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.
Correction, that should be "Shares that "are" outstanding", sorry missed that.
Tom, At this point that may not be a bad idea, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the company requested it.
Why trade, we have been without a bid for a year, and trading seems to be only shorts, maybe the trap has filled and time to receive the rewards? Remember the 5T authorized.
itsmikie, Not necessarily, the TA will only issue what shares our outstanding that they have a record of, they do not necessarily,have a list of broker clients.
Remember our shares are in broker street name, unless you either sent $75.00 to have them registered in your name, or you already have your certs, the TA does not work with IOU's only with bona fied certs.
The brokers will need to take up the slack if a cash dividend, or put IOU's in our accounts if a share dividend.
If cash, they will notify the DTCC, which in turn will send the brokers the money, until the brokers can issue a margin call to their clients that have shorted the stock, the brokers will then re pay the DTCC
If brokers or their MM's have shorted, then they (brokers) will have to come up with the cash, or at least credit your broker account.
You are correct that a dividend can be issued to a non trading stock.
Buck, Do you carry a plus balance of cash in your account?
op9, Only if it is a "cash" dividend, if stock they will just put markers in our accounts, (more IOU's).
They can't generate cash, but have no trouble generating anything related to stock.
Lebron, I also have that feeling, and I think it was all planed out way back when Gertrude started posting years ago.
I think we are on the same pre planed path, that we have always been, since that time frame IMO.
Somewhat like the 5T authorized, lol time for the chickens to come home to roost.
Tom Don't think so, because NMGL has already paid the dividend in full to WD.
We are just waiting for the remainder of the contract to be implemented,I know if that never happends, then the divi would be hanging in limbo,I don't think that will serve either company too well IMO.
Bull Finch, Thanks for the invite and the research on history, your efforts much appreciated.
I'm a little hazy on your sign off statements.
"BMFL<OD
next week(s) is here"
The BMFL<OD ??????????????????????????
"next(s) is week is here", I believe that could be due to the suspensition.
I am thinking it would be due to the fact FFGO could not issue a "Cash" Dividend if we were trading, as it would be a material change that would be looked upon by SEC as mannipulation.
They "may" take this oppitunity to announce the dividend, (who knows)therefor your statement week(s) are here?????????????
If I remember correctly it was puppydot that added the (s) to the week, to adgitate shareholders lol.
Thanks again
FINRA Fails to Furnish Complete and Accurate Records
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 65643 / October 27, 2011
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-14605
In the Matter of
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC.,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA” or “Respondent”).
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over FINRA and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth below.
2
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds1 that:
Summary
These proceedings arise out of FINRA’s production of altered documents in response to a document request made by the Commission’s Chicago Regional Office inspection staff (“the Commission inspection staff”).
Specifically, on August 7, 2008, the Director of FINRA’s Kansas City District Office (“the Director”) caused the alteration of three records of staff meeting minutes just hours before producing them to the Commission inspection staff, making them inaccurate and incomplete.
The Director’s misconduct is the third instance during an eight year period in which a FINRA employee, or an employee of its predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), provided altered or misleading documents to the Commission. Although FINRA has endeavored to improve its procedures and training since document integrity issues came to light in May 2006 and December 2007, those efforts were not effective in preventing the Director’s misconduct.
Respondent
FINRA, located in Washington, DC, is a national securities association registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 15A of the Exchange Act. It was created on July 30, 2007 through the consolidation of NASD and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). As a registered association, FINRA has the statutory obligation to comply with the Exchange Act and to enforce compliance by its members with the Exchange Act and its own rules. It is the largest independent regulator of securities firms doing business with the public in the United States. As of December 31, 2010, FINRA oversaw nearly 4,600 brokerage firms, approximately 163,000 branch offices and almost 631,000 registered securities representatives.
Other Relevant Entities
NASD, formerly located in Washington, DC, was a national securities association registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 15A of the Exchange Act until it was consolidated with the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration operations of the NYSE to form FINRA in July 2007.
1 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent's Offer of Settlement and are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.
3
Facts
FINRA Fails to Furnish Complete and Accurate Records
On July 28, 2008, FINRA’s Kansas City District Office received a document request from the Commission inspection staff. The request related to a previously announced inspection of FINRA’s Kansas City District Office, which is responsible for conducting FINRA’s regulatory programs in seven states.
