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.
Unless you have different answers to the following question, BGMO doesn't have $1.5 billion in the bank.
The HSBC bank statement showing $1,000,000,000 on deposit has been touted as being the holy grail - definitive proof that BGMO has money.I have some questions about the bank statement and the accompanying certificate. If anyone has answers to these questions, please provide them along with whatever you believe proves your answer to be true.
1. Is there really $1,000,000,000 on deposit at HSBC as shown in the documents BGMO filed recently?
I have no proof that the account described in the documents is fake, so I will accept it as true, that there is $1,000,000,000on deposit at HSBC.
2. Is the account with the $1,000,000,000 at HSBC in BGMO's name?
No it is not. According to the bank statement, the owner of the account is a "Mr.", an individual, not a corporate entity. According to the Certificate of Balance, the owners of the account hold Singapore and Taiwan passports; this information corresponds to the individuals described in the Bond Power as the Grantors, not BGMO.
3. Is the account with the $1,000,000,000 at HSBC in NWI's name?
No, it is not. According to the Bond Power, the principles of NWI have Chinese and UK/EU passports. According to the Certificate of Balance, the owners of the account hold Singapore and Taiwan passports; this information corresponds to the individuals described in the Bond Power as the Grantors, not BGMO.
4. Does NWI have the authority to take money out of the HSBC account and transfer it to BGMO?
No, it does not. The Bond Power is very clear on its face: "This Power of Attorney is intended to be a Full Power of Attorney with no restriction of any nature or form whatsoever, but does NOT include the right to withdraw funds described above from the principal accounts".
5. What does the HSBC Bank STatement prove?
Not much, other than someone other than BGMO has $1,000,000,000 at HSBC.
The Bank Statement
The HSBC bank statement showing $1,000,000,000 on deposit has been touted as being the holy grail - definitive proof that BGMO has money.I have some questions about the bank statement and the accompanying certificate. If anyone has answers to these questions, please provide them along with whatever you believe proves your answer to be true.
1. Is there really $1,000,000,000 on deposit at HSBC as shown in the documents BGMO filed recently?
I have no proof that the account described in the documents is fake, so I will accept it as true, that there is $1,000,000,000on deposit at HSBC.
2. Is the account with the $1,000,000,000 at HSBC in BGMO's name?
No it is not. According to the bank statement, the owner of the account is a "Mr.", an individual, not a corporate entity. According to the Certificate of Balance, the owners of the account hold Singapore and Taiwan passports; this information corresponds to the individuals described in the Bond Power as the Grantors, not BGMO.
3. Is the account with the $1,000,000,000 at HSBC in NWI's name?
No, it is not. According to the Bond Power, the principles of NWI have Chinese and UK/EU passports. According to the Certificate of Balance, the owners of the account hold Singapore and Taiwan passports; this information corresponds to the individuals described in the Bond Power as the Grantors, not BGMO.
4. Does NWI have the authority to take money out of the HSBC account and transfer it to BGMO?
No, it does not. The Bond Power is very clear on its face: "This Power of Attorney is intended to be a Full Power of Attorney with no restriction of any nature or form whatsoever, but does NOT include the right to withdraw funds described above from the principal accounts".
5. What does the HSBC Bank STatement prove?
Not much, other than someone other than BGMO has $1,000,000,000 at HSBC.
It's tough being the lone voice of reason, especially here. I agree with you that the whole thing is a scam, but no one wants to believe it. Just sit back and let it runs its course. In a month or two from now when nothing of substance has happened, I'd be curious to see what the new excuses are going to be.
In the meantime, I am astounded to see that people have bought into HH's interpretation of what the latest Bradford letter says, instead of reading the letter itself. In the pr HH said that Bradford verified and confirmed accounts and paperwork and money, but that's not what the letter itself says. The letter says that Bradford has verified that HH gave them papers, that's it. The money in the bank is not in BGMOs name and can never be touched anyway.
Let's assume for the moment that the documents are real: Mr. Singapore and Mr. Taiwan have an account at HSBC that has $1 billion. Mr. Singapore and Mr. Taiwan have given a Power of Attorney to Mr. China and Mr. UK as officers of NWI to leverage the money in that account. Any money in BGMO's pocket yet? Nope!! And money will never reach BGMO, here's why:
I've been enjoying these last few days on the sidelines, it's been very entertaining. I think everyone needs to take a step back and examine what has happened.
