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.
Suing Shareholders, Suing Cede & Co?
My my what vivid imaginations you all have.
Far simpler than that.
why don't you tell us what's going on
Because it would spoil the fun.
suing the SEC?
That would be telling.
The fact you asked is your answer
It is no offence to be a victim of crime and you keep forgetting that.
Nope you are nowhere near.
They till have their shares they have just vanished.
Dont forget the info comes from the brokers and they would never tell fibs would they.
Would they?
Oh so they were not using the hub to pump, I am glad to hear that.
I didn't say when it was filed.
I also have to say that as far as I know there is no requirement to be current but I am prepared to be proven wrong.
The fact is that if the SEC had said you have to be current then that would have been fair enough, but they didn't, the form went "missing".
Yeah right.
Many shares were traded more than once.
Agreed and never disputed.
To be fair we have an advantage over you in that that we have seen the proof of purchasers from about 400 investors and they still hold their shares, that how we have worked out the average holding.
So whilst there were some buy and sells, a lot of people hung on to their shares.
To be honest it is academic because they sold what could not be covered.
What on earth makes you think that L.A. should have been in charge
This from the SEC themselves.
Los Angeles Regional Office
State jurisdiction: Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, Nevada, Southern California (zip codes 93599 and below, except for 93200-93299)
Denver Regional Office
State jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
You will note that Oklahoma is not covered by either office but
by Fort Worth - which is in Texas :)
As for the bit about being nearer that had us chuckling away here.
You have clearly never worked for a bureaucratic or government organisation, it all comes down to budgets, manpower and jurisdictions.
Agree 100%, were not playing cricket.
stupid game
Who said we were going to be fair to them.
They live by the short so they can die by the short.
The captured regulators need to be identified and prosecuted.
Only after the loyal investors have made some money.
You wish.
What's in a name?
Quite a bit actually and its not just the name that is incorrect.
I have only given you a few scraps of incorrect evidence given in legal proceedings.
Oh and just for the record so many cases in courts get overturned on just such niceties.
I am sorry to say that I have no intention of sharing the really tasty juicy bits of dirt here.
Those raping investors are working both sides and shafting investors
Its funny is it not, that when you look back at the posts on this board in early 2005 they were really extolling the virtues of this stock.
It was the greatest thing since sliced white bread despite the delinquent filings.
As soon as the short was discovered those people vanished only to be replaced by those who knew from day 1 that this was a bad stock and that BCIT should have been revoked blah blah blah.
Of course the fact is, that the only real issue is that the brokers sold millions of shares that could not have possibly existed and that they knew they could not deliver.
Yet they took your money nonetheless.
The trading volumes just wet through the roof yet non of these brokers every stopped to do any DD and say "are we exposing ourselves or our clients"
Shareholders in these big brokers are going to be well impressed when they see their profits kicked into touch.
But the question that keeps cropping up is where were the regulators when all this was happening?
These people are the ones who squeal like a stuck pig if somebody does to them what they do to others.
Still they are about to find out soon what it is like.
So are you saying that you know of people in the SEC who would permit Naked short selling?
Do they?
Please bear in mind that the information is sworn as true and given under penalty of perjury
Energy Source is a Nevada Shell.
FALSE
Energy Source is based in Edmonton Oklahoma
False
Energy Source trades on the Pink Sheets
FALSE
Energy Source uses the ticker BCIT
FALSE
Energy Source was called Bancorp.
False
How many Trades had Energy Source every conducted?
None
So the SEC dont know the law but you do.
25 mill to 1.1 bill My goodness, that's quite a jump.
Well spotted, although I hate to nit pick, but actually your figures are not quite right and I will explain.
In October 2005 the collective group of brokers in conjunction with with SEC and DTC worked out that they had sold approximately 245 million shares.
The SEC in their investigation also determined that this was the total number of unauthorised shares that had allegedly had been put into the market place by Pino & Thompson.
As a result, the Oklahoma court order allowed the issuance of 245 million shares under Section 3(a)(10) of the Security Exchange act of 1934 to cover this number.
As such that was the end of the unauthorised shares issue.
Finito.
However, the latest NOBO list shows that the number of shares held is actually just under 265 million.
We know that this figure is at least 36 million light because of the proof of trades we have seen from investors, so that figure is at least 301 million which is 56 million more than the brokers had ratified in 2006 and have access to now.
There there are the people on the OBO list, and they apparently hold about 61 million shares bringing the total of shares owned to 362 million.
We must not forget that there are the people who between 2008 and 2012 have vanished of the list, but dont worry your little head about them because they only hold 49 million shares.
So, that means that according to the brokers they need to deliver about 411 million shares when in fact they only have access to 245 million.