Item 36 of the document request letter asked for “Minutes of District staff meetings conducted between November 1, 2005 and the present.” On August 7, 2008—hours before furnishing the Commission inspection staff with FINRA’s response to Item 36—the Director caused the minutes for meetings that took place on August 28, 2006, September 22, 2006 and January 31, 2007 to be altered. Specifically, certain information was deleted or edited, while in other instances, entire passages were removed or changed. With respect to all three altered documents, the original author’s signature was changed to the Director’s.
FINRA Alerts the Commission Staff To Document Integrity Issues in Kansas City Inspection
FINRA learned of the Kansas City District’s document integrity issues through a whistleblower complaint submitted on June 11, 2010. Using FINRA’s EthicsPoint System, an anonymous individual alleged that the Director instructed another FINRA employee to alter Staff Meeting Minutes before they were burned to a CD and provided to the Commission in connection with an oversight inspection of the District Office. Within days of receiving the complaint, FINRA initiated an internal investigation led by its Internal Audit staff. Also, FINRA’s Internal Audit staff verbally communicated the whistleblower allegations to FINRA’s Audit Committee on July 13, 2010.
Based on Internal Audit’s findings, the Director tendered his resignation from FINRA on September 20, 2010. That same day, FINRA sent a letter notifying staff from the Commission’s Chicago Regional Office and its Division of Enforcement about the Director’s conduct. Internal Audit reported the results of its investigation to FINRA’s Audit Committee on September 21, 2010.
FINRA’s Internal Guidance on Document Integrity
FINRA employees have produced altered or misleading documents to Commission inspection staff on three separate occasions over the past eight years. In one instance during 2004, an NASD director misled Commission examiners by providing misdated or otherwise altered documents. In a separate, unrelated instance in 2005, misleading documents, purportedly intended for internal-use only, were produced to a Commission inspection team.
NASD took corrective actions to address these specific failures prior to NASD’s consolidation with certain regulatory functions of the NYSE to form FINRA in July 2007. In
4
addition, FINRA cooperated with the Commission staff investigating FINRA’s document integrity problems and implemented improved procedures and training related to document integrity.
Notwithstanding these improvements, the Commission finds that FINRA has not ensured the integrity of documents provided to the Commission, as demonstrated by the Kansas City Director causing the alteration of three records just hours before FINRA produced them to Commission inspection staff, rendering them inaccurate and incomplete.
Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 17a-1
As a result of the conduct described above, FINRA violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 17a-1. Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires a national securities association such as FINRA to make and keep for prescribed periods such records, and to furnish such copies thereof, as the Commission by rule prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or for other purposes set forth in the Exchange Act. Exchange Act Rule 17a-1(a) requires a national securities association to keep and preserve at least one copy of all correspondence, records, and other documents made or received by it in the course of its business as such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity. Rule 17a-1(c) requires a national securities association promptly to furnish the Commission with a copy of any such document that the Commission requests. The requirement that a national securities association keep and furnish records to the Commission includes the requirement that those records be complete and accurate.
The preparation, maintenance and furnishing of complete and accurate records are essential to the proper functioning of a national securities association as a self-regulatory organization. As described above, FINRA failed to keep and furnish complete and accurate records made or received by it in the course of its business as such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity.
FINRA’s Remedial Efforts
In determining to accept the Offer, the Commission considered remedial acts promptly undertaken by Respondent and cooperation afforded the Commission staff.
Undertakings
Respondent FINRA has undertaken to:
A. Provide training to all of its employees outlining past document integrity issues, which will incorporate a fact scenario based upon the Kansas City conduct, and emphasize FINRA’s zero-tolerance policy regarding the alteration of documents.
B. Develop a podcast on document integrity to be shown to all current staff and to all new employees upon hiring.
5
C. Address directly the importance of document integrity at a company-wide town hall meeting, annual regulatory meetings, and during Senior Management onsite visits to all district offices.
D. Require senior members of its Office of Liaison and Counsel to meet in-person or remotely with every business unit scheduled for an on-site exam prior to the production of documents to the Commission to emphasize the importance of document integrity.
