibility
1. Legal duty
Principal/agent of your chapter
Trust and allegiance of your members
Heightened standard of accountability
2. Obligation to act in the best interests of the organization.
3. Act openly, fairly, and in good faith.
Four(4) Duties of responsibility:
-Duty of care
-Duty of loyalty
-Duty of obedience
-Duty to preserve organization’s assets
Conflicts of Interest:
-A conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
-Interest with outside persons or entities which might affect or might reasonably be thought by others to affect the judgment or conduct of a director
2late:
You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding "fiduciary responsibility". This is usually defined thru the Board of Directors activities. If Megas is one of the Board of Directors, then the following is a definition found on a US Business Law site. There are other sites if you want to take the time to google and find this out. It has only been five years which tells me you are either a very busy person and do not have the time, or you really do not care about discovering what the duties are of Board of Directors. If the latter is the case, then you have not done due diligence to really understand the issues surrounding BCIT, IMO.
Duties of a Board of Directors
The individuals who are selected to be on the board of directors of a corporation have overall responsibility for the activities of the corporation. The board acts on behalf of the shareholders to make overall policy decisions and provide oversight. A corporate board has great power and also great responsibility. Specific duties of the board of directors and of individual board members, committees, and officers are set by the corporate bylaws.
Here are the primary duties of a corporate board:
Fiduciary responsibility
Corporate board members have a fiduciary responsibility to care for the finances and legal requirements of the corporation. They must act in good faith and with a reasonable degree of care, and they must not have any conflicts of interest. That is, the interests of the company must take precedence over personal interests of individual board members.
Mission and Vision
Board members are responsible for setting the mission of the company and assuring that all actions are related to and adhere to that mission. The board can change the mission, but only after careful deliberation.
Oversight
Corporate boards of directors do not participate in day-to-day decision-making; instead, they set overall policy, based on the corporate mission and vision, and they exercise an oversight function, reviewing the actions of corporate officers and executives.
Annual Meeting
At the annual meeting of the corporation, the board announces the annual dividend, oversees election of corporate board members, elects or appoints officers and key executives, and amends the bylaws, if necessary.
Megas is guilty of not filing as he stated he would in a PR on October 6, 2009. Therefore no share structure of BCIT is available for trading to resume. Once filed in 1985 as you stated, he needed to stay current.
All this is true and I stated so. But this does not exempt Megas from the legal aspect of running a company and that is "fiduciary responsibility"
I do not disagree with DTCC and brokers including SEC being at fault, but no matter how much you try to persuade those who do not agree, it will never change the "fact" that Megas has fiduciary responsibility for BCIT. This "fact" will never change and how he handled the Pino fiasco was as much lack of Megas' fiduciary responsibility as the DTCC. Yes DTCC error in allowing fraud, but Megas did not act with fiduciary responsibility in reporting the identity theft to the proper authorities in a timely manner. Therefore, to exclude Megas IMO is only applying selective law.
IMO, this is incorrect application of the fiduciary responsibility. In other words, because all were at fault with application of improperly applying fiduciary responsibility, all are to blame. Who did what first is not important here. If Megas would have reported identity theft to proper authorities immediately upon discovery, Megas IMO should not be implicated because he would have acted with fiduciary responsibility. So any legal action excluding Megas IMO will not succeed, because other parties will be able to raise sufficient doubt of responsibility in any case.
Easy solution, Megas has to file.
PS. I have no obvious agenda but to hold all parties accountable that have fiduciary responsibility and resulted in the BCIT trading fiasco and disenfranchised real and fake shareholders. It is obvious the Megasites on this board do not agree with this and therefore exposes their obvious agenda. Blame everyone but Megas.
Your response is exactly why Megas needs to file. If he has nothing to hide, then Megas will be fine. However, to allow BCIT to trade without reporting a share structure, IMO, will create more issues.
Megas was willing to cover them and then reverse split wasn't he? If what you say is true, then why would Megas do that? This becomes a valid question that noone on this board seems eager to answer, not even Megas. Hmmmm.
This is correct as I have discussed with ETrade how this was possible as they executed one of the trades on BCIT that day. They have not answered my question yet.
Arkait has already stated Megas does not have any obligation to the fake shareholders, even though it was stated here that Megas covered all shares. If that is true, then Megas has to file to establish the share structure of BCIT before it is allowed to trade. Seems simple to me. Megas didn't file, therefore there is no share structure available.
Do you know if Megas has been truthful in all? If so, how?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Filings are not my problem, whether easy or difficult nor expensive or cheap. The one that has fiduciary responsibility for BCIT has to deal with filings. To the best of my knowledge, that is only Megas.
