is...doing as little as possible
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.
kruy, Whether or not those trades via etrade are legal or not is irrelevent. The fact is, they did trade. Why? Why not last week? Why not a month ago? Why not today? The fact is that there is something unique about Friday that allowed this to happen. The only event we are aware of is the closing of woogie's case. I have long felt that we would not trade while there was litigation going on. The litigation ended and suddenly, some trades occured, legal or not. To much of a coincidence not to be related.
Art2Gecko, I don't think Megas cut a cert for 300 million. The latest 10Q made it pretty clear that the fraudulent shares had already been taken care of and the 300 million were naked shorted shares. He has legal proof of this now and I don't think the brokers will challenge this with the DTC anymore.
If they did, Megas could sue the brokers and go public with his documentation. The brokers aren't going to want that because they would have to open their books, proving that they naked shorted the stock and the DTC was covering for them. With the current climate of the financial sector these days, I don't think the DTC wants to be accused of collusion in a criminal act with the brokers to defraud investors.
As such, once woogie's litigation was over, the stock could trade again. It's no coincidence that within 2 days of woogie's case being closed that we traded again. Megas deposition from the woogie litigation made it clear that the DTC ordered Megas to sue the shareholders.
It was not Megas idea and in fact he tried to convince the DTC to find a solution that did not involve litigation. The brokers and the DTC's butt is on the line here now.
It appears that what imsoweary suggested was taking place during the lawsuit was on target. The very reasons stated in the plantiff's statements matches exactly what he stated back in May.
clarity789,
Have you been on vacation the last 8 months or so? I ask because of your comment that "They are naked shorts." If I am not mistaken, this had already been discussed and decided was the case many months ago. Surely you aren't just coming to that realization? (no offense intended) Also, did you back out Sinter's shares from the fibonacci's? If not, there is another 250 million naked shorted shares, which surprise, surprise surprise, is exactly what several claimed there were many moons ago. Of course, unless I missed something, this would mean that the entire float consists of naked shorted shares.
clarity789, what do you mean your name is not there? Do you mean as replying via an attorney rather than yourself?
I find it difficult to believe that there are 200 people who countersued Megas. There are not even that many that consistently read this board, or the RB board, combined. Furthermore, most of the 1500 shareholders either could not afford a lawyer, or would not have found it cost effective to spend $500 or more to hire one, in order to represent them. While 14 may well be to small, I beleive 200 is a gross over inflation of the number designed to impress and nothing more. Who provided the figure of 200?
Lest we forget who originally identified the purpose behind the lawsuit, why, and where it would lead us...
By: imsoweary
04 May 2007, 08:51 AM EDT
Msg. 43843 of 51786
Let's be realistic here, as Woogie insists. Megas has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders, his genuine shareholders. It is his responsibility to maximize his genuine shareholder’s ROI.
We are not genuine shareholders. We are pseudo-shareholders, for lack of a better term. Apparently our shares are backed by either fraudulent shares or naked shorted shares. In either case, BCIT has no obligation whatsoever to us pseudo-shareholders.
In order to maximize the PPS and thus the ROI for the genuine shareholders, Megas must identify and separate the pseudo-shareholders from the genuine shareholders. This is the reason for the request for a Declaratory Judgment. Once the Declaratory Judgment is granted, a base for the true PPS can be determined.
The original counts 2 through 5 were intended to identify those holding actual fraudulent certs, or having traded in fraudulent certs. Apparently those counts failed to do as intended and so they were dismissed. Apparently few to no pseudo-shareholders actually had anything to do with certs. We all, so it seems, bought through an online broker instead.
Once the base PPS is determined, then shares of BCIT can begin trading. It is at this point that the brokers must either obtain genuine shares of BCIT from the company in order to cover the pseudo-shares or buy the pseudo-shares back from us, until all pseudo-shares are eliminated.
Megas has no choice but to take this approach, or his genuine shareholders could sue him for failure to perform his fiduciary duties. After all, he is responsible to them, not us pseudo-shareholders, and if we are honest with ourselves, we cannot fault him for that.
Any benefit we derive from owning pseudo-shares is simply a side effect of Megas’s efforts to maximize genuine shareholder’s ROI, and the responsibility of the brokers to clean up the pseudo-shares. It is not because Megas is making direct efforts to insure we get rich, although in the end, we may.
Now consider this; the brokers must either buy back the pseudo-shares or purchase genuine shares directly from the company to replace the pseudo-shares. Which alternative is in the best interest of the genuine shareholders, because that is the course of action Megas will be taking?
