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.
Are you suggesting that IBIE is BCIT's merger candidate?
SPEA run has been documented at...
http://www.shellstockreview.com/ssr-Elvis-Presley-and-SPEA.html
Looking forward to the info, mainuh. Thx. eom
Discouraging TM email replies to imsoweary on RB...
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=50646
By: imsoweary
16 Oct 2007, 01:08 AM EDT
Msg. 50646 of 50646
Jump to msg. #
Final Megas Mail. There will be no more folks. We are on our own. Two emails from him here, in the order received, FIFO.
From: Thomas Megas
To: ImSoWeary
Subject: I got an Email from Ameritrade...
If ameritrade presented the transfer agent with a genine certificate I will instruct the transfer agent to print a new one for you. Off course the transfer agent will not cut a certificate. They need ameritrade to send to them the certificate they purportly hold on your behalf. The fact is they cannot send in a certificate, because they do not have one, they should have had one before they sold you a contract. Their reply is spurious. Stop wasting your and my time hoping something nice is going to happen. Go to your lawyer.
best
tm
bcit.
From: Tom Megas
To: ImSoWeary
Subject: Re: I got an Email from Ameritrade...
I have given the best advice possible which is to go to a lawyer in the present circumstances. There is nothing else I can do. I will not be able to answer any further e mails on this matter.
tm
bcit
July 18 Megas mail to OHBULL re: "erupt"...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21353629
Posted by: ohbull2000
In reply to: None
Date:7/18/2007 2:49:05 PM
Post #of 87842
Afternoon... MEGASMAIL CALL MEGASMAIL CALL....
not the reply I had hoped for (just got this reply today to an earlier email) BUT... it does point to an approx. timeframe to keep an eye on.
Sooooooooooooo.... good guyz take note... bad guyz... speculate to your hearts content on what "this actually implies".... he-he-he... sillwy buggers:
From: "Thomas Megas" <tpm14@hotmail.com> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: tpm8@harolds.ch
Subject: fshr: BCIT
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:28:39 +0000
yes, nothing really going to erupt till late august early september,
then
back to the treadmill, just keep fully filed till other bits put in
place.
tm
>From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: Thomas Megas <tpm14@hotmail.com>
>Subject: BCIT
>Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Howdy Mr. M,
>
> Well Thomas how goes the holiday? have you rejuevenated and made
sure
>they're "no excuses left"?
>
> I know your efforts this time around have to have had a more
>complex/complete effort with the hurdles put up time and time again.
>
> Waiting for news... as always.
>
> Best,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Looking forward to that party, Heed! eom
Hoping so... SMXT announced a reverse merger, and boom! If BCIT does a nice reverse merger, with its large short yet to be covered, assuming the DTC gets out of the way... yes, hmmmmm.
LMAO! "Michael Vick subjected me to microwave testing"
Thanks for sharing, Art!
Perhaps Megas will reincorporate in OK under a new company name?
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=qOsJlTJVMStlCK2sa1Q2HQ%253d%253d
Could be interesting...
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=HSYN&read=135
By: watchdog311
13 Jun 2007, 03:10 PM EDT
Msg. 135 of 135
(This msg. is a reply to 134 by justgambling1.)
Jump to msg. #
I believe this company (OGGI) will be a venture capital hedge fund that may be managing several hundred million in cash assets. It also appears that OGGI will be holding on to two of HSYN's subsidiaries that rolled with it. I suspect that these will be held so that they can be used as public comany vehicles for private companies in which OGGI may be investing. My calculations have total return for these 3 subsidiaries to be between $.12 and $.18 per share of HSYN owned at a certain date yet to be determined. It appears from the earlier 8K stated that this date would be sometime before July 30th. I also believe that of the last two spin-offs, at least one will exceed the total return from these three. The already announced first spin-off should return around $.20 per share of HSYN owned, but not sure on the final one.