2late:
Please provide slander that you claim I make.
op:
I see that you choose not to look at all possibilities of the issue that is behind BCIT not trading. I certainly am not the person that delayed reporting the identity theft of BCIT to the proper authorities. When are you going to realize that?
From another poster here, Megas does not consider any responsibility for the fake shareholders. IMO, he is part of it and you keep ignoring the fact I recognize that by including all parties; First, DTCC, 2nd Megas, 3rd the SEC and brokers.
IMO, to exclude any of the parties the fake shareholders will not have a chance to win any judgement.
I agree with the solution. File! End of story. Then the ball is back in SEC court.
Put the monkey on the SEC. The defensive strategy has not worked after alomost 5 years.
2late:
Interesting scenario I admit. Here is another potential scenario for you to think about?
DTCC: "Mr Megas, upon when did you discover the identify theft of BCIT"?
Megas: "End of April 2005(According to Janice)"
DTCC: "When did you notify DTCC and/or SEC?"
Megas" "I issued PR'd on Aug 1 2005"
DTCC: " Why did you delay the identity theft notification"?
Megas: "Pino agreed to buy BCIT for $2 million dollars".
DTCC: "Did you receive any payment from Pino".
Megas: "Yes I received $50,000".
DTCC: " Did you report this in the filings for BCIT"?
Megas: "No".
Molson:
For a taped conversation to be admissable in court, all parties must know that the conversations are being recorded. That is why when you talk to a broker, they advise you the conversation is being recorded.
Janice:
The Megasites have drank too much cool aid. They have lost all ability to think for themselves. Must be because of the liberal dumbing down America impact over the years.
Since it appears from Arkait that Megas does not feel he is responsible for the fake shareholders, it only stands to reason the fake shareholders do not have to have any loyalty/responsibility to Megas.
IMO, any chance of success with a class action law suit requires all parties involved with fiduciary responsibility and/or oversight has to be included. Failure to do this is throwing good money after bad.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
PS. IMO, this is not bashing as some have claimed I am doing on this board. I am just trying to be realistic.
It is sad that you continue to let your emotions drive your decision and judgement process.
In a recent post 129171 by Arkait, he makes the following statements:
We are NOT his shareholders. We are the brokers duped
"shareholders". Can't you understand this. Megas
never pocketed a dime from us, nor has he, therefore,
any responsibility to us. Whatever he does, he does
for himself, at this point.
And that leaves us to tackle legal problems with our
brokers and DTCC by OURSELVES. And with our own funds.
If you don't like it, it's not Megas' fault.
It seems obvious Arkait has communication with Megas or is expressing an opinion of Megas thoughts.
If this is an expression based upon conversation with Megas, then Indy and/or fake shareholders have every right to include Megas as an option for any legal action due to not operating with fiduciary responsibility.
IMO, once the delay in reporting the crime occurred, Megas should be considered in any and all legal actions.
OP, cut your emotional ties and look at the realistic issue of the current state you and all shareholders find themselves in.
You will live a happier life and not be suspicious of others when they say something you do not agree with. They just have a different view of how they look at the information.
Arkait:
I understand the position you are in financially as well as others including me. I just got back to work after being downsized six months ago. During this time I have studied this situation in more detail than most here have without legal counsel. Sometimes common sense can save you a lot of grief.
Please step back and take a deep breath. I understand your desire for pursuing the DTCC and brokers, but amazed you left out the SEC. Taking down the giant(s) requires a very indepth knowledge of the giant, so it is good to seek wise counsel. But if you are not willing to entertain the option of including Megas(fiduciary responsibility), IMO you are not ready for legal advice - so save your money and forget about BCIT. Otherwise, consider the following:
Megas' decision to delay reporting the incident has complicated the BCIT issue of not trading more than what you understand, at this time, and unfortunately seem to be unwilling to understand. I am not the enemy as some on this board have tried to cast me as. I have been trying to logically figure this out without my emotions(ie. no access to invested money for almost 5 years and delisting of BCIT) getting in the way and clouding my thoughts. This has enabled me to have an open mind to consider 'all' options.
Years ago I was scoffed at on this board when I suggested creating a timeline of events starting with DTCC allowing fraud certificates by Pino and Pammy into the market. This was just the beginning of the BCIT saga. This timeline has helped me to reconstruct the events as they took place. The major glaring thing back then is now more glaring than ever. That is because the judicial system worked with finding Pino and Pammy guilty.
Janice states late April(I had early May 2005)as the time that Megas discovered the crime versus the time(latest date known is Aug 1 2005 - it could have been sometime in July but PR was Aug 1 2005) Megas reported the crime to the proper authorities. And thus the crux of the compounded conditions of getting BCIT to trade, IMO. This is small in nature as compared to the Bernie Madoff incident which will have impact on individual investors for a long time.
