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.
something is happening
Today we got an email from shareholder in Europe which was very similar to the post here that the lock on his shares had been lifted.
Then this afternoon we got a phone call from a trader with UBS in London saying a client had asked him to see about selling his shares (This investor has certificates and is on the register). Yet when he looked the shares are not showing as trading.
We explained the situation to him and he is waiting and watching.
Two other shareholders in the US have emailed us to say that they are with a US broker who having asked for a refund has told them their transactions were valid and they are not entitled to refund.
Having asked for their certificates one has been told that the brokers in question don't issue certs due to an SEC rule change and that everything is done by DRS (Direct Registry System).
DRS provides investors with an alternate approach to holding their securities in certificate or "street" form.
However as we understood it, it is the investors choice and that they can elect to have their securities registered directly on the issuer’s records in book-entry form in which case they receive a statement from the issuer or its transfer agent evidencing ownership of the security or they can have a traditional certificate, but it is the investor who decides not the broker.
Hope that makes sense.
I just realized that UBS which is my broker lifted the lock on my BCIT shares as of today Thursday 29th September 2011
Explain this to me then
Request your certificates.
Long answer short it would probably have been handled differently, because the shorting rules in the UK are much stricter and there is more controls and regulations here.
There is the equivalent of the DTC but it is subject to supervision and is in theory accountable to the regulatory authorities.
We agree that the legal issue between a shareholder and their broker is different to the issues BCIT have as a company, although there is some cross over.
With regards your statement "Lot's of scams like this in the OTCBB world"
Are you saying this is a scam?
If so produce the evidence to support your allegations and dispense with the pseudonym and use or your real identity.
You might also want to explain why Megas has to prove he has assets?
You can ask for what you like providing that your demand is reasonable and lawful and you can substantiate the claim.
How do you know you are not going to get your certs?
Dont jump to conclusions, there is a lot going on that we are not broadcasting.
The end game is to get the stock trade again in one way or another, everything else in ancillary to that.
Just be patient.
It is not just the FINA ruling, but the whole way that two lots of forged shares were allowed by the DTCC to enter the system and why they failed to act when it was brought to their attention.
I expect you are right and that they will try it on.
But, you know we dont really care. The more they lie and the more they obstruct the better it is for the case against them.
Actually, we have a document setting out the power of the global lock etc etc.
Unfortunately that document did not refer to any statutes so could be regarded as unconstitutional, and as it was dated five years after the BCIT lock was imposed it would not apply to this case anyway.
Ha ha You know the other day when we were going through the excuses brokers have given for not delivering certificates we wondered how many of them have been influenced by one Bartholomew Simpson. However on reflection we decided that Barts excuses would be more credible.
1.My dog ate it.
2.My religion forbids the wanton waste of time on pointless busy work.
3.No comprendo, senorita.
4.I sneezed on it. So, in interest of public safety. The department of health ordered it destroyed.
5.I have amnesia.
6.I cannot release that document for National security reasons.
8.My dad ate it.
We have also been in touch with the FBI with regards a number of issues. We hope you will understand that we cannot say any more than that as we don't want to prejudice anything they might do.
We have a draft letter which may have gone out today, but if not it will be tomorrow asking why Energy Source is not on that list and what the company needs to do to be able to be included.
On 16th August 2005 the DTCC issued a notice which says and I quote "...that effective 11th August 2005 that they had suspended all services except custody services for Bancorp International Group Inc CUSIP 05968X106."
The reason was that “Individuals and corporate entities involved with illegal takeover of the company printed invalid share certificates”.
The notice is accompanied by two releases from Mr Tom Megas the CEO of the company outlining the issues, one dated 1st August 2005 the other dated 11th August 2005.
We have asked Mr Montal to answer the following points.
1. Under what regulation or statute is such an order issued
2. What is meant by all services, under which regulation or statute is this defined?
3. Although the document has a start date there is no end date, why is that and under what legislation is it justified to still be in place more than six years later.
We have already written twice to the DTCC Errors department asking for information but they have so far failed to respond, so we have directed the questions to Mr Anthony Carlisle.
Dear Mr Carlisle,
April 21, 2005, A Pamela J. Thompson faxed a false documents to the Nevada Secretary of State which purported to change the Company's registered share agent and corporate officers. This was sanctioned by the DTCC. Can you tell us what is the DTCC standard operating procedure and what due diligence in these cases?