If the company sells genuine shares directly to the brokers, it derives working capital by doing so, which it currently does not have. However, it also dilutes shareholder value as there would be more shares outstanding. If the brokers end up buying back our shares, we benefit from the rising PPS as the brokers attempt to do so. The company also benefits from the rising PPS, more so than they would by making a direct deal to sell genuine shares to the brokers, because the rising PPS would allow BCIT to sell fewer shares, at a higher price, gaining working capital while minimizing the dilution of shareholder value.
On information and believe, I feel this is the best and correct explanation for everything that has occurred and will occur. Just remember as we go forward that Megas has NO responsibility to pseudo-shareholders and his efforts will always be to maximize genuine shareholder value. Plan accordingly.
ImSoWeary 05/04/2007
legalegaltx, in that case we need to be prepared to file for an injunction to stop the R/S if it is detrimental to us and allows the brokers off the hook.
What's with this stock? I bought in at a significant price and it has since plunged more than 98%, to the point where it is almost worthless, not even worth selling. Is this a serious business or another pump and dump internet scam?
bobbybdb, that is not entirely true. That applies only during a total cert recall. However when an individual investor requests a cert for their shares, as I have done, then either the broker, if he holds the cert, or the DTC, if they hold the cert, would submit the request directly to the TA.
According to my broker, the TA is refusing to issue certs. According to Megas, the DTC is not allowing certs to be issued. Who do I believe? What is a shareholder to do? Who is the shareholder's champion when no one seems to want to accept responsibility?
There in lies the major fault and fallacy of the security industry. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no investor advocate that is not also in bed with one of the other parties at the same time. This results in an industry rife with conflicts of interest and out right fraud.
Also, if these "journalist" were truly doing the job they claim to be doing, they would put on the mantle of the champion, help us fight this battle and uncover the truth. Instead they satiate themselves on bad mouthing investors and implying they are either misfits, stupid or both and then pat themselves on the back for a "job well done".
In my opinion, if they have not taken up the investor's banner and either exposed the fraud they claim we investors are stupid for not having perceived ourselves, or otherwise helped the investors win the day, then they have not even started the job of journalist. They are nothing more than sensationalist and are not genuine journalist.
speaking of which, can someone post or PM me some email contacts for someone at the TA's office as well as someone at the DTC if they have it? Also, is there a specific person some of you have talked to at the SEC?
I have some contacts of my own but it would help greatly to have additional ones.
My feeling is that Megas wants us to go after the brokers in order to put pressure on the DTC so that they will allow trades to clear. Megas has obviously tried to work out a deal with the DTC but the DTC has either been unwilling or refused to accept the terms of a possible agreement.
grasswhacker, Thanks! I will pass that on to imsoweary. Appreciate the help.
heang, shoulda, coulda, woulda. The fact remains, Megas is NOT going to give us any help and is not going to lift a finger to resolve this mess. If WE do not take some action ourselves, then we will never have any hope of even recovering our original investment, much less see a profit.
I for one am not prepared to accept the status quo and will join imsoweary in his fight. The sad part is that I know for a fact he is stone cold broke, yet he seems to be the only one willing to put his neck on the line for the benefit of all of us.
I posted a message on here the other day asking everyone to reply to me if they would be willing to join the fight and do whatever it takes to get us our due. There were lots of words from people but ONLY two replied and agreed. Two out of over 1200 people!
That is a sad state of affairs. If you don't have the balls to stand up for your rights, then you have no one to blame but yourself when you get screwed.
grasswhacker, except that in imsoweary's case, it is not a matter of trading. He requested a cert for his shares and the broker is unable to deliver. Megas has clearly stated that the broker can get the cert if he first sends them the old cert. They cannot do that because they do not have an old cert. Therefore they have a Failure To Deliver, not a trading issue. As a result, the brokerage has indeed damaged us.
With a notarized statement from Megas, his lawyer and the TA stating that a new cert will be issued if the broker sends the TA the old cert, then the broker has no case in arbitration. By law, they must have a cert to cover the IOU in our accounts.
The problem is imsoweary is almost as bad off financially as I am and I know he cannot afford a lawyer to pursue this further, unless someone is willing to back him in his efforts. I know he will pursue it to the ends of the earth if he has to. He is mad as a rabid bulldog.
grasswhacker, there are no fraudulent certs. As per Megas, what the brokers sold us are naked shorted shares, air shares. There are no certs, fake or otherwise to back them up.
H2NRG, that is discouraging, very much so. Poor imsoweary. He was one of the few who ever seemed to be able to get a reply out of Megas. This hurts all of us.