To anyone who thinks that BGMO has provided proof of anything, take another look at what was posted. The accountant's letter is very clear - nothing was verified. The word "verify" is used only once in the first sentence and given the sentence structure, its meaning can be twisted a number of different ways:
Let 'em enjoy the run while it lasts. I hope everyone gets out at a minimum of break-even. The inevitable no activity period is right around the corner as in the post b/s pr crash.
Can't wait to see the year end AUDITED numbers!!
What cracks me up is the fact that these "documents" don't "confirm" the deal that was described in the last press release. According to the last pr and its subsequent interpretations, there was $1.5 billion on deposit at HSBC against which HSBC issued some type of security to BGMO. Now we see that NWI doesn't have $1.5 billion on deposit at HSBC, it's 2 gentlemen, one from Singapore and one from Taiwan, who supposedly have $ 1 billion at HSBC. What happened to the rest of the money that was on deposit? Ooops! Well, what's $500 million between friends.
Pursuant to the Bond Power/Deed of Assignment/Power of Attorney (one of the most laughable bogus documents I've ever seen, I mean "Bond Power"? What Bonds?) the two Asian gentlemen have granted NWI the authority to play with the money. Where's BGMO in this equation? There is no money in a BGMO account and BGMO will never get access to the money in the account of the two guys that granted authority to NWI (run by someone from China and the UK out of Anguilla). The laughs roll on.
Notice how Mr. Lewis of LL BRadford was careful to say that all he did was "review" the documents. Noweher does he say that he did anything to verify their authenticity or the substance of the contents of the "documents". You can't make this stuff up! Oh, wait, I guess you can!! LOL!!
Well, at least we are getting tremendous value out of our entertainment value
If I'm not mistaken, Monday was the last trading day of the month (trades made Tuesday and Wednesday will settle in February). Could there be any connection between an sudden inexplicable spike in the stock and the fact that it happened on the last trading day of the month? Yeah, I think so. The corresponding collapse is sure to follow. The laughs just keep rolling along.
BGMO Awarded Death Sentence due to its Business Strategy.
BGMO gave birth to a New Fake Company with NEW FAKE BUSINESS strategy on or about September 2012.
BGMO CEO Service providers, Certified Public Accountants, Three Attorneys in United States of America, International Financials partners, European Contacts and the care takers of Bergamo Acquisition Corp PTE, Ltd Singapore, Advised our President to change its Business Strategy so that the charade could continue.
SERVICE PROVIDERS, presented a comprehensive Business plan moving forward, who dreamed up the fake value of 1.5 Billion Dollars Cash Funding and its worth to BGMO and its shareholders.
Why BGMO shall adopt the PHILOSOPHY OF MICHAEL BUFFER (scream loudly). 1.5 Billion Monopoly Money Dollars Advised. Stay Away from DEAD WALKING COMPANIES WITH NO FUTURE, LIKE BGMO.
a) Stay away from DEAD WALKING COMPANIES, Non Operating companies, Shell Status Companies which BGMO itself has been since 2009.
b) BGMO flew its CPA to Europe in August 2012, a good time was had by all.
c) CPA prepared Comprehensive COMPILATION financial report based strictly upon numbers provided by BGMO.
d) DEC 11, 2012 Company FINALLY submitted enough bogus paperwork and was moved to CURRENT STATUS on OTC Markets.
e) Jan 9th, 2012 Company issued ANOTHER FALSE AND MISLEADING PRESS RELEASE and announced financing. BGMO is LIKE AN OPEN BOOK SINCE SEP 17TH, 2012; unfortunately, the pages of the open book are glued together so no one can read them. BGMO has no money. Don't worry, SEC is on the case.
HSBC Bank never issued $1.5 Billion Cash Backed Securities to fake BGMO wholly owned European subsidiary
HSBC Bank never issued the above instrument on behalf of the non-existNational Wealth International Limited
What does the first part of that sentence say? I believe it says:
National Wealth International Ltd. has provided Bergamo Acquisition's wholly owned European subsidiary cash-backed securities consisting of three separate tranches, etc.
Nowhere does it say CASH!! Show me where it says cash!!!!
Please examine the language from the press release and show me where it says anything about there being $1.5 billion in "funds" anywhere.
According to the language of the first sentence, all NWI provided (assuming NWI is real) is "cash backed securities", not cash, just cash backed securities. Somehow between the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence the "cash backed securities" became "funds". How? When? Where?
The "cash backed securities" are as good as cash line isn't true, it is NOT the same as money in the bank. US Capital issued a "cash backed" SBLC that was worthless but touted by BGMO as being as good as cash. Check with HSBC, as I have, they do not issue these types of securities on against client funds held on account.