E. Engage an Independent Consultant (the “Consultant”), not unacceptable to the Commission, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.
i. FINRA will require the Consultant to: (1) conduct a one-time comprehensive review of FINRA’s policies and procedures and training relating to document integrity; (2) assess whether the policies and procedures and training are reasonably designed and implemented to ensure the integrity of documents provided to the Commission; and (3) make recommendations for the enhancement of FINRA’s policies and procedures and training as may be necessary in light of the Consultant’s review and assessment.
ii. FINRA will require the Consultant to submit a report of his/her findings and recommendations (the “Report”) to the FINRA Board within three (3) months of the Consultant’s engagement. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the Report, the FINRA Board will adopt all recommendations made by the Consultant, subject to Section E.iii below, and take steps necessary to commence implementation of all such recommendations. FINRA will direct the Consultant to provide promptly copies of the Report to the Commission’s Deputy Director of Enforcement.
iii. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the Report, the FINRA Board may notify the Consultant, in writing, of any recommendation(s) that it considers to be unduly burdensome or impractical with an explanation of why the recommendation is unduly burdensome or impractical. The FINRA Board and the Consultant shall attempt in good faith to reach an agreement on an alternative recommendation that is reasonably designed to accomplish the same objectives as the recommendation in question. If an agreement is reached, FINRA will direct the Consultant to amend his/her recommendation(s), reissue the Report within fifteen (15) days of reaching an agreement, and the FINRA Board shall adopt the Consultant’s recommendation(s) within thirty (30) days of receiving the amended Report. In the event that the FINRA Board and the Consultant are unable to agree on an alternative recommendation within forty five (45) days of the FINRA Board’s written notification, the Consultant’s recommendation shall be binding and the FINRA Board shall adopt the Consultant’s original recommendation(s) within thirty (30) days.
6
iv. Within nine (9) months of the FINRA Board’s receipt of the Consultant’s Report, or receipt of the Consultant’s amended Report if applicable under Section E.iii above, FINRA will certify in writing to the Commission’s Deputy Director of Enforcement that all of the Consultant’s recommendations adopted by the FINRA Board have been implemented or, if the Consultant determines that any recommendation cannot be implemented within nine (9) months, will be implemented within the period specified by the Consultant.
v. FINRA shall require the Consultant to enter into an agreement that provides that for the period of engagement and for a period of two years from completion of the engagement, the Consultant shall not enter into any employment, consultant, attorney-client, auditing or other professional relationship with FINRA, or any of its present or former affiliates, directors, officers, employees, or agents acting in their capacity. The agreement will also provide that the Consultant will require that any firm with which he/she is affiliated or of which he/she is a member, and any person engaged to assist the Consultant in performance of his/her duties under this Order shall not, without prior written consent of the Commission’s Deputy Director of Enforcement, enter into any employment, consultant, attorney-client, auditing or other professional relationship with FINRA, or any of its present or former affiliates, directors, officers, employees, or agents acting in their capacity as such for the period of the engagement and for a period of two years after the engagement.
vi. FINRA shall expend sufficient funds to permit the Consultant to discharge all of their duties, including, but not limited to, providing adequate funds for the retention of outside counsel and/or professionals.
F. Certify, in writing, compliance with the undertaking(s) set forth above. The certification shall identify the undertaking(s), provide written evidence of compliance in the form of a narrative, and be supported by exhibits sufficient to demonstrate compliance. The Commission staff may make reasonable requests for further evidence of compliance, and Respondent agrees to provide such evidence. The certification and supporting material shall be submitted to the Commission’s Deputy Director of Enforcement, with a copy to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Commission’s Enforcement Division, no later than sixty (60) days from the date of the completion of the undertakings.
7
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent FINRA’s Offer.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act, it is hereby ORDERED that:
A. Respondent FINRA shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-1 thereunder; and
B. Respondent FINRA shall comply with its undertakings as enumerated in Section III above.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy
Secretary http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2011/34-65643.pdf
Hi Vianna Just a thought, but this would be excellent strategy if the company now declares a cash dividend.