However, even within that discouraging note is valuable information. Megas just verified that the issue is indeed a naked short issue when he said the brokers could no produce a cert because they do not have one. Notice he did not say they didn't have a genuine one. If the problem were counterfeit certs, then he would have said they can't produce a valid one.
legalegaltx, no, it doesn't. I have an email out to Megas about this. It is going to be impossible for us to do anything on our own if we cannot even get basic information from Megas and his people.
f1fans, just so you know, I am not picking on you here. I am just pointing out a very important observation.
I have seen a lot of emails written by shareholders on this board and I have to be honest, it is a wonder any of them get a reply or any useful information. The vast majority are very unprofessional, loaded with spelling errors, grammar errors and basic sentence structure errors.
Any time you are communicating with a professional organization it is extremely important to ensure your message is well understood and these kinds of errors often make it very difficult to impossible to understand what you are saying. The more professional your messages are, the more likely you are to get a professional reply. Before you send a message out, be sure to read and re-read it for these basic errors. They are errors an elementary school student would make, not a grown, educated adult. It shows a lack of respect for the recipient and is frankly, rude.
I know I am not perfect and I make errors here and there too but some of these messages are so poorly written and worded, that you spend more time trying to figure out what they are saying than you would replying to it. Its gotten to the point that I receive so many messages riddled with these types of errors that I have started to reply to them that, "I'm sorry but I do not understand what you are asking. Could you please rephrase your comments/questions."
In my opinion, if someone emails me and does not take the time to ensure their message is clear, concise, and understandable, then it must not be important enough for me to worry with responding.
bobbybdb, with the mention of acca and inez, I assume you are refering to CMKX in that IM message. As such, I put little faith in anything that is said about money coming to the shareholders of CMKX. It never pans out, the thousand times it has been predicted.
mainuh, ok, then we don't really know how many shares, above and beyond the 525 million, are really on the market then. it could be anywhere from 1 to billions, correct?
mainuh, thanks. I have been reading further and I noticed that the company did increase the authorized shares to 2 billion, so I suspect Megas was willing and planning to rectify the problem or he would not have increased the authorized to such a huge number.
Also, if the DTC does have about 250 million shares in a legitimate cert, why are they not allowing ANY trades and why is the TA not allowing ANY exchanges for new certs? Imo, we are still missing some vital information.
Frankly, I need to ask Megas, the TA, my broker and the SEC point blank, "why is BCIT not being allowed to trade? Please explain in detail" and see how each responds.
buddyglass_00, let me see if I can squeeze some more info out of Megas first and then I will come up with a template for the initial request.
bobbybdb, Do you understand what air shares are?
They are shares we ordered from a broker who took our money, put an IOU in our account and then never obtained shares from another party to fill that order. As a result, we end up with an IOU in our account with no certificate whatsoever to back it up that IOU (ie we have naked shorted shares).
Your statement that, "if they never obtained certs to begin with we would never have ever traded period" is incorrect. The brokers could sell BCIT shares all day long and never obtain a cert to back them up. This DOES happen. 38 brokers were just indicted by the SEC for doing just that, selling naked shorted shares just as I described. The SEC has only scraped the top of the mountain. IMO, there is far, far more of this going on in the market.
The BCIT brokers got greedy and took this to a level surpassing anything we have heard of before. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there were more than a billion shares sold into the market this way.
bobbybdb, as I said, I can only assume that Megas is being honest with us at this point, until clear evidence to the contrary is provided. As such, my claims are based on Megas's statements to me and imsoweary over the last many months. Megas claims the DTC holds counterfeit certs. That is why he sued us. He had to prove we were not the source of the counterfeit shares ourselves. If we did not deposit counterfeit shares, then the brokers had to have bought them from someone and in turn deposited with the DTC (unless it is air shares we are dealing with).
The brokers always buy on the open market, primarily the MM, and not actually directly from the company. I didn't mean to confuse anyone when I said they didn't buy them directly from the company. I actually meant was thru the company's official MM. The question is, who DID the brokers buy them from and how can we find out?
alynnb, thanks, duly noted. I intend to get to the bottom of all this, one way or another.
legalegaltx, ok, from this then I gather that 244,748,000 common stock shares WERE deposited with the DTC in order to cover the counterfeit shares sold by JH Darbie & Co. (25,025,000) and Capital Growth Financial, L.L.C (219,723,000).
However, I also understand that there are over 500 millions shares on the market, which means there are at least another 250 million that are either counterfeit or naked shorted, and it is this that the DTC has a problem with and why there is a global freeze.