Just keeping 'em honest!!!
Here is Why the SEC Hasn't Done Anything - YET!
For the entire month of January, volume in this piece of garbage (even assuming it's all real) is about 2.7 million shares or about $75,000 worth of stock (with plenty of zero volume days). SEC probably figures that the public is doing its job for them by not buying (literally) the b/s. SEC would be spending much more than 75k to investigate BGMO and doesn't have the resources to waste that kind of money especially when there are, unfortunately, much bigger frauds out there.
BSEDC - YET ANOTHER LINK IN THE FRAUD CHAIN!!
The Bergamo Energy, Inc. subsidiary in Florida (which has never been identified, no record of such company exists in the Florida Sec'y of State's records) entered into an exclusive agreement with Bergamo Solar Development, Inc., a company to be organized in the state of Florida. (So an unidentified Bergamo Florida subsidiary entered into an agreement with Bergamo Solar Development, which has yet to be formed. How does a company that doesn't exist enters into an agreement with a company that hasn't been formed yet! Ludicrous.) Bergamo Acquisition will own 60% and Bergamo Solar Energy Development, Inc. (BSED) will own 40% with Mr. Steve Sarka as President. (Google this prize winner. He had two Florida corporations both of which were dissolved by the State of Florida because he failed to file annual reports (perfect partner for HH)
BSED expertise (how does a company that hasn't been formed have expertise in anything?) includes design, development, manufacturing, and operational management. The agreement covers solar power plants, solar powered supplies, generators and devices, solar lightings, LED lightings and luminaries, water purification technologies, wind technologies, electronics, and electromenchanical components and related equipment. BSED has agreed to market and sell product developed and manufactured in the United States of America. The United States was selected due to the international demand for reliable products with trusted warranties such as those offered by U.S. corporations.
HUH?
The Bergamo Energy, Inc. subsidiary in Florida (which has never been identified, no record of such company exists in the Florida Sec'y of State's records) entered into an exclusive agreement with Bergamo Solar Development, Inc., a company to be organized in the state of Florida. So an unidentified Bergamo Florida subsidiary entered into an agreement with Bergamo Solar Development, which has yet to be formed. How a company that doesn't exist enters into an agreement with a company that hasn't been formed yet is ludicrous. Bergamo Acquisition will own 60% and Bergamo Solar Energy Development, Inc. (BSED) will own 40% with Mr. Steve Sarka as President. Google this prize winner. He had two Florida corporations both of which were dissolved by the State of Florida because he failed to file annual reports (perfect partner for HH)
BSED expertise (how does a company that hasn't been formed have expertise in anything?) includes design, development, manufacturing, and operational management. The agreement covers solar power plants, solar powered supplies, generators and devices, solar lightings, LED lightings and luminaries, water purification technologies, wind technologies, electronics, and electromenchanical components and related equipment. BSED has agreed to market and sell product developed and manufactured in the United States of America. The United States was selected due to the international demand for reliable products with trusted warranties such as those offered by U.S. corporations.
CON MEN are current BGMO/HH business associates,are LOW LIFE, SCUM BAGS, who have never owned a share of BGMO stock that they couldn't sell fast enough.
Just Keeping Them Honest
The "BIG LIE" comes from the LOW LIFE CEO, HIS CABAL OF SCUM BAGS, AND CON MEN who are current business associates, that have never owned a share of BGMO they couldn't wait to sell.
Just Keeping Them Honest
Letter to Bergamo's Authorized Agent in Delaware requesting a shareholder meeting was mailed today. No need for 383 signatures, just one. See you at the meeting (we first need to wait for HH to ignore the letter which will force a court action ordering him to hold the meeting, but it will happen!!)
Bygones are Bygones. Translation - Forgive and forget all the lies that BGMO spouted in the past.What is current that's the reality and truth about Bergamo Acquisition Corp. YES!! Let's focus on the current lies that are being told by BGMO
You will not see one post which is not verifiable personally by any one reading the post. I agree that not a single post about what the company has "accomplished" since September can be verifiedMake your own judgement. I will, but without the extra letter "e". Platinum Funding, ICG and CAMOFI have already made their own judgments as well
PASS SEP 17TH, 2012 YOU will not see one ERROR about BGMO. TRUE!! That's because there have been so many errors there's no point in talking about just one
LL Bradford accompanied me Really? The whole firm went with YOU? to EUROPE to check Bank account, upon verification from the Bank 88 Million is on deposit he who is he? I though the whole firm wentagreed to prepare COMPILATION statement.Upon return from EUROPE.