I don't know why the company is keeping such a low profile with events like these spin-offs greatly enhancing the value of the parent, but they probably have good reasons. However, as an investor I would not focus solely on the spin-offs as I believe the parent's technology will soon bare some serious fruit.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=HSYN&read=132
By: watchdog311
27 Mar 2007, 12:33 PM EDT
Msg. 132 of 135
(This msg. is a reply to 131 by lawmann1.)
Jump to msg. #
I was several years ago, but have not spoken to anyone in the company since I left. However, I still have a large position in this company, so I have kept close vigilance on its dealings for a long time. The company made a public announcement more then a year ago that it was spinning off its 5 subsidiaries and I understand the potential benefit from transactions of this nature, whereas many investors do not. Also, it is very unusual to have this many subs eligible for spin-offs and this greatly increases the odds that one of them will succeed. Back in October they filed an 8K on one of the spin-offs, which I researched and found to be very enlightening and encouraging. I also, like thousands of other investors, solicit feedback from every source I can find in an attempt to stay ahead of the game. It’s amazing what you can learn if you just Google a few names and have some industry knowledge. As a result of all my efforts, I believe that this company is about to finally emerge into a worthwhile investment. This is not an effort to pump the stock with the few people that read my posts, but I feel compelled to answer those that I know are spreading miss-information.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=HSYN&read=130
By: watchdog311
26 Mar 2007, 10:15 AM EDT
Msg. 130 of 135
(This msg. is a reply to 129 by phantom452.)
Jump to msg. #
First, of the 400MM authorized, approximately 200MM have been issued, and of those, approximately 20MM are free-trading. What makes this company so attractive is that it owns 5 subsidiaries that are reportedly ready to spin-off into other companies wishing to become publicly-traded companies. Strangely, or maybe not so strange, penny stock investors have missed this, or don't understand the ramifications. Having 5 clean, Bulleting Board subsidiaries, with current audited filings and ready to spin-off, is highly unusual. The potential for a large gain from the spin-off share dividends is the current reason to buy this stock now. I said “current” reason, because the parent company does own some sophisticated and inexpensive GPS tracking technology, which could soon capture a fair portion of their targeted market. However, forget that for now, if the 5 spin-offs are just average and I anticipate them to be more then that, your return from your pro-rata share of the newly issued spin-off stock could be between $.25 and $.50 per each share of HSYN owned. Even if I’m way off, for a penny or two I don’t see how you could go wrong.
Correction... should have said 0.013/0.014 B/A in that post, not 0.13/0.14. eom
Something's up, IMHO...
Was green until EOD walkdown (went from 3:06pm B/A of 0.13/0.14 to 0.0095/0.01 at 3:29pm)... anomalous volume, too...
HOMELAND SECURITY NTWK - Nasdaq National Market: HSYN
Time & Sales most recent next page
Rec. Time Action Price Volume
3:28:54 PM Trade 0.01 10000
3:28:54 PM Ask 0.01 5000
3:28:52 PM Bid 0.0095 5000
3:27:24 PM Trade 0.01 5000
3:24:54 PM Ask 0.011 5000
3:24:48 PM Bid 0.01 5000
