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.
the brokers never did it..
Then you said:
etrade even wrote some letters saying they HAD exchanged the old cusip 106 shares to to the new 205 shares, but we still have a global freeze...
Pretty funny, contradicting yourself in the same post. Which is it dude...did they or didn't they do it? Please provide proof.
Oh really, please provide proof otherwise one must assume this is more of your inaccurate information.
Those letters will be thrown into the circular file. Didn't you learn from the last time you all tried mass letter writing?
Brokers have no requirement to contact the "DA." A reporting institution which discovers counterfeit certs reports the incident to the FBI. I think Megas or his rep reported it as well.
Might be due to clerk sloppiness or database field limitation. IMO go w/ the summons or contact the court clerk to verify you two are still named defendants.
this list is going after anybody they can identify that had anything to do with the paper trail IMO...
Perhaps in YOUR mind that's the intent, but the 10K says the lawsuit was against "purported shareholders alleging that they hold improperly issued stock certificates." It doesn't mention some were sued for another purpose. If his intent was the same as what you believe, ask yourself: Why did they quickly drop 2-5 for ALL defendants not just some? Why didn't he sue the other clearing houses, broker-dealers, etc? He could have used the same shotgun approach as was done w/ investors. Ever consider if he has problems understanding NOBOs don't hold certs, he's probably clueless about clearing houses too.
Megas may be able to bamboozle some of the retail investors, but he's way out of his league going after those w/ deeper pockets.
They check deposited certs against a database. If the number is not present, it's assumed good. The cert is then routed thru the system to the DTCC back to the TA for reregistration. The second check (DTCC to TA) is where they were picked up.
You're misreading that paragraph. At that point in time, the TA was cutting the cert not verifying it.
There is a system in place to catch counterfeit certificates. AFAIK, BCIT's TA didn't initially report the cert numbers because they weren't known until the DTC submitted the cert for re-registration.
Someone posted the other day that the MM suggested this lawsuit idea to Megas. Don't know if that's true, but I doubt the DTC instructed him to use certain language let alone sue all the NOBOs. They know NOBOs don't hold certs. There's no need to do a fishing expedition for this because they have records where the FTDs are located. It appears Megas didn't work w/ them to narrow down where they are.
I don't see how NOBOs will help. Doesn't everyone's account show their BCIT shares as settled trades rather than FTDs?
Last few sentences sums it up...
The less-expensive Apple TV took me less than an hour to set up. The Cynalynx took days and never really worked as promised. I didn't even get to listen to one full song or view one full movie. Not good.
It won't. In your scenario, IMO he'll either have to cut certs or the system won't let the stock trade.
IMO the system would wait until the TA cut certs to cover the extra stock.
Why the brokers? According to posted emails, they seem to believe customers hold real stock.
Going thru a broker doesn't prove the stock purchased is real. Periodically counterfeit certs enter the market but usually in manageable quantities where the problem can be fixed w/o raising customer awareness outside the depositors.
What's interesting is no one here has said their account shows the 205 CUSIP. Without accounts flagged or forensic analysis done on past trading, I don't see how the company can adequately distinguish NOBOs who hold real stock vs fake. The remaining FTDs may be the result of normal market making and not created from additional fake certs deposited.
The burden of proof is on his shoulders.
In a posted email allegedly from Megas, he said that stock has already been distributed. If someone holds real shares which are canceled either thru settlement or court order, IMO he's SOL.
Again, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove your shares are fake.
Megas can only reverse split real not fake stock. Since the latter represents -0- ownership in a company, he has no authority over it.
I don't see how this agreement provides good ammo. Based on emails posted here, brokers believe their customers' stock is real. Why would it be their problem if someone rolls over w/o ever seeing the evidence it's fake and defending himself?
TA's get their info from the company. Urbie and gang weren't into keeping good records. So, it's possible the ledger might be filled w/ errors.
DeSormeau's letter claims he wasn't paid for expenses and work performed for three years. IF this is true, all the ledger entries for Business Works prior to its date must be fraudulent right? They couldn't represent compensation if he's complaining he wasn't paid and threatened to take the issue public. Maybe there's other possibilities like they represent kickbacks.
