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.
Stay Focused On The Here & Now
Whilst is good to chew the cud and reminisce about old times, we should not loose site of the fact that the real issues are the ones facing us all NOW.
You all need to be emailing your brokers and informing them of the court case. The defeat of the motion to compel arbitration and the court finding that ETrade were in breach of their contract.
You might also want to ask them what cusip number they would expect to see on their shares certificate if they were shareholders. I doubt that they will give you an answer but lets see out of interest.
The next thing is to email the individuals at the SEC in the strongest terms with regards their appallingly inadequate handling of your complaints. It is evident that they have not read the letter and have just trotted out a standard reply which is inaccurate to the point of being fraudulent. Unless they buck up PDQ there could be grounds for passing these letters to Federal prosecutors.
This litigant deserves a bcit 205 cert, not a refund.
In hand
We need punishing strategies against brokers.
In hand
We need a business plan
In hand
Detonate any strategic bombs that will blow up their bridges of fraud and theft and deception
In hand
The SEC should have known about the payment. We don't know whether they went looking for it in the financials.
They knew about it because apparently an SEC attorney called Suzie YOUN questioned Megas about it when the SEC interviewed him.
It is March 2012 NOT May 2005
A BCIT investor has won a landmark court case against a major US brokerage for failing to deliver his certificates.
Not only has he got his money back BUT he defeated a team of attorneys who had filed a motion to compel arbitration.
This is important because it sets legal precedent and can be citied in other proceedings. Until now then only bench mark was the rather dubious FINRA arbitration and that did not set legal precedent and could not be quoted.
Those of you going to court over the next couple of weeks can quote this case. The other side can not quote the arbitration because it has not legal standing.
Beg pardon
Granted.
Now you're just being silly.
Who said that tonight? Oh yes it was you JS.
Megas acknowledged receipt of the $50K quite publicly.
So whats the big secret then, its even in the EDGAR filings?
was any special dispensation was given to the brokerages by the SEC and FINRA in this case.
Neither SEC nor FINRA have said there was.
Who was responsible for seeing to it that they were sent to DTCC
SEC and the court as I understand it.
There is no reason to believe that have not been deposited.
I wonder if Etrade--and the other brokerages--could simply mandate a refund.
According to somebody I spoke to in the Financial industry late on Friday, the brokers can really only do the refund within the three days of the trade. After that they have to provide the shares. That is as I understand it and because of all that has gone on since Friday we have not had a chance to verify it yet.
In a lawsuit, you can offer anything
Yippee another thing we agree on.
So why have you spent the last few days saying that the best these people can get is a refund?
how would DTCC do that They don't buy and sell stock?
You forget that 240 million odd shares that were ratified in Oklahoma on 11 January 2006 were done so by the court on the condition that they be lodged with DTCC.
I think that DTCC will cover about 240 million shares bought pre lock.
Post lock the brokers must acquire the shares they should have had at the time they traded as these trades are nothing to do with DTCC. They cannot offer a straight refund due to the fraud element of what they have done.
You might only know of one. Trust me there are more
Another trade, another case.
Who says all these case are in small claims court?
Unless the SEC wants to go after Megas.
MEGAS and the company were EXONERATED by the SEC in their enquiries six years ago and it is Megas and the company that are going after the SEC now I dont think they will want any more S**T in their faces.
Good lord they can't get their heads round this situation.
Live in the now Janice, leave the ancient history behind and stick to what is current relevant and above all FACTUAL.
The shareholders are entitled to a refund and the company is entitled to the brokers writing them a check for the capital they raised through naked short selling.
Nice idea,but not correct.
If the court gives a refund then the broker pays the investor.
If the court tells the broker to go to the company and get shares then they have to buy shares from the company.
The shareholder gets his refund, he doesn't get his certs.
Agreed, but I should explain that apparently the Judge was highly unimpressed with the fact that a) the investor had already asked for a refund and been refused and that b) he had been asking for his certs not money for 6 years.
Everyone should remember that counsel for Etrade can only act on the instructions they are given, and were probably not privy to the WHOLE story, but it appears that the judge worked out that Etrade were not delivering because they did not have the certificates to deliver.
The investor informed the court he had another trade which would be subject to another case that he was bringing, and I am told it is at this point that the Judge advised counsel for Etrade that maybe their clients should think about delivering the shares rather than wasting the courts time and money.
The matter can only be litigated once.
Why would he want to litigate the case a second time when he won?
Or dont you understand that?
You are also glossing over the tiny little fact, that there are another 1200 victims in almost every state in the USA with an average of 4 trades each, all of which can be litigated.
Courts can only award what you ask for.
If you ask for X then you cannot expect them to award X + Y.
The good lord helps those who help themselves as my mum used to say
The question as to whether a trade was pre or post lock is not relevant to the court case.
The relevant details will be in an update at the start of next week.
email your complaints to enforcement@sec.gov and tell them that you have made a complaint and been fobbed off with a response from Mr Greene that is so appallingly inaccurate that he should be removed from his post immediately.
No and nor should it they are totally separate issues.
The Judge agrees
This is the start.
We will issue an update to you all at the start of next week on some of the issues you raise.
In general there is no right of appeal from small claims court, but that depends on the state, the case and the judge.
On occasions a judge will give leave to appeal.
However at the moment the risk and reward for Etrade is not in their favour and in California if the appeal then the Investor can lawyer up and hit them for his fees as well.
If you reckon on 450 an hour for a lawyer this will have cost Etrade about $4K so far for a claim less than $1K.
One would hope so, but you have to remember that unlike our setup in Europe there is a huge variation in judicial interpretation in the USA. It is a start.
Apparently the judge was not impressed that he had a) asked for refund before and been told to get stuffed and b) had been asking for his certs for 6 years.
The investor is filing another suite for another trade. Reading between the lines the Judge told Etrade to deliver the certs.
California is a hard nut to crack against an arbitration clause.
Probably THE hardest state.
DOUBLE BLOW FOR THE BROKERS.
I said something big was going to happen this week
COURT VICTORY FOR BCIT INVESTOR AGAINST ETRADE
23rd March 2012, The court in Fresco California, stated that a case for breach of contract by Etrade brought by a BCIT investor was properly before the court, and dismissed a motion by Etrade to compel arbitration.
The court found Etrade to be in breach of their contract for failing to deliver the BCIT securities which the investor purchased in August 2005.
The SEC dont give a fat frogs posterior about the rules and are still sending out incorrect letters despite having had these things pointed out to them.
This raises the question are they incompetent or are they on the take?
Fraud investigations are a huge drain on manpower and financial resources. Our role is to cut out the leg work for them, get all the evidence together and then pass them a finished job.
It seems like a long time ago, but as we explained back in September that is why we need details of your trades, that is why you needed to write to your brokers, that is why we needed to catalogue their excuses.
For our part we have examined these excuses and what has gone and simply exposed what is and is not true.
It would be better for all concerned if the brokers and authorities stopped being such a bunch of Wayne Kerrs but it must be hard for them to change the habit of a life time.
"How long Will CH give this?"
Until it is done
No need to over-think and possibly stress yourself out.
Well said realwood.
There were no shares to borrow.
Public float 1 million and one broker sold at least 89 million shares another 56 million and another 49 million.