What is the name of the individual or individuals at the DTC who authorized these changes?
How was it that not just one but two different sets of forged certificates got into the DTCC system?
From the information available it appears that the DTCC were probably aware of this problem on 1st August 2005 and were most definitely aware by the 8th August yet took no action protect their clients and investors until 16th August when they suspended all services except custody services. Can you explain this to us please.
What is meant by the suspension of all services in order # 8418 dated 16th August 2005?
On 19th August 2005 Nicholas Cerchio the manager of the Errors office wrote to Pamaela J Thompson at 1201 S Alma School RD Street 7550 Mesa, Arizona, 85210 instructing her firm to immediately return the following certificates to the DTC. The Certificate Numbers in question were 1029, 1026, 1033,1032, J011,1030,1013,1034 and 1031. Can you please tell us if these certificates were actually returned and when.
What efforts were made by the DTCC to recover and or recall the other batch of fake certificates.
Last but not least, we have also written to a R Nurse of the compliance section of the DTCC pointing out that on 8th & 9th August 2005 Thomas Megas the CEO of BCIT contacted him to inform him of a problem with forged share certificates.
We want Mr Nurse to tell us in as much detail exactly what action he took with regards this matter.
We are not saying that it is not documented, just that we cannot find anything or anyone who can enlighten us as to what it was and why it was not flagged up sooner and nipped in the bud.
Joda
You raise a number of very good points.
Financial terrorism is not just some idle threat or the stuff of novels, it is very real.
No point fighting the war on terror abroad when the enemy are undermining the financial heart of your society.
There are in our opinion clear breaches of the Patriot Act here by a number of organisations, well one in particular, but then maybe those bits of legislation don't apply to them either.
Sorting something out for a link, but if you email us we will send you a copy.
The new cusip number 05968X205 which replaced former cusip number 05968X106.
Interesting thing about the Changed cusip.
As you all know the 7th November 2006, the Company was delisted from the OTCBB exchange. Due to regulator “clerical errors” regarding the Company’s new cusip number. As a result the Company’s stock goes unquoted for four consecutive trading days and in violation of SEC Rule 15c-211, gets delisted from the OTCBB exchange.
Earlier in the year when we were making tentative enquiries about all this we asked various people in these organisations what the "clerical error" was. I don't suppose we will shock many of you when we tell you nobody could actually tell us.
Now we are asking officially so lets see what they come up with.
The Global Locks says and I quote
".....DTC has suspended all services except custody services for Bancorp International Group Inc CUSIP 05968X106."
How do you interpret the words all services?
We think that the brokerage houses and the individuals who sold the shares after the announcement are guilty of simple fraud.
These brokers are not going to get off the hook unless you the shareholders let them.
WE have to deal with this one step at a time, gather the evidence and push ahead.
There are another 1000 odd people we have still yet to contact, but the news is spreading and we are getting new contacts every day.
The brokers and DTC do not have sufficient shares to cover their positions.
They are using the "forgeries" to try to hide the fact that they need about 1.5 billion shares which at .15c is a of a money.
We agree with you, but by the same token we have made a request to Isaac Montal at the DTCC to explain a few things about the Lock.
The lock document says that all services except custody services were suspended.
It does not say under what regulation or statute is such an order issued
It does not define what is meant by all service or statute under which regulation or statute this is defined?
Although the document has a start date there is no end date, why is that and under what legislation is it justified to still be in place more than six years later.
We await his response.
Even if there is legislation to cover it, we think their actions are a breach of the constitution. Our legal beagles are looking at that.
The fact is, that it does not appear that anybody quite knows and as far as we can see nobody has asked the DTCC the direct question.
Lets see what they say and then go back to the SEC
Hi Janet. One of the reasons maybe that the regs are tighter in Canada than USA. Lets just see what happens.
Most Excellent !!
we shall be dropping her a line on your behalf, but all you people with this firm write to her and ask her to personally justify the position or be held accountable.
NO!!! sorry more like a tens of thousands
To be honest we dont know.
However because the root of this problem is fake share certificates and there are some circumstance when you would need to be able to produce a genuine certificate.