The problem is I don't know what exactly the DTC is claiming as the reason for not allowing BCIT to trade. Are they claiming the company is responsible for them? Are they claiming that the judgment against Darbie and Capital Growth covered these, or what? And what is Megas claiming? Is he saying that there was an additional counterfeiting going on or is he claiming that these additional shares are from Darbie and Capital growth but were not a part of the judgment against them because they were unknown at the time? Anyone have any clues.
bobbybdb, No, I am not saying the brokers printed BCIT certs. How did you conclude that from my post?
I am saying that the brokers either 1) bought counterfeit certs without knowing it or 2) never bought any certs to begin with (ie naked shorted the stock).
Does that make sense? Do you understand what I am saying? I want to make sure you do because that is the basis for my whole argument.
bobbybdb, I am assuming Megas is honest and he said there was. I do not have any direct comments from the TA as I have never talked to them. Has anyone else asked the TA directly if they do indeed have 205 certs to exchange for legitimate 106 certs?
alynnb, normally I would say yes but in the case of BCIT there are very few people who held legitimate shares and were able to get the new certs. Megas and his partner hold the vast majority of the shares and they aren't selling at this time. So bottom line, there are not any 205 shares on the market to buy.
glaszman, i think you have hit the nail on the head. Megas can't tell us what to do or tell us exactly what is going on without getting himself in deep trouble with the SEC. He has fed us as much as he possibly can without crossing that line. It is up to us to figure out what is going on, who is to blame, and what to do about it because he can't without being accused of illegally creating a short squeeze.
For anyone reading this message, please read ALL of it and post a reply, letting me know if you will join me on the crusade. I will keep a list. We need as many shareholders as possible to be involved if there is ever going to be a chance for us to win.
I think we know enough to have concluded that the DTC & the brokers is where the problem lies. The brokers either purchased counterfeit certs and passed them on to the DTC so that all the DTC has is counterfeit certs, or the brokers naked shorted the stock and cannot request certs from the DTC without exposing their crime. In either case, the DTC is unable to send a legitimate cert to the TA in order to get new certs.
How do we rectify the problem? First, we all must order certs for our shares. There is no need to worry about getting stuck with a cert you cannot redeposit because they obviously cannot get you a cert anyway. By everyone requesting a cert, we send a message to the brokers and the DTC that we know where the problem is and that we intend resolve it, en masse.
Once everyone gets an email from their broker stating they cannot get them certs, we move to phase two and demand proof that they did indeed send a legitimate cert to the TA with the proper transfer request form asking for a new cert. The reply they got from the TA refusing to exchange the certs will be sufficient.
Now if they send us a made up reply then they have perjured themselves and I don't think they are going to do that. We will see what the next excuse for not being able to provide proof is. Phase 3 will depend on the responses we get. Please post the responses you get from the brokers so that we all can see the excuses they come up with.
I already have a Mr Lee C. Robinson, Staff Attorney, Division of Enforcement - U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission in the loop on this and I provided him with all the pertinent information this morning. I have also been in contact with imsoweary and got him to write a reply back to TD Ameritrade. Here is what he sent:
Dear Ameritrade Client Services,
A copy of your original reply to my request for a certificate is at the bottom of this email.
After receiving your email stating that you could not provide me with a certificate for my shares of BCIT because the Transfer Agent was not currently printing certificates for the security, I wrote to the CEO of the company and asked him why this was so.
He stated, "There is no bar with the transfer agent. If they send the old certificate in and it has been properly issued they will get a new one in your name. Ameritrade has never sent the old certificate to the transfer agent with a transfer request. This process can occur without the stock actually trading, all Ameritrade has to do is send in the old certificate and the transfer agent will issue a new one."
The CEO's comments do not match Ameritrade's claims, so I checked with the TA's office and they stated that they will, on receipt of legitimate old 05968X106 certificates, provide brokers with new 05968X205 certificates.
So I went back to the CEO and asked him about this and he stated, "The transfer agent will transfer shares vested through any legal certificate from one party to another party on presentation to them with a duly executed transfer form."
The CEO also said, "It may be that the shares held for you are in the DTC depositary in which case it is up to the broker to get the shares from DTC and send them on to the transfer agent." Furthermore, he went on to say, "If they cannot do that then you must sue whoever sold you the shares to deliver them physically to you."
By law, if I request a certificate for my shares, then the brokerage must provide said certificate. If you are telling the truth and the CEO & TA are not, then I need documented proof. A copy of the notification you received from the TA rejecting your request, after you had submitted a legitimate old certificate with a proper transfer request form, for a new certificate to be issued in my name will suffice.