Fortunately, BCIT incident is only over a span of approximately six months(Apr to Sept 2005), not ten years. If it took 10 years for the SEC to take appropriate action with Madoff(big time investor-former president of Nasdaq), how much time do you think it will take SEC to close the books on little pinky BCIT(no sales activity or business but potential) and 1500 investors. This is simple, the SEC just delisted BCIT because Megas, CEO of BCIT with fiduciary responsibility, did not provide filings as requested so a share structure can be verified, IMO.
If you want to understand why BCIT is not trading, 'fiduciary responsibility' is the key to solving who is responsible for the BCIT mess.
Final result, Megas is not talking and filing, therefore BCIT is not trading. Who has fiduciary responsibility for BCIT? Megas!
Please understand that DTCC, SEC, and brokers are co-responsible IMO for this mess as DTCC allowed fraud certificates into the market, SEC delayed trade stoppage, and brokers traded into the Aug 1 PR and notification by SEC to not trade, while the DTCC had oversight of trades.
But if Megas would have reported the crime in May 2005 instead of August 2005, the mess would have been easier to manage. Plenty of blame to go around IMO.
In summary and IMO, BCIT shareholders cannot pick just one without including all parties. Therefore one has to have an open mind to not selectively eliminate any of the parties. When the board is ready to consider this option, then maybe I will participate. I do not think Megas would contribute to a fund that may result in legal action against himself.
All is fair in love and war. If the board is really ready to go to war and fight with a potential of winning, then all options must be on the table, IMO.
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. It is all or nothing.
But remember you cannot put limits on the defense like the BCIT defense fund does, IMO. This is like letting the wise people lead the dumb without letting them know where they are going and 'all' the options they have to choose from. Warning, be careful of what you pay for, you might get it.
You can use all the anlaogies you want. This analogy will not work in the judicial system. It still does not absolve the observer of the crime, in this case the CEO and victim of the theft, to not act with fiduciary responsibility. The delay contributed to the chaos in the market, noting the market has not been monitored properly.
2late:
I agree with that. The question here is how much time is reasonable to report a crime and who is responsible for making it right with the shareholders of BCIT, whether fake or real. This apparently may be handled in a court of law to be determined. But Megas is only talking with selected people(conflict of interest?) on this board, email or phone, and they seem to want to threaten everyone that disagrees with them with libel or 'are toast' statements. They do not leave any other option or possibility for people on this board to think about, which IMO is a violation of the ihub posting rules.
I was going to participate in the fund until Megas did not do what he stated he would do in a PR. It is as simple as that. He knew how much time he had to respond and if it wasn't enough time, he may have had the option to request an extension. This failure on Megas part has prompted me to ask harder questions now of the CEO, the one who has fiduciary responsibility of BCIT. It is now in black and what what the SEC required of Megas and Megas responded in black and white. SEC did what they said they would do. Megas didn't. Pretty black and white, IMO.
One on this board stated Megas is not responsible for the fake shareholders.
All this is IMO.
Janice:
I concur. When people hear that Megas may have delayed reporting the crime upon discovery(fiduciary responsibility), IMO, BCIT may potentially become a laughing stock(no pun intended) and the market may state BCIT got what it deserved and thank the DTCC, SEC, and SFC for protecting the market and investors.
Someone knows the time lag between discovery and reporting. IMO it is the DTCC, because Megas has talked to them. Yes DTCC(for letting the counterfeits in) and even SEC(for delaying halting the stock sooner), but a satisfactory filing of share structure is needed before this is allowed to trade. If Megas doesn't file, BCIT doesn't trade.
Very simple, IMO. It is about the filings of share structure.
IMO, the opinion will be to include Megas in a class action law suit due to his negligence of fiduciary responsibility and that is probably why he is not talking.
op:
It is amazing how people look to excuse the irresponsibility of the CEO that did not act in the best interest with fiduciary responsibility of the Indy shareholders nor the 'fake shareholders'. What would cause one to be suspicious raises questions to the suspicious one's ability to function with thought and reason.
Obviously, some on this board have been taken hook, line, and sinker, including you.
Op, if you can answer this question with a yes, then you really need to rethink your stance.
Did Megas report the crime to appropriate authorities as soon as it was made known to him by Sytner? If yes, then there may be a case against the DTCC and SEC. If no, you need to be asking Megas more questions, like the SEC has been doing, but are wanting to see answers in the filings.
Of course, all this is IMO.
All I expect is the truth from the CEO. Is that too much to ask?. But Megas, the one holding the cards, is not talking or filing.
