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.
lifegear: Maybe a plane ticket and a suitcase full of cash...
It never did exist for USXP. Does it exist at all? Of course, but typically on bigger stocks.
They have to come up with the cash judgement, or at least a substantial bond for that amount, within 10 days.
Looking at about 23M or so...
slorke: I would hope that if someone can find the info for another company, that these type of filings could be searchable.
Not necessarily. The filing info could have been put out by the company in question.
It would be nice, though...
Yes. He'll appeal that ruling, I'm sure.
Gunderson is gone, as well...
slorke: Does this mean we can do a search for any filing by CKYS?
The judge ruled in favor of the SEC summary judgement request against USXP, RA, Gunderson et al today.
Could get really ugly tomorow...
For those who care: The judge ruled on the summary judgement request by the SEC against USXP, Altomare, Gunderson, et al today.
All of the SECs summary judgement requests were granted.
Only took the SEC since August 2003 to get them...
slorke: Those prices should now be reflected on the DODMall, which up until now has been reporting xx.xx, making it impossible to buy.
MadameTrader: I'm pretty sure it was the "Another..." that got you the noteriety...
Phisherman: I'm sure that whatever broker they chose to do this through could find the best Ask. It would be very cumbersome to buy any quantity, but it could be done.
I don't think they need to do it through the TA, but if they did, the TA can do the same thing.
Phisherman: There is nothing I know of that prevents any company from continuing any buyback just because the stock goes grey.
The only issue is that CKYS is supposed to buy at the Ask. That could be deadly on the greys.
ralphkaz: I don't think that blockman, brentjanice, dcbass, of 5 cap have zero credibility. I do think that they are putting too much weight on the accuracy of what Jim may tell them.
That's their right. It's everybody else's right to make judgements about Jim, but I sincerely believe that these guys are being accurate about what they have been told, and are really trying to help their fellow longs.
I'll gladly attack Jim et al with you.
imahustler: Damned. Am I going to go to jail? Will I become somebody's love toy?
Good luck with that, and I do hope you will publish the response you get.
P.S. Make sure you spell check whatever you post, first. TIA...
BooDog: You figured out what what's his name couldn't.
Damn, I've been outed...
imahustler: Can I assume you will publish the results of your complaint, when you get a reponse in a few weeks?
TIA...
Come on, you're talking about a SEC lawyer...
Oh my, god - I'm the only person in the world that misspells things. Damn, now that I know, I'll make sure I run spell check on the information I'm feloniously creating, and leave them in my parts of that information.
Thanks for helping me be a more productive felon.
You haven't sent that complaint in yet?
Bye todd...
Please. Send that to them. Then tell me what "Apparently" means and tell me what there is in the SEC answer that indicates anything other than that interpretation?
Their response clearly states that a TA needs to be registered with the SEC to operate as a TA. They left out the potential exceptions which I was able to dig up later.
Do yourself a favor, stop aggravating yourself by posting to me. Attacking the messanger never changes the message.
now invest: Paid basher? You are funny...
You mean these:
They are running an illegal operation? Huh?
Trading may be stopped on CKYS due to this? You're kidding right? Trading cannot be stopped because of this.
CKYS may be part of an illegal sham with them? I don't know what CKYS is capable or incapable of doing anymore. I used to support the idea that they actually had the big government contracts. Now I seriously doubt it.
The SEC might close them down SOON? It would take years for the SEC to shut this down - Look at USXP.
smartmoney77: I posted what the SEC said in response to my question. It wasn't until later that a I discovered, and pointed out the extenuating info that the SEC did not include in their response.
wallstreet player: So, if you really don't want to read any facts that may have some negative connoctations about CKYS, please feel free to a) prove the information is incorrect, or b) ignore me.
Simple.
Yes, it is National's responsibility. The fact is, Jim has been using National as a TA for a long time, long before he had 3M or 500 plus holders, and may never have thought twice about the possibly changed situation.
imahustler: I post facts, and often they can be interpretted as negative. That makes me a basher. Oh well.
I have one Ihub alias.
Do you want the SEC file number?
SEC Response - File HO1202744
That should help you out...
Thank you.
I asked the SEC a question, I got an answer, and I published that answer. Clearly you thing that answer is a serious problem. I'd like to know why he's doing business with an unregistered TA.
There is a question as to whether CKYS meets the requirements of needing a registered TA. But why would they not work with one, anyway?
Seems to me you are reading a lot of negatives into the SEC's answer. That indicates, particularly with your accusation of feloneous actions on my part, that you see this information as seriously negative.
I'm not sure it is. It could be, but the evidence is murky, at best.
A little suspicious in what way? The SEC provided an answer. That answer fits perfectly with the description of TA registration requirements on the stocktransfer.com web site.
Clearly National cannot act as a TA for many, many companies. The question is can they act for a pinkie?
That comes down to the 3M assets, and 500 stockholders of record question.
There may be an out in that the registration requirement applies for TAs of stocks that are either on a national exchange, or have more than 3M in assets and more than 500 stock holders of record.
CKYS doesn't meet the national exchange requirement, and I don't know whether or not it meets the second requirements.
National isn't registered with the SEC, and it isn't a bank. So, it could not operate as a TA for CKYS if CKYS meets either of the ablove requirements.