However, if the CEO and the TA are telling the truth and you cannot provide the certificate that I have requested, there can only be a two reasons for this: 1) you nor the DTC hold any legitimate 05968X106 certificates to exchange for 05968X205 certificates, or 2) You do not hold any certificates at all (naked shorted shares). In either case, it is not my problem, it is yours, and if I have to, I will pursue legal recourse with you.
There has been a lot of finger pointing with this security over the last 2 years and it is time for the pointing to end. Never mind who did what. The bottom line is that there are over 1200 small investors being seriously harmed by not being able to trade and not being able to get legitimate certificates. It is incumbent on both parties to ensure that the investor is utmost in their minds or the entire securities market is at risk for loss of faith. With the current fears in the markets over the sub-prime issue, the possibility of banks failing and even the possibility of the dollar collapsing, there is already great concern by the American public.
Any attempt to hide an impropriety in the securities market by the brokerages will only serve to exacerbate those fears. I suggest you put your heads together with the CEO and work out whatever the problem is between the two of you. I will not wait long for you to resolve it yourselves before requesting a jury hearing. With the degree of distrust in the market already, I have no doubt which way they would go and the publicity would be detrimental to the industry.
Of the numerous small cap companies I have invested in, the vast majority have ended with a loss due to failures in the security industry, whether with the companies themselves, or with the brokers. Outright fraud is rampant. One only need to look in the papers to see the number of brokers being indicted daily including most recently the 38 brokers across many brokerages indicted for naked shorting.
As a TD Ameritrade Apex customer, I look forward to your response and the resolution of this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward Kelley
Atlanta, GA 30350
CC: Lee C. Robinson
Staff Attorney, Division of Enforcement - U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: TD AMERITRADE Client Services
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:31 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Certificate Request (KMM40938068I17490L0KM)
Dear Valued Client:
We recently received your request to have a certificate issued for shares currently held in your account. However, we are unable to process your request at this time. We have received notification that the transfer agent for this company is not currently printing certificates for this security.
If you have further concerns or inquiries, please email us from our secure Web site's "E-mail Us" link. For security reasons, we do not answer account specific questions that originate from a source other than the secure Web site.
Sincerely,
Reorganization and Safekeeping
TD AMERITRADE, Division of TD AMERITRADE, Inc.
RGSK
nwsun, I think the problem IS with the brokers and here is why:
imsoweary stated he requested his certs more than a month ago from his broker, Ameritrade. Keep in mind it took over a month for them to reply. Why? A half truth? What if the broker does have some of the old certs but they are counterfeit certs? Ameritrade tries to send them to the TA in order to get the new certs but the TA is on to the problem of counterfeit certs and refuses to issue new certs. Would not the broker then be correct in saying the TA refuses to issue new certs? Yes, they would. So they are not lying but they are not telling the whole truth either. Is Ameritrade going to admit they have counterfeit certs? I highly doubt it as they would prove Megas's argument.
bobbybdb, the problem is that the brokers don't have any 106 certs. That's why they can't exchange them for the 205's. They sold air-shares with nothing, no certs, to back them up. They never purchased the shares/certs from the company. The 205 certs are sitting with the TA. The brokers just don't have any right to them because they don't have any 106's.
ohbull2000, she be a he, he be. And yes, he be a smart one too.
hmmmm, must be a problem with my browser. I can't get any of the links to the actual documents to work. They all open a blank page.
Molson, thanks. I went there but all I get is a blank page when I click on the bottom link.
Molson, so am I, lol. I ordered my cert about 2 or 3 weeks ago. They said it could take 4 to 6 weeks to get them and I have not yet been told they cannot send me one. So, I am waiting till 4 weeks pass and then I will contact them again to see what is up.
Molson, I don't think I have seen this document. Do you have a link?
nwsun, excellent point and suggestion. I think I am going get together with imsoweary (he is my best friend) put something together and put it up on my blog about this. What we need to do, who we need to do it to, sample suggested letters etc, unless someone else wants to grab the flag and be the leaders of this campaign. Anyone have any suggestions or comments about this, feel free to pm me.
bobbybdb, if this doesn't prove to some of the skeptics out there that the brokers, or at least their employees, are capable of doing what imsoweary is claiming they have, then they need to think again. They obviously are capable of doing such.
Notice these people are being charged with securities fraud and conspiracy, which is exactly what imsoweary is claiming has taken place with BCIT.