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.
No.. I am strongly against this, for a temper tantrum may only augment the crisis instead of resolving it. The lawyers are working, the wrongs are in still and normalcy is restoring. The lost time does not matter. But untill all the mess is wholy behind, absolutely nothing would prevent DTCC to continue with it and serve their notice and really put SGCP in a very-very serious trouble.
I wish all the victims of this outrage would join you, but please don't put out of the business all those philanthropists-altruists who had raided this board to help us, for I did love them, do love them and will love them.
The question was though not about what they CAN do now, but about whether (under the former circumstances of course) they COULD turn the corner without the "dilution".
I see, there is a disagreement here even about what constitutes the dilution, but I am wehemently, and will continue to be, FOR THE "DILUTION" caused by buying necessary equipment and by building the material base of the company.
I agree. There must be just no ANY, ANY wind bagging about this stuff. Not long ago, one poster light-headedly suggested a certain kind of rs that should be actually done -- I was appalled, could not believe it. And guess what? This thing started to itch me.
But because investors are so paranoiac about this thing, the best what could be done about this -- some Doug's simple mentioning that it is not in SGC plans. This could attract a lot of investors to SGCP.
REVERSE SPLIT of a penny stock is generally considered as an act of despair, a last recourse of a troubled enterprise, and investors do not forgive it. Whereas the buyback are generally considered as a manifestation of company strength -- but not always!! Butt it may be instead an act of utter foolishness, worse than just throwing the money out of a window.
E.g., nowadays, the egregious shorts' "hit pieces" targeting developing enterprises are in vogue: the wholly bogus but pretending to be investigative, articles. Once you would wake up and see your, say, $6 stock at $3. The frivolous suits would then drag it to some 30 cents or lower. The shareholders, knowing that the charges are fake, would be reasoning that this drop is a great opportunity for the company to buyback so incredibly cheap shares, which would be supportive to the stock also; and they demand this buyback. But it would be the worst thing that can be done. For the frivolous suits and the campaign of lies would still continue -- for years. The causes of the collapse would remain operative, and the stock would not recover. And the capital needed for the company survival and development would just be lost..
<<Doug Evans fantastic leadership>>
The first rule of investing: INVEST IN CEO.
I am obeying this rule religiously now and prey that Doug's attitude to his integrity would also be always religious.
Even with improved fundamentals, the current shareholders are always devastated by a rs of pennys stocks. And it would be suicidal for SGCP to pull it now. The pps would be inevitably and quickly beaten down to pre rs level and not recover soon -- or ever.
This is the place to start the new actonishing shorting carrier!!!
POST 70202
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79068159 See second link
Good luck!!
12thman:
I also made an astonishing discovery!!!! You see, DTCC suspensions are predictable, and many targeted companies are of course fantastic shorting opportunities! You have to become a philanthropist of course and join right people. But this is easy. Start with post [see my next post].
The SGC law firm is handling the matter, and no one must bother this firm of course. But Doug himself will inform us about the resolution of the problem with DTCC. Only after that we could address the matter to brokers, if this would be necessary. But let me, please, first, buy at least another 20M sh to bring my SGCP holding to 150M.
The plaintiffs in the class actions get close to nothing, and thus, in essence, they are just punitive actions, not suits for damages.
Instead, I wish SGC would sue for damages, but again, consider non-reimbursable attorneys' fees, and calculate what would be left after the disgorgements, etc.
As I already mentioned, the best recourse that the Justice provides to all the victims in such situations is the leaking their wounds -- as much as they want. This term, "leaking wounds," is very common in legal writings.
The DTCC and brokers do not reject anything. Brockers do not know what is going on and are acting precociously because of the published DTC notice and the worrying investors. But the same DTC: acting precociosly because of the SEC action.
The DTC formal notice starts clarification proceeding.
The DTCC and brokers do not reject anything. Brockers do not know what is going on and are acting precoutinally because of the published DTC notice and the worrying and investors. But the same DTC: acting precoutinally because of the SEC action.
The DTC formal notice starts clarification proceeding.
Again, if the notice is not served on SGCP, there is no any operative notice. It still may be served. Otherwise, the published notice would be void and all the mess would have to be cleared up by DTC.
<<Because if you read all that glob of paperwork you signed when you opened your brokerage account you will find they can choose what you can buy or sell by refusing to process the order at their digression. So as you are suggesting, if Doug could have run forever once the brokers saw the PR from the DTCC they can throw the stop switch anytime they want, many did, Don't kid yourself.>>
I just cannot understand this. Sorry. My English is limited.
<<Really don't matter.>>
Formal proceedings have their own reality: the reality of rules, regulations, laws.
So is IRS. It is a quasi governmental institution, operating as a part of the government and functioning in manner of governmental agency.