Have you ever tried reading SEC regs - THey are about as clear as liquid's posts on a bad day...
From your site:
"Registration of Transfer Agents
If an issuer's securities are listed on a national securities exchange or if an issuer has assets in excess of three million dollars and more than five hundred shareholders of record, the issuer must register its securities with the SEC and make regular reports to the Commission. Furthermore, the issuer, or the person who performs the functions of "transfer agent" for such an issuer, is required to register with "the appropriate regulatory agency." The definition of transfer agent includes transfer agent depositories (TAD), which transfer record ownership by bookkeeping entries without the physical issuance of certificates. In the case of a bank that performs the function of a transfer agent, the "appropriate regulatory agency" is the agency regulating the bank in its banking activities. In the case of a nonbank issuer, which is its own transfer agent, and any other nonbank transfer agent, the"appropriate regulatory agency" is the SEC. If a transfer agent or registrar is not registered with the appropriate regulatory agency, it will not be able to use the mails or any means of interstate commerce regarding a security registered under the Exchange Act."
So it looks like National can act as a TA as long as Cyberkey doesn't have at least 3M in assets and more than 500 shareholders of record.
But it is not registered as a transfer agent with the SEC.
imahustler: Right. I'm one dumb mother, publicly performing a serious felony that can easily be verified. Not only did I make up a SEC response, I included the name of a real SEC attorney.
Please, do everybody a favor. Report me to the SEC, please.
Really, think before you make accusations.
jabberstox: I posted my questions, and my answer from the SEC. I certainly didn't make up the response (how smart would that be, make up or doctor an e-mail from an identified SEC attorney), and I know you are not suggesting that.
The SEC had a run in with National Stock Transfer Inc. a few years back, slapping them on the hands for helping another penny stock hide the facts about its stock sales. That's about the time National Stock Transfer Inc. stopped being a registered transfer agent.
All I can do is provide the info I got from the SEC. I can come to my own conclusions, you need to come to yours.
liguidcoolback4more: Form 211 has nothing to do with being registered as a Transfer Agent with the SEC. It has to do with applying to be an MM for a stock.
Please try to pay a little more attention to the 'facts' you try to use to refute infomation you don't like.
Apparently National Trust has not met the SEC requirements to act as a Transfer Agent for any publicly traded company since 2004. So why is Jim using them in that capacity?
I asked the SEC two questions: Where they registered with the SEC, and could a company that wasn't registered with the SEC act as a TA.
I just got this response (I deleted my day phone and email address as it is for my work). I checked the exemptions under securities act of 1935 and they don't apply: They are not an investment company (Section 12(g)(2)(B)) or insurance company (Section 12(g)(2)(G)).
_________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. King,
Thank you for contacting the SEC.
National Stock Transfer Inc., has not registered with the SEC as a tranfer agenct since March 31, 2004.
Under 17A(c) any person acting as a transfer agent with respect to a security registered under Section 12 or which would be required to be registered except for the exemption provided in Sections 12(g)(2)(B) or 12(g)(2)(G) must register as a transfer agent. The transfer agent either registers with us or, if it is a bank, with its appropriate bank regulatory authority. All registered transfer agents, including bank transfer agents, are required to file the annual Form TA-2 with the Commission.
For more information about tranfer agents and a link to the relevant laws, please review the following link:
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrtransfer.shtml
I hope you find this information helpful.
Sincerely,
RINELL RANDOLPH JR
Attorney
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F St, NE
Washington, DC 20549-0213
---------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION
---------------------------------------------------------
Submitted: 2007-02-01
INVESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Mr. Joseph W King
Day Phone:
Email:
QUESTION
I'm trying to find out if a company's transfer agent is properly registered with the SEC. The transfer agent is National Stock Transfer, Inc.
Also, does a company need to be registered with the SEC in order to act as a transfer agent for a publicly traded stock?
Thank you in advance for your help in answering these questions.
Joseph W. King
vip1999: It's still selling on the grey market.
It's easy to check the status, by going to the following link and seeing if the primary venue is identified as Pinksheets or Other OTC (grey market).
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=ckys
Also, you can check any Level II service to see if any MMs are identified as being on the bid and ask. If any are, it's back on the pinks; if not, it's still on the greys.
Yeah, that was not a very nice thing to do.
I find it difficult to believe anyone needed to sell 100 shares for 12.50 before commission, because they needed the money.
ToddWHO2: I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the guy who responded to his post originally.
If you had responded to him preficing your comments with your knowledge of his past posting, and then asking him if he could explain how he could turn on a dime, and pointing out how suspicious that looks, I'd of had nothing to say about that. That's a reasonable line of response.
ToddWHO2: And I'm saying wait to see if someone goes completely over to the darkside like Raplhkaz before you start labeling.
I've seen this many times in many stocks.
ToddWHO2: Did he sour on his investment? Clearly. Is he angry about it? Clearly.
It's a bit too early to judge him. We may not see him around anymore, or he may mellow as he faces up to what has happened.
There is no doubt he was a full-fledged, completely sincere cheerleader. Now he's not.
But to label someone based on a single post, without reviewing their posting history, is distasteful, in my opinion.
I'm afraid you guys will see a lot of people like newfy over the next few days or weeks. It's called venting...