Are you threatening me with a charge of libel? I think that is reason to have you removed from any and all ihub boards.
web:
That is why I mentioned the thought of potential conflict of interest in an earlier post 129176. The 'fake shareholders' may decide that Megas is the source that acted inappropriately by not reporting the crime when he found out and determine to go after him and the DTCC.
Some get on these boards and think they can act and say anything because they have an alias. Conversations on these boards are monitored and can be used. Pumper/dumper's beware.
Of course with BCIT being revoked, this board won't see any pump and dump, at least not for awhile.
I know. But the crime did and Megas knew it in May. Best to my knowledge, Megas did not report the crime until sometime in July at the latest August 1 2005. Ask Megas why the delay? As astute as you seem, I am amazed that you haven't asked this fundamental and basic question yet.
f1:
Yes, Megas did talk to the DTCC. That is why they are asking for so much because his delay in reporting the crime compounded the problem. Megas is to blame for the huge amount of shares into the market because if he would have reported the issue in May 2005 when he discovered the problem, the big frenzy from late July to August 2005 would not have happened. thus no major fail to delivers which resulted in 'major fake shareholders' to occur.
Megas is at fault and because he did not act with fiduciary responsibility, he allowed a mess to be created for the Indy shareholders not to mention the SEC and DTCC.
Web:
IMO, this is the type of questions SEC and DTCC are trying to get answered. Megas isn't talking and he's not filing. hmmm.
Arkait:
You may now be in conflict of interest on behalf of the 'fake shareholders'. If your response is from discussions you have had with Megas, via email or phone, and are a 'fake shareholder' this may become a problem if and when the 'fake shareholders' may decide on pursuing Megas for failure to act with fiduciary responsibility. Failure to inform the proper authorities of a crime is negligence and now Megas can become suspect for being complicit in the crime Pino and Pammy were convicted for. If not complicit, at least part of the reason why BCIT is not trading today is for not managing BCIT properly. Who is in charge? The last I saw from a filing was Thomas Megas. Not I, not you, nor any poster on this board. Not even the DTCC or SEC.
IMO, OHBULL is noble in his efforts, but the effort may be misdirected.
Arkait:
Megas is to blame for not reporting the crime to the DTCC when he discovered the crime in May 2005 by Sytner.
I know some do not want to hear this, but Megas took responsibility for the 'fake shareholders' when he discussed a deal with Pino for $2 million and stated he received $50,000 and did not report the crime to proper authorities until August 2005.
Please correct if the facts as I have written them are wrong.
Because of Megas's failure to act with fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the Indy shareholders at the time, the 'fake shareholders' are now a part of the mess.
What I understand is the more Megas talks, the more he opens himself up to a law suit from the 'fake shareholders' because of his negligence to act responsibly and in accordance to U.S. law(not British law - U.S. did win the war) and his fiduciary responsibility. I am beginning to believe that discussing a lawsuit against the DTCC is off the mark and any money collected would be wasted. This may be why he is not talking to the 'fake shareholders', IMO.
Everything, IMO, keeps pointing back to Megas now as the source of the problem.
suspended til feb 4th
At this point in time, when Megas man's up and addresses the 'fake shareholders' then I will respond. Megas turned his back on the 'fake shareholders' and did things his way for four and a half years. We have now been delisted because Megas did not do what he said he was going to do. So, I choose to do things my way now. The 'system' is what it is and Megas chose not to play by the 'systems' rules and burned all people he had the fiduciary responsibility for,maybe not of his liking - as one day he wakes up and finds out he has 1500 shareholders. Megas delayed reporting the incident to the proper authorities for his personal gain, not the 'fake shareholders'. Now he is saying he has spent too much. All I am asking for is Megas to make an official accounting for what he says he has done and address the 'fake shareholders'. Isn't that what the CEO of a public company is supposed to do?
I am a team player, but would like to have been included in 2005. Almost five years later Megas is now wanting to play ball with the team, but doesn't have the guts to address the'team'? What a guy.
So Megas admits defeat. Where was this PR'd?
As far as I am concerned, the reason why this is like spending good money after bad is because of the choices 'Megas' made. He chose to ignore the 'fake shareholders' in the beginning and do things his way. Now he is complaining about the cost and at this time he needs the 'fake shareholders' and Megas needs to provide proof of spending the money he claims to have spent. IMO, if he has spent the amount of money he claimed, approx. $800,000, is this contained in the filings? Just like the $50,000 he supposedly received from Pino for sale of BCIT. Never recorded/reported.
Again, a conference call with 'fake shareholders' would go a long way to gathering support. IMO, Megas does not have the courage nor humility to do this. He has too much pride.
Pride comes before the fall.