Now then, just to add a little more spice to the mix we have worked out that the average holding is about 900,000 per person and there are about 1250 beneficial owners I think you will find that that makes 1,125,000,000.
so if you deduct the 245 million from the 1.1 billion you end up with a short of about 880 million.
Goodness, I wonder if that is why the brokers are not prepared to deliver the "worthless" shares they say have and maybe that's why they spent about $10K fighting court case over 27 shares.
The really important fact to remember is that these shares were NOT sold by Megas or BCIT but by registered stock brokers. Anything else that is said on this board cannot change that fact.
Still I am sure the SEC will step in and hep those investors
You are correct the SEC were negligent.
Had they discharged their responsibilities properly in 2005 they would have prevented this whole saga from happening.
They did not do so and thus failed in their duty of care to investors.
I am glad we agree on that
The fact remains that the company then brought their filings up to date as requested and in consultation with the SEC.
The question is this, why having failed to revoke Bancorp when it was seriously delinquent did the SEC suddenly decide to revoke Energy Source when it was only a year behind.
Second question why go after The non existent Energy Source in 2009 when there are hundreds of companies that are seriously delinquent which have been ignored?
Funny stance you take bearing in mind you condone and actually advocate naked short selling, which to a lot of people including the SEC is criminal.
Indeed there is an element of Tax fraud in the mix, especially in a couple of cases where they have removed shares without authority from 401K accounts.
No I am not saying they are correcting this issue.
I am saying that we know the breaches of regulations that have taken place.
I must make it very clear here and say that in general the SEC do a reasonable job bearing in mind their resources and the level of and amount of fraud and deception that goes on.
However, in this instance something has gone wrong.
We have invited the SEC to actually withdraw their erroneous statement that the revocation of Energy Source applies to Bancorp and that should they still feel Bancorp should be revoked then they should bring the case properly.
We have made no secret that should they do this that any revocation proceedings will be vigorously contested.
The SEC have not responded.
Nice answer JS but what you are saying is that like us you cannot think of a real reason.
As it is the SEC dont know either.
FACT in 2005 the outstanding share count was 4,890,000.
Fact from May to August 2005 the company’s trading volume was 2,076,500,035 shares.
When the company was revoked it was only 12 months behind - bearing in mid as well that BCIT was a voluntary filer and had apparently filed a form 15 which was "lost".
You dont get it do you?
The revocation was a total stitch up.
Ever wondered why the revocation went through unchallenged?
I am not going to go into all the details but here are a couple of things to mull over.
Where were the OIP paper sent and who were they served on
There is breach after breach of SEC regulation.
The SEC revocation documents are full of lies, which have been given in sworn proceedings amount to perjury.
JB is saying the company was years behind with the filings, which is incorrect.
The truth is that the SEC tried to kill off BCIT and your investment to cover up the severity of the fraud because they were attempting (rather badly) to "protect" the markets.
This was their biggest mistake and they will be held accountable.
Muppets the lot of them
Legal precedents seldom get overturned
For once you have said something sensible.
The decision in the District Court of Arizona against Pino for example and the Court order of the District Court of Oklahoma Case No. CJ-2005-7459.
Rock solid clear as day no ambiguity.
Wrong. Check your facts.
The company that was years behind with their filings.
wrong. check your facts
Please explain how the SEC revoking a stock helps 1500 investors whose brokers have taken about $34 million of their money for shres that did not exist.
Dont forget that the SEC knew about the issues facing the investor.
You should also remember that the SEC and the Securities Exchange act are there to protect investors NOT brokers.
Allegedly.
Why change now?
Brokers sold fifty times more shares than existed.
There is no justification for that.
Wrong is wrong and anyone who tries to say other wise is condoning criminal activity.
it would actually be better public policy on the part of the SEC if they actually enforced the mandatory requirements of the Securities Exchange Act.
If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Dont need one and I am going to be a real spoil sport and not tell you why.
Ever wondered why the SEC Denver office dealt with BCIT when they come under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles office?
You said There is nothing abusive, or fraudulent, about naked short selling.
The Chairman of the SEC said otherwise.
With the greatest respect the SEC are the regulators (cough)and enforcers of US securities law so they should know what they are talking about.
Mind you, to be fair Mary Schaprio said in writing that she knew that Bancorp had not changed its name, but a few months later the SEC still revoked a non existent company called Energy Source.
You can write off a "worthless security"
Indeed you can, and as you point out, the brokers are very keen to help you do so.
BUT here is the thing, if BCIT is as worthless as the brokers say it is and IF they have the shares and can deliver as they say they can, why don't they?
If they are telling the truth then in theory the exercise wont cost them a dime.
I think we all know the answer.
So far one broker has spent over 25K in legal fees trying to get one investor to arbitration