The SEC considers a cash dividend manipulation on trading stocks, now if we are halted in trading, there can be no material effect on the stock, therefore manipulation problem would be out the window.
mikeymac, Thanks for that info.eom
Has anyone tried calling the TA? If so, what response did you get, I intend to try calling tomorrow, and ask if certs are available and if not why not.
Also is this the same TA that was used by the company when they first started trading on the OTCBB?
realwood Totally disagree, the issuing TA has the list of who they issued too, and the brokers have a list of who they sold too, the TA can get copies of those broker list, upon company request.
No need to go back to what was done when BCIT sued us.
2late, We don't, unless it's by court order, that list is not for public information for obvious reasons.
op9, There is more to it than just the brokers, if there was "never" shares issued to brokers by a TA, then how did we ever get trading on the OTCBB???????????????????????????
2late, That is definitely the root of our problem, and it should be addressed by Carlton H to it's conclusion,do we or do we not have brokers on that company register?
That IMO is a major fork in the road in all this.
He is saying he doesn't however I believe further investigation should be in order.
Then the next question would be do we have an active TA, if so then the TA should provide the company with the Broker OBO/NOBO list, so they have all the information required to commence with this action.
The company has only a count of 100 shareholders, they need to know where the remaining 1100 came from and how they were generated.
2late Absolutely!!!
"OUR BROKERS MUST BE ON THAT LIST!!"
2late, just read your post, my questions also,that scenario makes no sense, as well as being chastised on pm by CH for bringing up the subject.
mastaflash, That is what really amazes me,that there are no brokers on that list, that would be impossible to explain, what brokers are doing in BCIT in the first place if they were never issued any stock from any TA.
I find that very hard to believe, but if true, then that is the root of our problem, and it should not be hard to prove that brokers had no right to sell us any shares, as well as if there were no shares issued to brokers, how did we ever became a trading company on the OTCBB??
It makes absolutely no sense, that brokers were not issued shares initially, but if they were, then they have to be on the list of 100 shareholders on the company registery.
I think it is very important that the company knows the procedure of issuing shares through their TA and who is holding those shares. At this point I don't believe they really know.
Weebie, I read that post from CH, however discounted it because of the above questions.
Lakers, I wonder how many more brokers are a part of that 100, that are claimed to be on the regrestry of the company list of shareholders, (as stated by CH).
Each one of these brokers are holding our certs/shares in their street name, and each one is counted as 1 shareholder,in addition each one is holding a seperate OBO/NOBO list of clients.
It would be interesting to see just what part of that 100 are actually brokers.
In addition those that you listed.
Please add to the list if anymore are known
Thanks
E*Trade,
Ameritrade,
ScottTrade
Schwab
Mastaflash Just read your endless cycle with the broker lol.
The problem is they do not acquire the shares when we buy, they swap IOU's then transfer shares to each others DTC accounts, of course if they have them to transfer, most don't
Their main concern is the swap of IOU's to complete the transaction between clients and get their commission on the IOU's.
I call it "hypothecating a facsimile"
CarltonH, Yes I do believe that the list that Mr. Megas has from the TA is correct,and that as far as he is concerned there are only 100 shareholders.
That tells me that he has not had access to the brokers OBO/NOBO list of clients, the remanding 1100 shareholders that own the Broker IOU's.
What if those 100 shareholders were brokers,and are counted as one shareholder each on Mr. Megas's registry.
That each and every broker has possibly 100's of clients that he has sold so called shares too.
The broker then deposited the company issued shares in his account at the DTCC, took the clients money, and issued a IOU to his client, using the under lying shares as he sees fit.
Those shares could be hypothecated 9 times, as past companies on this same path have proven.
I see no reason why BCIT wouldn't follow that broker procedure, that is used across the board on Internet broker traded stocks.
As I have been reading your post it is obvious that you are unaware of the procedure used by brokers with their clients, (that most of the 100 on your list could be all brokers), this explains why Mr. Megas has a list of 100 shareholders, when in reality, we are a body of 1200.
Unless you have been through this it is hard to understand how brokers can do this, yet it is happening, and unless the company is privy of the OBO/NOBO list of broker's clients, they will have a hard time figuring where the heXX all those shareholders came from.