I don't know whether or not that letter's content is true. It doesn't make sense to me why the TA cut so many certs instead of issuing one or a couple to cover this debt. Info in his correspondence and the TA's ledger don't add up.
Pedro, I'm not saying this guy is blameless. Lack of corporate records is a huge hurdle to overcome. Some may end up being accused of things they actually didn't do and not accused of things they did.
I think the letter you posted there was very interesting. If the content is true, it raises the possibility of fraudulent entries in the TA ledger not just for him but perhaps for others too.
Probably a lot of CMKX'ers would for Urbie. :o)
Appears from that letter that DeSormeu's main job was setting up corporations, paying their SoS fees, and probably serving as RA. That doesn't take much time. Most of the expenses incurred might have been in providing financial planning and picking up travel and meals.
If he was CFO and director, why didn't he demand payment for those particular positions in his letter?
Pedro, that doesn't mean Urbie formally appointed him in those positions. In the letter you posted, DeSormeu didn't complain about not being paid for CFO and director duties. He wanted reimbursement for doing other work and expenses incurred the past three years.
Is DeSormeu's letter to Urbie from the recent boxes West received? If the content there is true, then a number of entries from the TA's ledger must be fraudulent. There's a conflict between the two.
When the company changed name to CMKX Diamonds, DeSormeu may not have been CFO. I wouldn't be surprised if he was never formally appointed as an officer or director under its predecessor form.
Are you looking at the dismissal for "CLAIMS #2- #5" document? That one has 50 pages of names. If you're only seeing the first page, try some other s/w tool to open it.
There are more names on that document than the summons.
It's on the OK court site. Link is in iBox. Just do a search for dismissal filed on 30 Apr.
Are you listed in the recent dismissal document? If not there either, maybe Megas thinks you hold real stock. :o)
Does your broker have you as an OBO?
I'm not defending what Pino et al did. I merely pointed out just like you revised history on them, the same can occur to you.
OT: Back in 2005, Pino and some others allegedly flooded the market w/ fake BCIT stock. In Aug 2005, the SEC issued a suspension, and the stock hasn't traded since then. The CEO filed a lawsuit and settled w/ the culprits. Two were dismissed over jurisdiction. Supposedly, shares issued as part of the settlement were given to the DTC, but they wanted more to cover the rest of the FTDs this mess created. The CEO refused.
Last month, he decided to sue over 1,200 investors who traded during this time and allegedly hold street-name stock. This is the petition filed against them: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18949027 On Monday, claims 2-5 were dismissed by the plaintiff w/o prejudice.
Oh, there's lots of penny players who won't care. Some of the defendants don't mind the suit as it's all part of the PLAM. Many folks think a stock's history has no relevance to the future.
Someone posted the other day that an MM suggested this tactic to Megas. Don't know if that's true.
The court didn't make that decision. Pino and gang (except for two) opted to settle. Then, Megas had problems collecting from them.
See how easily the details on a case can be changed as time passes? Same can occur on this one.
Okay gottcha, how about leasing an office instead http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Profile/ProfileSE.aspx?LID=14698431
To prevent personal info from being given out to companies whose stock you buy, simply tell your broker you want to be an OBO not a NOBO.
Okay, so why not use that as part of your evidence to counter Megas' claim that your stock is fake. Maybe your account is one of the lucky ones that ended up w/ the Pino et al settlement shares.
Looks like you need to brush up on the story's details because you're using faulty assumptions here.
You assume Megas used a NOBO list... that is not in evidence..
How else does a company get a list of shareholder names, addresses, and share amount for all its stock held in street-name? The only mechanism I know exists today is the NOBO list.
Thought you posted an email from Etrade which said your BCIT stock has the new CUSIP.
No, it's not. When someone deposits a cert, the system routes it to the TA. By working w/ the DTC, the TA can figure out the responsible clearing house, broker, and client.
He and his attorney apparently don't understand NOBOs don't hold any certs. Had someone deposited a cert in 2005, they would have received it a long time ago.
Your scenario isn't the same. Don't be surprised if some brokers use that argument or wave around the buyin suspension.
"within the past six months" -- did you request this info back then?
Suppose your broker flipped this and claimed it's all your fault for not putting on an adequate defense. If your stock is real and happens to get canceled, it wouldn't be their problem right?