3:24:32 PM Trade 0.011 24200
3:23:56 PM Trade 0.011 35800
3:23:42 PM Trade 0.011 40000
3:23:20 PM Trade 0.011 20000
3:22:40 PM Trade 0.011 20000
3:21:52 PM Trade 0.011 20000
3:21:52 PM Ask 0.012 5000
3:21:24 PM Trade 0.011 5000
3:21:14 PM Trade 0.011 10000
3:21:10 PM Trade 0.012 10000
3:21:08 PM Trade 0.012 5000
3:21:08 PM Bid 0.011 5000
3:21:06 PM Ask 0.013 5000
3:20:54 PM Bid 0.012 5000
3:20:44 PM Trade 0.013 10000
3:12:26 PM Bid 0.013 5000
3:12:18 PM Trade 0.013 25000
3:11:00 PM Bid 0.013 10000
3:10:38 PM Trade 0.014 50000
3:07:16 PM Trade 0.014 20000
3:06:28 PM Bid 0.013 5000
3:00:14 PM Ask 0.014 10000
2:27:48 PM Ask 0.014 5000
2:20:14 PM Ask 0.015 10000
2:19:12 PM Ask 0.015 5000
2:18:58 PM Trade 0.013 100000
2:17:04 PM Trade 0.014 50000
2:09:54 PM Bid 0.012 5000
2:08:50 PM Trade 0.014 65000
2:08:28 PM Trade 0.014 10000
2:08:28 PM Ask 0.014 5000
2:07:24 PM Trade 0.014 37500
2:07:24 PM Trade 0.014 37500
2:03:06 PM Ask 0.014 10000
2:02:26 PM Bid 0.013 5000
2:02:26 PM Ask 0.014 5000
2:02:18 PM Trade 0.013 50000
2:01:56 PM Trade 0.013 100000
2:01:24 PM Trade 0.013 50000
1:54:54 PM Ask 0.013 10000
1:46:52 PM Trade 0.013 50000
1:45:46 PM Ask 0.013 5000
1:45:38 PM Trade 0.013 50300
12:14:36 PM Trade 0.013 4600
11:53:08 AM Ask 0.013 10000
11:50:58 AM Trade 0.013 39000
11:49:54 AM Trade 0.013 22500
11:49:48 AM Trade 0.013 22500
11:43:18 AM Trade 0.013 10000
11:43:12 AM Trade 0.012 3000
11:43:06 AM Bid 0.012 5000
11:30:56 AM Ask 0.013 5000
11:30:48 AM Trade 0.012 30000
11:29:30 AM Trade 0.012 12000
11:28:44 AM Ask 0.012 10000
11:28:44 AM Bid 0.011 5000
11:28:34 AM Trade 0.012 5000
11:14:28 AM Trade 0.013 25000
11:12:52 AM Trade 0.013 25000
11:11:32 AM Bid 0.012 5000
10:53:46 AM Ask 0.013 10000
10:53:38 AM Trade 0.012 50000
10:52:50 AM Trade 0.012 50000
10:52:30 AM Ask 0.012 5000
10:52:28 AM Trade 0.012 25000
10:48:02 AM Bid 0.011 5000
10:15:32 AM Trade 0.011 100000
10:05:04 AM Bid 0.01 5000
10:04:36 AM Trade 0.012 25000
10:04:34 AM Trade 0.012 25000
10:04:28 AM Bid 0.011 5000
10:04:06 AM Ask 0.012 10000
10:03:46 AM Ask 0.012 5000
10:03:36 AM Trade 0.013 5000
10:03:34 AM Trade 0.013 25000
10:03:20 AM Ask 0.013 10000
9:56:04 AM Trade 0.013 30000
9:44:50 AM Bid 0.01 5000
9:44:26 AM Trade 0.013 150000
9:42:06 AM Bid 0.009 10000
9:41:36 AM Trade 0.012 5000
9:41:36 AM Bid 0.009 5000
9:32:32 AM Trade 0.013 75000
9:30:22 AM Trade 0.013 50000
9:30:14 AM Trade 0.013 25000
9:14:28 AM Bid 0.012 5000
9:05:46 AM Ask 0.013 5000
HSYN -- some volume today -- chart...
My WAG for post 22.222222M: 7/27/07 at 7:45pm
If BCIT starts trading "soon", then IHUB post 22,222,222 will be here before you know it. Have to factor that possibility into the WAG, IMHO.
OT: Court finds missing pants not worth $54M
[Art-- I recall you posting this when the guy issued the suit... well, the verdict's out today...]
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/25/news/funny/lawsuit_pants/
Court finds missing pants not worth $54M
Administrative law judge sought damages for fraudulent advertising after a dry cleaner allegedly gave him the wrong pair of pants.
June 25 2007: 12:39 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner that claimed $54 million in damages for a pair of missing pants.
The case was brought by Roy L. Pearson, himself a judge. He originally sought $67 million from the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners. He calculated the amount by estimating years of law violations, adding almost $2 million in common law claims for fraud.
