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.
From VVUS ibox, really? "Qnexa is not a brilliant developped drug, its rather a combination therapy of available generic drugs."
wow
VVUS should touch 25 tomorrow or tues, because...
The fact that the phentermine compound is shared by Qnexa and fenfluramine/phentermine should raise a few eyebrows, and I think there is a small chance that we might see a surprise rejection on the grounds that the existing safety studies are still not thorough enough to bring the drug to market.
Naturally, another rejection will send shares plummeting, perhaps 60% or more.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/693881-vivus-set-to-benefit-despite-vulnerability?source=yahoo
jmho
<
The fact that the phentermine compound is shared by Qnexa and fenfluramine/phentermine should raise a few eyebrows, and I think there is a small chance that we might see a surprise rejection on the grounds that the existing safety studies are still not thorough enough to bring the drug to market.
Naturally, another rejection will send shares plummeting, perhaps 60% or more.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/693881-vivus-set-to-benefit-despite-vulnerability?source=yahoo
Look at the insider selling on VVUS as compared to ARNA
ARNA
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=ARNA+Insider+Transactions
VVUS
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=VVUS+Insider+Transactions
Makes it look like the VVUS insiders want out before the stock tanks if FDA doesn't approve on the 7-17-12
If Qnexa fails to gain approval this time around, I would expect the Arena stock to take off very hard, possibly trading up to as high as $20 a share. A rejection of Qnexa would mean Arena would have the only FDA approved weight loss drug, allowing the company to effectively corner the market. It seems to me the Arena shares have Qnexa approval priced in, currently trading this morning in the $10 a share range.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/703241-today-s-pharma-buzz-avon-files-interesting-8k-amarin-and-vivus-approach-fda-approvals?source=yahoo
ARNA
Well, ARNA is already approved, so, I am just here for that, and not on speculation of the others :)
gl
I thought OREX is out to 2014, correct me if I am wrong,,,
still in trials???
if so, how can that get approved?
It be awesome if ARNA puts out a pr sometime pre market tomorrow.
Trap the shorts. I will be a trading fool tomorrow :)
Long, with dry powder for back up!
Tomorrow may be a day traders dream with volatilty,
keep some powder on hand for the bear raid if one comes.
gl
jmho
20 target by a commentor, fwiw, link enclosed
scroll to bottom of article to read reader comments ARNA
http://seekingalpha.com/article/690771-which-weight-loss-drug-manufacturer-should-you-buy?source=yahoo
STOCKMANS ******ARNA UPDATE********
BUY....BUY....BUY....B...
The shorts and the options on ARNA will run out tomorrow and unfortunately the only way the shorts can survive tomorrows calls is to go from short to long and hope to recover some of their losses when ARNA spiked up after receiving FDA approval. This means that approximately 25% of the ARNA stock that is currently held in hedge funds and previously shorted will now be bought up for the long position. Hey thats what capitalism is about....making profits!!
We may see ARNA jump up as high as $20 per share by tomorrows closing bell. ARNA is a fantastic buy at under $10 per share. Now that the smoke has cleared and ARNA wins the blue ribbon for the first obesity drug FDA approval in a decade. 28 Jun, 03:54 PM
From what country is the origin of the BCIT naked short?
Negative. Has nothing to do with Bernie Madoff. Shorting a worthless security, even if you have to naked short it, is always the right trade to make.
Is that a quote from Bernie Maddoff regarding BCIT and the extensive naked shorting of BCIT?
Even if it was a trillion shares, it would've been the right position to take.
Yep, that is what you stated back 5-6 years ago, just amazing,
on a DTCC 645k BCIT inventory,
What I said was that my guess was about 200 million shares.
wrong, what did you say, tell me
janice shell, you stated couple times in the past, that you deemed BCIT to have over 200 million NAKED short shares.
...on a DTCC 645k share BCIT inventory!
agree or disagree?
Maybe these rules did regarding BCIT and the Etrade judge
•FINRA Conduct Rule IM-2310-2 Fiduciary duty to customers by broker-dealers. Taking money from customers for the purchase of securities, but not actually obtaining them and misrepresenting this failure to obtain securities by misrepresenting the identity and quantity of securities in customer accounts and filing false trade confirmations, is against the interest of the customers.
•NASD Rule 3370 is a delivery rule and instructs that no NASD member shall execute a short sale unless the member makes an “affirmative determination” that the member will receive the security from the customer or can borrow the security on behalf of the customer.
It was about the "limo 13" naked shorts shares of 2 bil BCIT, that the dtcc has only 645k in inventory, and that the BCIT was nss'd like a mother f' er, the judge saw through this, no brainer.
COURT VICTORY FOR BCIT INVESTOR AGAINST ETRADE
23rd March 2012, The court in Fresco California, stated that a case for breach of contract by Etrade brought by a BCIT investor was properly before the court, and dismissed a motion by Etrade to compel arbitration.
The court found Etrade to be in breach of their contract for failing to deliver the BCIT securities which the investor purchased in August 2005.
Selling what, BCIT FTD's, you know it, re hashed
No they weren't. The MMs were selling into demand.
wow, boom there it is, admission of BCIT market maker corruption
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74903654
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read
Post New Msg
Replies (4) | Next 50 | Previous | Next
jb1967lbk
Share
Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:03:00 PM
Re: Shilo post# 151357
Post # of 151425
They didn't kill the company.
The company was extinguished from within.
Shorting a security that's overvalued, even "naked shorting" it, is the correct position to take when confronted with a stock like BCIT.