If the SEC revoked the company because they claimed that the company had 1200 shareholders therefore exceeding the limit, the company should have contested that figure, as the SEC no doubt used the broker OBO/NOBO list in lieu of the TA registered shareholders to form that conclusion.
Unless you or Mr. Megas has access to the broker OBO/NOBO list of clients holding BCIT notes/markers/IOU's (whatever you want to call them) that are provided through the TA from brokers, upon request or court order if needed.
Please understand that I am providing this information as an aid and not to find fault with any company operation or the on going quest to right this wrong.
Nitwit< "Who cares" Those that want to know why the SEC has a count of shareholders of 1200 when the limit is 300, and why one shareholder alone is holding 24,000,000 shares when the company is saying that the issue is a great deal less.
Why the SEC figures are way off and the share count is also in excess of the issue.
That's who cares!
As soon as I receive my answer from CH, I will provide the answer to why the company has not exceeded the 300 figure of shareholders, and why the share count is way above the issued amount.
mastaflash, Where did SEC get those figures of (1200 shareholders)? I don't believe we are any where near that figure compiled by the TA records, of how many sharesholders that were issued shares by the TA.
All company trading shares are issued through the TA.They in turn report the shareholder count to the SEC.
op9, Well I guess I lost Carlton on this, I really wanted to know what type list he used to establish the findings of 100 shareholders,he said on their registry
Is it through the TA records? Or where did it come from, and yes you can have a limit on the amount of shareholders to qualify for trading,it could very well be 300, as even the amount that Carlton has records for could also be correct, if he achieved them from the proper people.
With all that said, we know that there are at least one thousand shareholders holding much more than is said to be issued.
I will post the reasoning for all this when Carlton can answer where he obtained the list, He did say shareholders but that would not be much of a authenticated list, I'm looking for something that has the TA attached to it.
The TA the company used when shares were issued, would have a complete list of all they issued too, and how many shares they issued.
mastaflash, Not altogether true there had to be shares issued by the company to their transfer agent in order for any shares to trade,I am asking these questions because I am leading to a conclusion of why there are only 100 so called registered shareholders on Carlton's registeration list as he stated.
Carlton, So you don't have an authentic registration list from the Transfer Agent (TA), that had to be the entitie that ISSUED all outstanding BCIT certs/shares to the brokers?
Carlton, What register are you looking at that reviles the number of shareholders that you mentioned here:
"
Of course BCIT could have gone to the shareholders, but as far as the register is concerned there are only (about a hundred )or he could have asked those of you who believed you were share holders but were not shown on the register."
Thanks
Yes, and you have to wonder just who ended up with all that money.
I only had 500,000 hypothecated share position which I paid $5,000.00 but @ .15 pps that became $75,000.
All I/we received was broker IOU's which were traded broker too broker, where did the money go???
So they can take our money, give us worthless IOU's then have the DTCC freeze trading, and that action entitles them to keep our money????????????????????????????????
Carlton, That all sounds good, however the SEC has covered the brokers back sides with the revocation of BCIT stock, and if I remember correctly that was done without any rebuttal from the company, no one challenged that action with what should have been the normal court hearing process.
Carlton, The DTCC is a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve which in turn is a subsidiary of the Central bank cartel held by the conglomerate of 12 bankers foreign and domestic including the bank of London.
Might conclude that these people are just about untouchable.
My reference to the above is to apprise of just who the enemy is,in the financial world you just don't get any bigger than that.
I think once those counterfeit shares were recognized, that the DTC laid out a game plan to keep the company at bay while they in turn were able to retain all money they acquired from the purchase of shares by us so called shareholders.
BCIT was a fully reporting company,the only way they could stop was to put a freeze on the trading, I believe at that time there was a plan to hold that freeze until the company violated the reporting rules, which took some time before Mr. Megas stopped reporting.
The instant he did the SEC put into motion to revoke the registration,I say this because there are thousands of companies that are not fully reporting that continue on the pinksheet quotation bureau, trading for years, but the instant BCIT became non reporting the revoke action was taken, I would say that was well planed.
I think the trap was set, and sprung, by the DTCC and brokers to rid themselves of the problem and retain all investors funds in the process, because they knew that if BCIT couldn't trade due to the freeze, that the company would eventually stop reporting which would give the SEC the means and authority for revocation.