Attorney contacted LL Bradfford and issued Letter with respect to the current information. A letter that clearly states that the attorney reviewed nothing and relied on the company as having told the truth.
OTCMARKETS compliance department accepted the documents and provided Current Status on OTCMARKETS. FALSE!! Documents were not examined for accuracy. OTC has said as much in writing.
Quality Stocks is a official IR firm of BGMO they are represented by TOP tier Law Firm, After the approval of the law firm. The law firm granted them permission to take BGMO as their client. Really? Can we see the letter from the top tier law firm?
The "message from management" is a joke. Clearly, it was not written by someone whose native language is English (words in caps are ridiculous grammatical and/or spelling errors that anyone with a third grade education wouldn't make): "that being a reason the stock ARE offered to those investors who UNDERSTANDS very clearly HE has no liberty"; We will CLEARLY this ON our next financial statements. And these investors are foreign RESIDENCE.
"This statement is under penalty of perjury". Funniest statement ever. You can't just write "statement made under penalty of perjury" and have it mean that the penalty of perjury applies to the statement. In order for a statement to be subject to the penalty of perjury, it has to be a SWORN statement, as in MADE UNDER OATH before someone authorized by law to administer oaths, like a notary, or court reporter or judge. There will be plenty of time for those kinds of statements soon enough.
"We [plural] are busy please do not waste my [singular] time further with this BS". Putting the horrible grammar aside, is this how an executive responds to a shareholder inquiry? I don't think so!!
Oh, by the way, whoever wrote it (I suspect it was SP due to the bad grammar) is wrong on the law. depending on the circumstances of the issuance, the legend can be removed before one year.
nothing surprising though, management issues a bullying response and everyone is supposed to believe what it says. TOO BAD IT'S ALL GARBAGE!!
Yes! Such great news!! Up 7% on $850 worth of trades!! Amazing!!
Wow! Talk about twisted interpretations!! Here is that entire post:
Where does it say that I am not a shareholder? Point to the exact words where it says that.
I did? Really?? What number post was that? Please point it out.
Oh, by the way, the demand for an annual meeting will be in tomorrow's outgoing mail. I don't need the signatures of 382 shareholders!! FYI, it's going to BGMO's agent in Delaware. Can't risk HH moving the office to a different mail slot at the UPS store.
What's my motive? You claims that it "sucks" so what is my motive? My role here is to provide the public with the TRUTH about BGMO and its crooked CEO HH. I have said nothing misleading. Can't say the same about the CEO and his 60 PRs; not one VERIFIABLE FACT!!. I have no reason to ask for forgiveness. HH and his followers are the ones who should beg the public for forgiveness. What kind of CEO issues a press release claiming not know why there is a drop in the pps when the drop was caused by ICG selling all of the shares of BGMO that the CEO pledged for a loan. The CEO NEVER acknowledged what he did. What a crook.
WHY SUCH OPPOSITION TO A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING??
Who says that I am not a shareholder? What difference would that make anyway? Only shareholders can spot fraud? I don't think so!!
AMAZING HOW WHEN THE MESSAGE IS OBJECTIONABLE THE MESSENGER GETS ATTACKED. WHETHER OR NOT I AM A SHAREHOLDER IS IRRELEVANT
I've read the SEC regulations. The recent court decision from Delaware is worth a read too. You see the company in that case said the same thing; SEC regs don't require us to have an annual meeting. But the court said WRONG!!! SEC rules don't make a difference, if you're a Delaware corporation, you MUST have an annual meting, reporting status doesn't matter.
Perhaps you didn't read the Delaware Court's recent decision that was in my post. BGMO is a Delaware Company and under Delaware law it doesn't matter that they are a non-reporting pinky, Delaware law requires BGMO, as a Delaware corporation to hold annual meetings.
THAT'S A FACT!! READ THE DECISION!!
ALL IT TAKES IS ONE SINGLE SHAREHOLDER SEEKING THE TRUTH TO ACT TO GET A SHAREHOLDER MEETING SCHEDULED!!!!
TO ALL BGMO SHAREHOLDERS - ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!!! DEMAND A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING, REQUEST TO INSPECT BGMO'S BOOKS AND RECORDS!! YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT UNDER THE LAW!!
SHAREHOLDERS! ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS AND EXPOSE THE FRAUD!! - SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS!!!