It does not matter what the SGCP and Doug know and what they don't. Doug, in fact did not know what in the hell all this is about, was confused and perplexed wile the DTC rules and regulation are hellishly strict and prescribe a certain manner of service of the DTC official notices for them to become operative.
In this regard, it should be noted that the brokers were apparently NOT served by DTC also but suspended the trading on the published notice. Thus, yesterday and today, TD Ameritrade emphatically told me that they have no any information on file -- NOTHING -- about the DTC action.
<<There is indeed a global lock on this stock."
MAYBE YES, MAYBE NOT... There is a hell of confusion. That is for sure. The DDC rules and regulations expressly state that the notice becomes operative ONLY upon its receipt by the company. That is it does not matter what was published. What matters is whether the official DTC Notice has been properly served on SGCP and actually received. WAS IT???
Amazingly, I have recently an experience with the government, resembling some aspects of the instant event. The rope was tightening around my neck. A grim order was served on me by a certified lettter (I actually got only USPS notice) and a grim posting. But the gov was really wrong, and then they told me "Uhh.. we do not have any proof of the service on file... ... Well, we do not have it... so, we have to serve it first ... and you have a good chance --- and that was it.
"DISGORGEMENT is an equitable remedy used to deprive wrong-doers of their ill-gotten gains and deter violations of federal securities law.[4] It is available through the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which gives the SEC the authority to enter an order “requiring accounting and disgorgement,” including reasonable interest, as part of administrative or cease and desist proceedings.[5] As an equitable remedy, disgorgement is not intended as tool to punish, but as a vehicle for preventing unjust enrichment. The SEC is therefore only permitted to recover the approximate amount earned from the alleged illicit activities. Disgorging anything more would be considered punitive.[6] Of note, because disgorgement is technically a remedy rather than a penalty, companies may be able to claim disgorged sums, along with any pre-judgment interest assessed, as a tax deductible expense." But the money goes to the government. The civil action here is highly Disgorgement is an equitable remedy used to deprive wrong-doers of their ill-gotten gains and deter violations of federal securities law.[4] It is available through the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which gives the SEC the authority to enter an order “requiring accounting and disgorgement,” including reasonable interest, as part of administrative or cease and desist proceedings.[5] As an equitable remedy, disgorgement is not intended as tool to punish, but as a vehicle for preventing unjust enrichment. The SEC is therefore only permitted to recover the approximate amount earned from the alleged illicit activities. Disgorging anything more would be considered punitive.[6] Of note, because disgorgement is technically a remedy rather than a penalty, companies may be able to claim disgorged sums, along with any pre-judgment interest assessed, as a tax deductible expense.." The money goes to the gov. A civil action here is highly unlikely.
MORE: Google: SEC; DISGORGEMENT
Yeah, scary. But most Americans brave, and they don't care: "Ahh, just another conspiracy theory! Who cares!" And this is even scarier. But who cares!
In TD Ameritrade, SGCP is still restricted. No trading of any kind.
Our problems and worries though are DTC, not SEC.
I hope the notice, that Doug should have been already served with, clearly informed him that a request for a hearing must be filed with DTCC within TWO DAYS upon said service. A failure to comply with this rule, would be probably fatal to SGCP. It could appeal to SEC, but probably just cannot afford this. That may be indeed the end of SGCC and loss all the shareholders investment in it.
In regard to the trading, possible it or not, it is senseless at this point: DTCC will not process it; and it will not release any funds associated with former tradings.
An example of Appeal to SEC against DTCC suspension of services
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2012/34-66611.pdf
<<A request for a hearing must be in
writing and filed within 2 BUSINESS DAYS of receipt from the Corporation of such
statement.>>
The DTCC rules and regulations are indeed A GROSS OUTRAGE and the whole matter is really scary and we have to be very concerned and inform Doug immediately.
<<Hard to believe a lawyer would misinform you...LMAO>>
You are obviously a very lucky man: have no experience or very limited experience with lawyers. And I have way-way too much...
A drowning homo ignoramus grasps for a straw, and he seeks ANY advice and starts calling lawyers. But only a lawyer specialized, practically working in the particular (very narrow) field, may be well familiar with the law. Others either would tell you, that the matter is not his/her specialty or, for the pestige, would just authoritatively guessing and fantasizing.
A several years ago, I (defendant) had a very serious legal conflict with a crooked law firm involving a difficult and complex contract doctrine of Parol Evidence Rule [from a legal manual: "Professor Thayler, speaking of the parol evidende rule, aptly observed, "Few things are darker than this, or fuller of subtle difficulties""]. And this is why those lawyers sue me. They know that I would not find a lawyer handling such matter. The lawyers are way too busy with making money, and have no time for studying the Parol Evidence Rule. No client could know what is this and catch them on lying.
And I could not find a lawyer, and represented myself. .