Video More video
A DC judge sued a dry cleaner for $65 million over a pair of lost pants. CNN's Carol Costello reports. (May 5)
Play video
The Chungs denied Pearson's allegations and insisted that the pants they tried to give him were those he had brought in.
The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that he'd brought in a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, but when he came to collect them the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his.
'Project Runway' for the t-shirt crowd
During a two-day trial earlier this month, Pearson said that when he took the pants to Custom Cleaners, his financial situation was ruinous - he had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife and his credit cards were at their limit.
Pearson, representing himself during the trial, claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law.
He also claimed that a sign in the store's window that promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.
The Chungs' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff agreed.
In a 23-page conclusion, Bartnoff ruled that Custom Cleaners had not violated the city's Consumer Protection Act. She wrote: "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."
Pearson had "not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration" she said.
Bartnoff awarded court costs to the defendants. The Chungs - who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case - are attempting to have their attorney's fees paid by Pearson.
Their attorney, Chris Manning, said his clients "are relieved that we are past this stage. Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated. Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
He added: "Hopefully Mr. Pearson doesn't take this any further on appeal, but we expect him to."
During the two-day trial, Soo Chung said that "economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us." She started the business with her husband after they moved to the United States from South Korea in 1992.
Sorry, board mods, for the OT stuff earlier. I thought it was interesting, not negative--hadn't heard of that cartoon before.
I wonder what Megas will have to say...
"In regards to your question of who de-listed the stock and why please speak with the company about these questions as they are not questions we can answer with much accuracy."
Thank you for posting that Scottrade email...
that is so much more info than they have been providing to me, or perhaps any other Scotties out there re: BCIT. I found this paragraph very interesting:
"Per our Reorganization department, we will replace the old BCIT shares
(CUSIP 05968X106) with the new BCIT shares (CUSIP 05968X205) when all
shares due to Scottrade clients have been confirmed as valid at DTC.
You will know when your BCIT shares are available for trading when the #
sign has been removed from the end of the ticker symbol. We apologize
for any inconvenience or confusion that this may have caused you."
Hence the reason for delay tactics by certain parties.
Interesting reading from sterling on RB...
Already posted by beth24121 on the RB BCIT board, thought it might be of interest to IHUBbers, too.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01219&read=340639
By: stervc
15 May 2007, 12:56 PM EDT
Msg. 340639 of 340639
(This msg. is a reply to 340608 by averageinvestoraz.)
Jump to msg. #
Averageinvestoraz, to answer your BCIT question…
I’m going to try and do a little bit of a role play here to put myself into Megas’ shoes to see why I think I would have done such a thing to cause such uproar within the investing community to the group of people who have provided support in the company the most by buying BCIT shares.
If I had a very big company with significant valuation to reverse merge into BCIT once trading resumes and especially if I was sure that trading was about to resume, I would have to make one last ditch effort to get back as many of the false certs that possibly could still be at large. This would be to reduce the risk of false certs being sold into major runs to deplete them.
I would do what was done only as a “spook tactic” to not intentionally scare the innocent, but to scare and send a message to those guilty parties that still might be out there with false BCIT shares in their accounts. Technically speaking, there is no way that Megas could truly verify any remaining false shares except to come up with a way to make them come forward in a truce for returning the shares.
Megas had to strike fear in their “hearts and minds” to come forth in fear of being sued. He struck fear in their “minds” by simply filing the lawsuit, but he struck fear in their “hearts” by filing the lawsuit against “everyone” to include the innocent and guilty. From that standpoint, you had to go after everyone to show that you meant business. Heck, if you sent a message that you were going after the innocent too, then the hope was that the guilty would definitely be that much more worried from such ruthless act and relinquish their shares after being legally promised that no negative charges would be brought against them and all other charges would be dropped by simply turning in your BCIT position/shares.