Just like you believe CPA pamela jo thompson should not have been disturbed for hijacking bcit, acting as transfer agent, and sending fake BCIT certs to the DTCC,
This is your mindset, for you being in your own mind, an expert witness
"criminial thought process" from start towards finish,
but then comes CH
BTW, how is 1200 to 1500 people losing $100 million plus, small?
I believe the SEC's point of view is that the markets shouldn't be disturbed because a small number of people lost money speculating on a MOASS.
You can say the MMs and brokerages were warned by the DTCC lock. They were. But shareholders and potential shareholders were also warned.
Some paid attention; others didn't. Rather like the MMs and brokerages
Ask the DTCC how two billion BCIT shares were sold when DTCC only had 645k in certs, and you say nss is not illegal???
Prosecution.
I hate to break it to you, but naked short selling isn't illegal.
Your opionion does not state the fact the brokers/mm's sold
what the DTCC did not own in BCIT.
Take the same sentence you spoke and relate it to the DTCC only have 645k in inventory.
To me, you defending CPA pamela jo thompson, without any "js your" conviction in seven years out of your mouth, and getting documents from her, is so, in your words, fascinating.
Where would BCIT be without your fascination in this stock?
106's to be exchanged for the 205's
A very nice lady at DTCC explained some of the rules by which DTCC accept and exchange certs. Court Judgements is one of them and a frozen letter is another.
Oh and by the way these certs will all be coming back to the TA for exchange very soon.
Here is the link
November 11, 2011 - eMail and FAX to Isaac Montal at the DTC regarding the return of shares due to loss of DTC eligibility.
http://www.let-bcit-trade.com/
Mr Isaac Montal The Depository Trust Company 55 Water Street, New York 10041 11th November 2011 Dear Mr Montal Re: Energy Source Inc ex Bancorp International Group, Inc.
Energy Source stock are no longer DTC eligible and normally the DTC should have returned all the stock they hold to the company or its transfer agent, but as of yet DTC have failed to return them. From our enquiries, it appears that the reason the stock has not been returned is because the DTC record show the convicted fraudster Pamela Thompson as the Transfer Agent. She has not requested the stock to be returned and hence the shares have stayed with you.
It is also alleged that despite having been told by the company in 2005 that Pamela Thompson was never the transfer agent you personally refused to allow the information at the DTC to be changed.
Furthermore you took part in a conference call involving Mr Megas
It was in the "letters from CH to gov't officials, public point CH responded to the DTCC had on record of CPA pamela jo thompson being on file.
There is no way that the OKLAHOMA court could have sent the shares to CPA pamela jo thompson per the request of the DTCC
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megas issued the 244 million shares to Darbie and Capital Growth. Darbie and Capital Growth evidently didn't deposit them with DTCC, probably because the global lock was in force and they weren't accepting certs.
I am beginning to get convinced who orgrastrated this whole thing with the amount of time the neysleigher is putting into this BCIT. jmho
remember, DTCC stated Frauder CPA pamela jo thompson was transfer agent, maybe she has them
I bet ya pamela, your friend, has them.
Megas issued the 244 million shares to Darbie and Capital Growth. Darbie and Capital Growth evidently didn't deposit them with DTCC, probably because the global lock was in force and they weren't accepting certs.
You're talking the post dtcc date, what was it?
Earlier, you stated 200 mil nss, is your thoughts higher now ?
hashed over, in non existant shares, mms' have to cover. thoughts?
janice shell
Share
Friday, April 20, 2012 8:33:31 PM
Re: hurley cruppers post# 150946
Post # of 150947
Everyone does. The MMs were selling into volume, making a market.
JS Somehow or another, bet you have proof of BCIT shorts
Wow, admission
LOL!! I confess! I do love scams. The stories are all different, and it's nice when the authorities go after them.
Unfortunately that doesn't happen often enough.
Wow, DTCC has only 645K shares and you ask that js ??? Maybe you mean an April Fools joke by that statement. jmho
I almost want to puke that that statement is so abs...
you said
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read
Post New Msg
Next 50 | Previous | Next
janice shell
Share
Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:49:42 PM
Re: The big time post# 149658
Post # of 149680
Why on earth is is a problem for DTCC and the brokers? It was the defendants who were ordered to surrender the stock.
I forgot the group you write for, oh yeah,, the street or something, will you write a positive article there regarding what ch is doing for bcit?
Wrong, read the endnotes of your link, does not apply
05-59 NASD NTM SEPTEMBER 2005 8
Endnotes
1 There is no standardized definition of a
structured product in the federal securities laws.
SEC Rule 434 (Prospectus Delivery Requirements
in Firm Commitment Underwritten Offerings of
Securities for Cash) defines structured securities
as “securities whose cash flow characteristics
depend upon one or more indices or that have
embedded forwards or options or securities
where an investor’s investment return and the
issuer’s payment obligations are contingent on,
or highly sensitive to, changes in the value of
underlying assets, indices, interest rates or cash
flows.” The Pacific Exchange defines structured
products as “products that are derived from
and/or based on a single security or securities, a
basket of stocks, an index, a commodity, debt
issuance and/or a foreign currency, among other
things” and would include “index and equity
linked notes, term notes and units generally
consisting of a contract to purchase equity
and/or debt securities at a specified time.”
Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 51094
(Jan. 28, 2005), 70 FR 6489 (Feb. 7, 2005)
(Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 and 2 Thereto by the Pacific
Exchange, Inc. and Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment
No. 3 Thereto Relating to a Proposed Listing
Fee Schedule for Structured Products). The
NYSE defines a structured product as “a security,