After very lengthy proceeding, a confused judge, a black robbed lawyer, ruled against me , with authoritative, idiotic comments, on plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment. The appeal against a summary judgment though is the simplest , for the matters are just re-tried by the courts of appeal on such appeals.
So I appealed and studied the Rule; and, not daring to act in pro per in appeal, looked for a lawyer -- throughout the all Bay Area. That was a terrible ordeal. Each of them, though insanely expensive and posing as an absolute authority in the Rule, was just full of it. Eventually I retained one, thinking that, working together, I would educate him, and I had to get rid of him and to get another. This one did grasp the Rule in part, but outrageously goofed with other parts. I was begging him to include in the brief certain things – in vain. I won the appeal but only because the Court of Appeal tried if de novo. And the most important things that the Court cited were those omitted matters! A few years after, I mentioned this, to another lawyer. "Wasn't I lucky to get this Justice! " I said. "It had to be someone from above who helped you," she replied gloomily.
BUT SEE THIS: RULE 46. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO SERVICES
. . . . Any participant that has been summarily suspended or whose access has been
summarily prohibited or limited pursuant to this Section of Rule 46 shall be promptly
furnished a written statement of the grounds for the decision and shall be notified of its
right to request a hearing, pursuant to Rule 37.
A request for a hearing must be in
writing and filed within 2 business days of receipt from the Corporation of such
statement.
Any such hearing requested pursuant to Rule 37 shall be held as promptly
as possible after the Corporation has taken summary action against the participant
pursuant to this Rule. . . . .
I was misinformed --by a lawyer... See this:
DTCC
RULE 45. NOTICES
SEC. 1. Any notice pursuant to these Rules from the Corporation to an
Interested Person as defined in Rule 37 shall be sufficiently served on such Interested
Person if the notice is in writing, is delivered to the Interested Person's box, if any,
maintained by the Corporation on its premises, is mailed to the Interested Person's
office address or e-mailed to the Interested Person’s e-mail address. Any notice to an
Interested Person, if mailed to the person’s address, shall be deemed to have been
given when deposited in the United States Postal Service, with postage thereon
prepaid, directed to the Interested Person at its office address, if e-mailed, shall be
deemed to have been given when routed to the e-mail address of the Interested Person
and, if delivered to the Interested Person's box, shall be deemed to have been given
when deposited in the Interested Person's box.
SEC. 2. Any notice from an Interested Person to the Corporation shall be
sufficiently served on the Corporation if the notice is in writing and is delivered or mailed
to the Corporation at its principal place of business, Attention: Secretary, or such other
place as it designates. Any such notice to the Corporation shall be deemed to have
been given when received.
SEC. 3. Any notice required to be given to participants by the Corporation
pursuant to Rule 18 shall state the Corporation's decision to decline or cease to act for a
participant. The Corporation may provide in such notice or a subsequent notice the
steps to be taken in the Comparison Operation, Accounting Operation, Settlement or
other activities as well as how pending transactions shall be affected.
SEC. 4. Any notice required to be given to the Corporation by a participant
pursuant to Rule 20 shall be given both orally and in writing as soon as possible after
the Time of Insolvency. Notice by the Corporation pursuant to Rule 20 to all participants
shall be given as soon as possible after the Time of Insolvency and shall state whether
the Corporation has ceased to act for the insolvent participant as well as how pending
matters will be affected and what steps will be taken in connection therewith.
SEC. 5. Any notice required to be given by the Corporation pursuant to Section
2 of Rule 46 shall set forth the specific grounds under consideration upon which any
suspension, prohibition or limitation of access may be based and shall contain notice to
the participant of its right to request a hearing, such request to be filed by such
participant with the Corporation pursuant to Rule 37.
SEC. 6. Any notice required to be given by the Corporation to a participant
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 48 shall set forth the charges against the participant and
shall contain notice to such participant of its right to request a hearing, such request to
be filed by it with the Corporation pursuant to Rule 37.
SEC. 7. Notwithstanding anything in these rules to the contrary, and other than
with respect to notices covered by Sec. 5 or 6 of this Rule, the Corporation may
(RULE 45)
112
distribute notices to participants by posting such notices on its website (“NSCC
Website”). The Corporation shall deem a notice sufficiently served once the notice is
posted on NSCC’s Website, and it is the responsibility of the participants to retrieve
notices daily from the NSCC Website.
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules_proc/nscc_rules.pdf
WHO IS IN CONTACT WITH DOUG?
I am learning that DTCC normally does not serve its notices on the targeted enterprises and its suspensions are FINAL, meaning that this is all upto the enterprise what to do after the notice is published, and it does not have many choices. Moreover, all these choices are in the very strict and scary statutory frames of time limitations, and thus, the affected business must act just immediately. So what is the Doug's intention now???
I know, and I thank you also. No offense, but sadly this is what going on in this country. Isn't it? And it is this that makes all the outrage described in the article possible.