Another thought too, from scanning all of those names and companies from the lawsuit list, it looks like Megas could have been trying to make transparent some potential hedge funds dealings that might later could be revealed as guilty parties naked shorting BCIT in the past to prevent further damage to BCIT in the future once trading resumes. This could be a way to have certain authorities behind the scenes to put eyes on those entities once BCIT resumes trading as an accountability of shares could be in the mix to force a covering from those entities. This covering is a little different as it would more so be a freezing of those certain positions to keep from having false shares sold into the market to fictitiously dilute BCIT’s float. This lawsuit fiasco could have been what will let authorities know who to go after in the future.
Look at it like this, if the company that was rumored to be merging into BCIT is making as many Revenues as what was rumored, then paying a .01 or .02 per share cash dividend would not cost much, but could do wonders for trapping those same guilty parties with false BCIT shares to relinquish their position or go back into the open market to buy them if they sell before being identified or legal action would be brought against them from what Megas has already revealed. All of these events could have been nothing more than precautionary methods taken by Megas to make sure BCIT is simply traded as fair as possible once trading resumes.
Now that all of this is out of the way, I expect for BCIT to resume trading very soon and for powerful news to be released to justify our wait. Ok, maybe that’s being a little optimistic, but that is what I believe. Now this is through the eyes of “Sterling” as far as the only logical reasons why I think I would go through all that was gone through. If things go as planned, then Megas would go from Hero, to Goat, then from Goat, to Hero, in the eyes of investors.
v/r
Sterling
It's been an interesting soap opera thus far. Probably more twists and turns coming. Is there more intrigue in this BCIT affair than, say, on Desperate Housewives? LOL. Who was planning to write the screenplay? Quite a cast of characters, that's for sure.
We'll have to see how this plays out. Nobody's crystal ball seems right on. I'm hoping that Megas has a plan still moving forward that gets BCIT trading again.
Great, mainuh... still waiting for mine. 10Q today???
Hopefully some more answers in the 10Q. Hopefully some biz plans of some sort will be identified soon, b4 trading commences.
Arkait... actually, I wasn't thinking about part of his post... I was interested in his assumption that this info collected from our responses could then be taken back to another courtroom... perhaps that's Megas' next step?
Excerpted from http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19201052 :
Perhaps Megas is using this suit in District court as a vehicle to obtain legal information - the kind that cannot be contested in a Federal court (such as the civil Pino case).
Once Megas has collected the information from the legal summons, what is to stop him from dismissing all charges/claims without prejudice and then making a new motion in the Pino case. Seems Megas could find several ways to integrate these now proven unregistered shares are flooding the market..... and ask a Federal judge to have them cancelled.
I'm hoping that Megas had such a plan, too, Arkait.
This post by clarity789 on 4/27/07 seems relevant...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19201052
Posted by: clarity789
In reply to: Texbanker who wrote msg# 71809
Date:4/27/2007 7:49:52 PM
Post #of 76795
Tex - ever consider another possible option?
Perhaps Megas is using this suit in District court as a vehicle to obtain legal information - the kind that cannot be contested in a Federal court (such as the civil Pino case).
Once Megas has collected the information from the legal summons, what is to stop him from dismissing all charges/claims without prejudice and then making a new motion in the Pino case. Seems Megas could find several ways to integrate these now proven unregistered shares are flooding the market..... and ask a Federal judge to have them cancelled.
Megas would be able to prove - beyond question - that there are millions of unregistered shares on the market, directly as a result of the actions of Pino..... and sue for additional damages.
Megas may have abandoned the concept of 'naked shorts' because it is basically unprovable (historically). So perhaps his court stance is to claim - and prove - that the shares really exist.... and they are unregistered
I believe such a tactic might very well succeed. A Federal judge can certainly order that unregistered shares be cancelled.
But - it's just my opinion.
glaszman... your post triggered my memory of this post...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19201052
Posted by: clarity789
In reply to: Texbanker who wrote msg# 71809
Date:4/27/2007 7:49:52 PM
Post #of 76795
Tex - ever consider another possible option?
Perhaps Megas is using this suit in District court as a vehicle to obtain legal information - the kind that cannot be contested in a Federal court (such as the civil Pino case).