Those that are saying the brokers will lose money, not true they have OUR money, and our shares.
I just don't see any way to fight these people without a totally sponsored cert pull by the company, using a company task force to monitor and establish a undisputable audited count of shares outstanding to prove the short.
I'm not so sure the company is ready to go to the expense of achieving this goal.
I wish everyone the best in this endeavor, it may take a while to achieve.
AlanC,You of course right in what you are saying, however I would bet that 90% of the people protesting haven't got a clue of the operations of wall street or the actual corruption that we know exist there.
The timing of the demo and the kick off of the Obama campaign imo is suspect, and of course he gives his backing to the demos.
Why would he do that, how many presidents have ever come out to announce backing demonstrators?
Seven , I think it is even worse than that,I think that once shares are put into street name, the brokers trade IOU's the same as they once traded stock.
So we end up with the shares being loaned out and the IOU's are what is being traded.
I call it hypothecating a facsimile! lol.
op9, If I remember correctly the OTCBB did not de list it until Oct 2005, then it went to the pinks, then to the greys, I don't think it stopped until the last part of Oct. But Ouch!! the pps was .15 at that time frame, some folks really got burned on those trades.imo
mastaflash, It really does not work that way, BCIT sold all shares under SEC guide lines (or was suppose too) through SEC controlled brokers, all so called shareholders are clients of the brokers. We hold their IOU's we are not holding shares," the brokers are".
BCIT is a 'REVOKED PUBLIC company', unless they file BK, because registration was revoked to stop any of us from trading does not change our status from public to private.
If it was that easy, the brokers would have been notified by sec to return their certs to the company,as they would have no right to them nor would the brokers clients,"It just does not work that way"
CarltonH, The brokers "did own" those shares, they were all put into his street name. he in turn issues what could be called a promissory note to his clients or IOU's or markers or what ever you want to call them. He then uses the shares at his discretion
as he sees fit.
The only fiduciary responsibility he has is to sell upon demand at market value (BID) providing the stock is trading.
That is one thing that most people will not let themselves understand, the shares are never put in clients name, they are carried only on a OBO/NOBO list that the brokers maintain, and the only way the company will ever know who is on that list is to either request it through the TA or if needed, through the court system.
allezIOM, Of course, however the way we learn is by past history/mistakes, that is why the court system always cites previous tried cases to establish credence.
The wheel has already been invented, now we use it.
I leave the choice up to CarltonH.
CarltonH, The key words in my post are "THIS HAS ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE" Please read it again now knowing I was not speaking of BCIT but another company, that has traveled down the highway that you are now taking. A great deal can be learned from their actions that took place after they were revoked as BCIT now is.
If you want further info let me know I will be happy to work with you as much as possible, I will do it by email if you are interested.
CarltonH Yes that may be true, however the lock had far reaching effects as you know Mr. Megas continued to produce his Q reports long after the lock, however it was money down the tubes as we could not trade complaint or not.
That in turn caused him to cease the Q's and that in turn caused the OTCBB to de list.to the pinksheets.
Then trading being halted more than 5 consecutive days, the pinksheets (quotation bureau) refused to quote and put on a cavor emptor, we were then sent to the grey sheets where we sat until the SEC revoked the registration of all certs. 6 long years ago!
THIS HAS ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE, lots of info on how, what, where and action taken,hundreds of billions of unregistered shares were injected into the market, somewhat like the action by Pino/Pam on BCIT, but on a much larger scale, which also turned into a revoke of the stock, however everyone was issued their certs because the company sponsored the cert pull and took positive action in the obtainment and monitoring of those certs
Brokers not only obtained certs they said were not availiable to cover their shorts, they also flew from NY to Tx to hand deliver boxes of certs to the company for distribution to the now shareholders, the X IOU holders.
Ah yes, very true FINRA did provide the cut off date.
If that has any bearing on the outcome of still being divided?
All this has been documented before, maybe not the same exact methods however the bottom line is the same bad shares are bad shares, (doesn't matter how they got to be bad,) and if we continue as we are, we will be re inventing the wheel, which has been running for the past 8 years.