Turns out shareholders have the right to inspect BGMO's books and records including contracts, balance sheets and a whole bunch of other fun stuff - AND YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A COURT ORDER TO MAKE THE REQUEST any shareholder can do it by making a written request as described in the article (but knowing BGMO, you'll be forced to sue them to get them to comply)
www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1638
You have to have a "proper purpose" for making the request. Here's what the article I found on google says about that
With 60 false and misleading press releases, shouldn't be too hard to get a court to agree (assuming HH won't cough up the documents, which he won't) that shareholders are entitled to review documents supporting the latest pr. OH BOY!!
ALL DOUBTS CAN BE CLEARED UP AT A (FIRST) SHAREHOLDERS MEETING!!
SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND AN ANNUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETING
As I suspected, the law requires BGMO to hold an annual shareholders meeting. A quick google search revealed as much.
www.delawarelitigation.com/files/2012/11/CHANCERY-OP-GEORGE-RICH-V.-FUQI-INTERNATIONAL-U0056789.pdf
While I don't get a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo, seems pretty clear that all that has to happen is a shareholder has to ask the court in Delaware (pretty sure that's where BGMO is incorporated) to order BGMO to have a meeting and they have to have one. Who's in? Probably some kind of form for a case like this, might not even need a lawyer. Can you imagine HH answering shareholder questions in public?
WHY WOULD ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS TRANSPARENCY OPPOSE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING? IS THERE SOMETHING TO HIDE??
Please clarify. If naked shorts are not included in OTCShortReport numbers (I agree with that because naked shorts don't appear anywhere) and if you acknowledge that OTCSR includes MM transactions which inflate the numbers, then where is there any proof of short interest in the stock?
LOW LIFE, SCUM BAG, AND CON MEN who are CEOs of fraudulent public companies that release false and misleading prs never have annual shareholder meetings.
When was the last BGMO annual shareholder meeting? NEVER!!!
ooops !!!!!!
Just Keeping Them Honest
TO ALL BGMO SHAREHOLDERS - ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!!! DEMAND A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING, REQUEST TO INSPECT BGMO'S BOOKS AND RECORDS!! YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT UNDER THE LAW!!
SHAREHOLDERS! KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!! - SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS!!!
Turns out shareholders have the right to inspect BGMO's books and records including contracts, balance sheets and a whole bunch of other fun stuff - AND YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A COURT ORDER TO MAKE THE REQUEST any shareholder can do it by making a written request as described in the article (but knowing BGMO, you'll be forced to sue them to get them to comply)
www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1638
You have to have a "proper purpose" for making the request. Here's what the article I found on google says about that
With 60 false and misleading press releases, shouldn't be too hard to get a court to agree (assuming HH won't cough up the documents, which he won't) that shareholders are entitled to review documents supporting the latest pr. OH BOY!!
SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND AN ANNUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETING
As I suspected, the law requires BGMO to hold an annual shareholders meeting. A quick google search revealed as much.
www.delawarelitigation.com/files/2012/11/CHANCERY-OP-GEORGE-RICH-V.-FUQI-INTERNATIONAL-U0056789.pdf
While I don't get a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo, seems pretty clear that all that has to happen is a shareholder has to ask the court in Delaware (pretty sure that's where BGMO is incorporated) to order BGMO to have a meeting and they have to have one. Who's in? Probably some kind of form for a case like this, might not even need a lawyer. Can you imagine HH answering shareholder questions in public?
OTCShortReport is notorious for including mm trades in their numbers thereby inflating them. The REAL short numbers are reported on a monthly basis by FINRA. Reality is, there is no short interest in BGMO.
383 SHAREHOLDERS - ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!!! DEMAND A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING, REQUEST TO INSPECT BGMO'S BOOKS AND RECORDS!! YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT UNDER THE LAW!!
SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS!!!
Turns out shareholders have the right to inspect BGMO's books and records including contracts, balance sheets and a whole bunch of other fun stuff - AND YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A COURT ORDER TO MAKE THE REQUEST any shareholder can do it by making a written request as described in the article (but knowing BGMO, you'll be forced to sue them to get them to comply)
www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1638
You have to have a "proper purpose" for making the request. Here's what the article I found on google says about that
With 60 false and misleading press releases, shouldn't be too hard to get a court to agree (assuming HH won't cough up the documents, which he won't) that shareholders are entitled to review documents supporting the latest pr. OH BOY!!