Once Megas has collected the information from the legal summons, what is to stop him from dismissing all charges/claims without prejudice and then making a new motion in the Pino case. Seems Megas could find several ways to integrate these now proven unregistered shares are flooding the market..... and ask a Federal judge to have them cancelled.
Megas would be able to prove - beyond question - that there are millions of unregistered shares on the market, directly as a result of the actions of Pino..... and sue for additional damages.
Megas may have abandoned the concept of 'naked shorts' because it is basically unprovable (historically). So perhaps his court stance is to claim - and prove - that the shares really exist.... and they are unregistered
I believe such a tactic might very well succeed. A Federal judge can certainly order that unregistered shares be cancelled.
But - it's just my opinion.
f1fans... I sent you an email this morning. eom
Happy BCIT Day & Happy Rush S&A Day, too!!!
Things seem to be moving forward today, BCIT-wise. Bought the new Rush album this morning--great tunes, and good news regarding the lawsuit, and a 10-K to boot!
Feeling a bit more relaxed right now. Hopefully, the BCIT good news will continue...
With all the recent discussion about OK jurisdiction, I found it interesting that elitedb stated ten days ago: "I intend to answer the lawsuit as required. I do not intend to contest the OK courts juridiction on this matter since I believe this suit has the chance to increase the value of the stock."
Does elitedb's summary still apply?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18975439
Posted by: elitedb
In reply to: None
Date:4/20/2007 12:09:08 PM
Post #of 73125
Hello all, just returned home to find my summons and way too many posts to read through.
I have done a first read through of the lawsuit and have a few quick opinions.
The amount of money in the lawsuit is the jurisdictional amount required by the court to accept the case. BCIT is not seeking over $10,000 from each and every shareholder. The lawsuit is seeking a declaratory judgment voiding shares of stock deemed to be counterfeit or fraudulent. I personally do not own counterfeit or fraudulent stock. When my broker purchased and delivered stock to my account, they took good and clear funds and had a responsibility to deliver valid shares. How they do it is their responsibility and in this case their problem.
With regard to Megas: I believe him to be a shrewd and cunning businessman so if all he wanted is a clean shell he certainly is going about it in a ridiculous manner. He could have avoided all the legal fees he has expended (which are quite obviously a considerable sum) and just reverse split all of us out of existence or he could have spent less money than his legal and accounting fees and just bought a new clean shell.
So why then spend these sums and fight this battle. If I were guessing he hopes to cash in like the rest of us. He owns more stock than the rest of us combined, so how much is it worth if he forces a short squeeze? What if the squeeze drives the price up so high that he can use part of the stock to place assets into the corp? He can buy assets with previously low dollar stock and perpetuate the higher value of the corp. I am just supposing but it sounds reasonable to me. Certainly more reasonable than some other theories. Smart businessman do not sue for principal since over time principals fade, but money lives on. You sue for money not principal.
In the alternative, what if the effect of the OK court delaratory judgment is to just invalidate any but the original shares of stock as recordered by the company TA and the stock does not trade soon? In that case Megas may offer stock to the brokerages to cover our accounts and again is in the cat bird seat to name a price. A private short sqeeze.
I agree that Megas does not care about any of us on an individual basis but his interests coincide with ours. If our stock becomes valuable obviously so does his. In reality, he needs us as much or more than we need him. Our investments pale in comparison to his own.
I intend to answer the lawsuit as required. I do not intend to contest the OK courts juridiction on this matter since I believe this suit has the chance to increase the value of the stock. I have not gone through all the names listed and do not know if individual brokerages have been named or just brokerages named relating to the titles on individual accounts. When I have the chance to determine this I will think of what else may be done in relation to indidual brokerages.
In any event, I personally consider this turn of events to be good. It shows Megas still continues the fight and considers the large expense to be an investment worth spending. He obviously believes the payday justifies the expense and risk.
Scottrade is now listed as a defendant...
just under Schwab, on court web site...
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getcaseinformation.asp?submitted=true&number=CJ-2007-3181+...