As a hypothetical example, if there was a take over or buy out of the existing company as a result of which there was a share exchange, the new company would want to make sure you had genuine shares not fake ones.
FOLLOW UP ACTION TO BROKERS REFUSAL TO PROVIDE CERTIFICATES
Our advice is that in the event of getting a response either email us and we will help you directly (but please give us a bit of time to respond as we are busy little hobbits) or you send a communication back addressed to the individual who has sent it to you along these lines would be reasonable
" I do not understand or believe the reason given by you for not providing me with my share certificates is valid.
In view of this I must insist that you personally justify your position and written statement by immediately providing documentation to support your previous response.
Please be aware that you personally may to have to explain your statements and actions to the authorities and in official proceedings"
If they tell you to go to the transfer agents please dont. Your contract is with the broker and the TA cannot deal with you directly.
Any queries email us, but as I say give us a bit of time to get back to you and dont forget that we are at least 6 hours ahead of you.
Thanks
If you the shareholders fight back together then slowly but surely the weight of numbers will force them to come to the table.
We know that 99% of you want the company to trade or be part of a another company that can trade without the interference of the DTCC.
email us at es@carltonhuxley.com
We understood the same, but the FINRA judgement changed that preconception of which BCIT/ES securities were locked.
The process is all part of the evidence gathering so that we can present your cases properly.
We all know the brokers have sold what they didn't own, have done deals when they knew they should not have, but we need the evidence in back and white. we have to go from A To D via B & C.
We have studied the paper that was issued on 16th August and as a result and have a communication going to Issac Montal and Anthony carlisle at the DTCC asking them to explain which regulation or other piece of legislation gives them the power to do what they did and for so long.
We also want them to give answers to things lie how they allowed Thompson to become a TA without any apparent due diligence and whether they ever got the fake certificates back that they asked Thompson for and if not what did they do about it.
How come it took so long for the DTCC to react to the scam by Pino despite having been made aware of it by the company.
If people want resolution then they have to get involved.
We cant do it all for them.
We are already following up the FBI, SEC, DTCC, SIPCC as well as the had dozen brokerage firms.
of course there are some people posting here who dont want to see resolution as they work for the brokers. Is that not that case MC?
The filings will cost a few hundred dollars and there is no guarantee that will change anything.
We have noted the number thanks
thanks appreciate it
Good question, we need to talk that through.
No that's fine, we are still contacting shareholders from our records. All thats has happened is that because last weeks judgement gave us some defining parameters we have gone at the brokers sooner than we had intended, no point being handed a break and not taking it is there?
It will take a week or so for everyone it get their first approaches in.
There are lots of good points.
We are in the process of asking The DTCC to explain all this to us.
We have also asked for documentation to cover the meaning and scope of locks for the time we are talking about.
You could always vary the plan and ask for your certs first and when they refuse ask if they would give a refund instead.
We dont think they will offer you anything but you never know.
The difference between now and then is that we have a FINRA judgement.
Kathleen O'Neil of FINRA said if you bought after the 16th August 2005 the brokers dont have to give you certs because of the global lock which was effective as of that date.
As she did not mention trades before that date it is apparent hat the global lock does not apply and thus the brokers are obligated to give Certs.
There the difference.
Of course it also raises the question of how could they continue to take the punters money after the global lock was in force but you all know our views on that.
It is important that share holders make the requests now and quote the FINRA judgement.
Identify the individuals you speak to
When you get the BS reply from these people follow it up IN WRITING addressed to the SAME NAMED INDIVIDUAL along the lines of the template letter we put up today asking THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL to justify the response in writing and to provide supporting documentation.
Then keep us informed of the responses.
Its not just they sold something they didn't own they carried on selling something despite being told that there was a serious problem and that as a result they they couldn't sell.
Non compliance and gross negligence are two other phrases that spring to mind.
Sort of.
It is a question of linking all the events.
You could not go to court and say "they wont give me my cerifcates or money back" if you had not actually asked.
If they refuse then they need to be pressed to justify their position and by justify we mean back it up with documentation from an authority not just something they have made up.
Having done that there are then several course of action that shareholders can be adopt, but only after the requests for certificates or a refund has been made.
In the meantime we have a list of things that we will be asking various people like the DTCC and SEC to explain to us.
Should be good for a laugh