Scottrade Inc , Defendant
Probably because of all the IRAs for which they are custodian.
Megas response to 2Late... from RB...
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=41899
By: 2Late
26 Apr 2007, 05:36 PM EDT
Msg. 41899 of 41900
Jump to msg. #
I am unable to answer anything pertaining to this matter at the moment
becuase of legal reasons.
Your questions are good questions and the answers to which will no doubt
reveal themselves to all as bcit pursue matters.
best regards
tm
bcit
>From:
>To: tpm14@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: fshrp BCIT Shareholder
>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:14:17 EDT
>
>Mr. Megas
>
>Thank you for taking time to reply to the questions holders of shares in
>your company ask while waiting finality as to being legitimate yet or not.
>From
>my experience in the proceeding nine years of trading your company has so
>far
>provided more ethical and admirable character. I now ask you a very
>difficult question to test your response in the value you place on ALL
>holders of
>record and their investment.
>
>The current float for BCIT is approximately 230 million. What is your
>projected belief that the actual number is of shares sold? If BCIT is over
>sold
>requiring the covering of fraudulent shares how far in doing that are
>insiders
>intending to go? Will BCIT except deals now offered by our brokers to
>purchase
>shares to settle out our accounts or will BCIT seek coverage by a forced
>buy
>in? I understand the intent of the Summons is to show the court the harm
>caused in this situation and seek a judgment that includes all holders of
>record
>as legal owners of BCIT.
>
>Example:
>If our brokers need to legitimize 500 million shares with a buy in our
>float
>is only 230 million. Do you intend to let it run all the way out knowing
>the
>only final coverage can be concluded by insiders selling their shares or
>BCIT issuing addition shares? This is extremely unique the situation at
>hand and
>nobody knows what to expect. There are comments to the extreme left and far
>right. What is your belief of the expected share price by the time 90% of
>the
>fraudulent shares have been covered. I really have know idea if this
>started
>to trade tomorrow what I should expect as far as a possible projected
>return. I have shared my e-mails in the past with other posters, but will
>withhold
>it if you so desire if you choose to respond.
>
>Please keep us informed as to the short position of this stock as you
>receive our Summons. This story almost seems like it needs to be a movie.
>
>
>
>Defendant xxx
>xxx,xxx Shares
Just returned from the post office...
sent my answer/response/whateveritscalled to both Laura L. McCasland Holbrook and Patricia Presley. I used both the jllapoint template http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=41561 and the now infamous sircharles template as starting points.
Now that that's out of the way... where's the 10-K???
Beneficial ADR Owners
Beneficial owners are the investors who actually receive the benefits of owning a particular share (dividends, voting rights, share price increase). These shares are held in "street name" by banks and brokers within a securities depository institution, known as DTC, or The Depository Trust Company (see below). This arrangement facilitates trading and settlement. It is estimated that approximately 80-90% of all shares are held in street name
from http://www.adr.com/gloss/content_benadrown.html , which is content of this JP Morgan / ADR.com glossary:
http://www.adr.com/gloss/glossary_fm.html?content_accumulation.html
Agreed. eom
Great guesses, karb, but...
the real answer is synonymous with the word "posthaste".
"SPUN"?
LOL
Okay, Karbin, Your vowels are "O" and "O"...
and the audience responds "OOH!"... no, "OO"!
Great guess, Karbin! Vannah... what did Karbin win???
Awww, geez, we ran out of time... gotta wait until the next time... when Vannah reads from the 10K!
IMHO, "posthaste" is much better than that "S" word, which has been waaaay overused in the last year or so.
Thx, OHBULL. Looking forward to that 10K...
POSTHASTE! (No longer using that four-letter "S" word--the one that ends with an "n")
I spoke with Mike Banyas once...
back a year or so ago. He's with the Florida OFR http://www.flofr.com/Director/ofrcontacts.htm . Nice guy, but he was not able to comment about the investigation that was ongoing. Maybe he can comment more now that the "investigation" is complete?