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.
mastaflash, No, I wouldn't say for sure, as if this is handled correctly with a company sponsor they will be buying certs from the company to cover their IOU's.
The way it is turning out the brokers are the buffers between the position holders (IOU'S), and the DTCC, and the DTCC is the buffer between the brokers and position holders.(global lock)
Notice, I did not use the term shareholders as you can not be a shareholder without shares to hold.
I hope CH has the clout to get this train churning, however at this point I doubt it.
The reason being they must start by not dividing us, they must develop a game plan that all are in agreement and eager to move forward, the miscreants are all powerful, we can not achieve a desired conclusion by being divided by pre and post any date IMO of course.
mastaflash,Do we even have a TA that can transfer the certs to us?
I think before any brokers will get on board, with requesting the DTC to transfer certs to the Company TA for distribution, there will have to be a formal published request from the company.IMO
Hi Carlton, I was wondering if you could provide the original link that you got that global lock info from it might help when corresponding with these people. Thanks
mastaflash I am very aware of that, however if there was a shareholder/company combined effort, I believe (from past experience) that brokers would be hitting up the company to buy so they can cover their IOU'S.(it wouldn't be the first time that has happened)
IOU are accepted only because there are certs to back them up sitting in brokers name, if for what ever reason the brokers do not have that back up, they need to find a remedy for their self induced problem.
AlanC, No, I didn't mean to imply that CH was the source I think I mentioned FRINA as where he got his info. if I was not clear I apologize
AlanC, Maybe I just have a brain fog, however I can see absolutely
no way that the brokers can separate their issued IOU's into two groups of pre and post Aug 16, all certs "that is "ALL"(street name ) certs are bundled and put in each broker's name, and each broker is considered by the issuing company to be "1" shareholder.
They take our certs/shares and stuff them into the stock borrow program, and fill our accounts/orders with their generated IOU's I believe at that point all ties to certs/shares and who has certs pre or post any date are GONE, out the window.
Help me clear the fog lol.
maverictx, The way this is being set up, a clear case to me of divide and concur, the division point laid back to FIRNA as August 16 2005, I still have not been convinced by anyone why that date was selected as the global lock date, when in fact the OTCBB did not de list until October 2005, and the PPS increased from .01 (the date of my last buy September 15 2005) to .15, the day in Oct that the OTCBB de listed us because (their published comment),of there being a "clerical error".
So what FIRNA told CH of the global lock being on Sept, is suspect at the very least.
Makes no sense IMO as shares continued to trade and be cleared by the DTCC and the PPS increasing during that period Aug. through Oct.2005
You are right if we individually pull certs without a company sponsored effort, it will not work, all you will get are excuses or threats of not being able to re patronize your certs.back to brokers.
That would not be a problem if we all pulled certs, brokers would be out buying from the company to cover their IOU's IMO.
why was the first step in this quest by CH to divide us into pre 8/16 and post 8/16 groups so that each group takes a separate ave, we are "ALL" in this together,and together we need to pull our certs with the company monitoring and blessing IMO
Do not let them divide us!
ohbull, I'm still trying to understand why there are two methods I am of the opinion that we all are in the same boat, and there should be no dividing line as to when you bought your shares IT WAS TRADING period, we all bought under the same good faith pretence.
I don't care much what some one said a FRINA, no more than I care about the SEC attorney that stated in open court at a revoke hearing, that there was no such thing as NSS, now they have the (SEC) laws against NSS go figure.
BTW posting and reading others is how I learn.
GLTU
ohbull Point was, that the stock traded well into September and beyond it did not stop August 31.
mastaflash The stock borrow program, was not designed for cash accounts, they modified the margin account stock borrow program to fit on line trading,in that clients were not on a % borrowing margin, but had to pay cash fore their shares.
The brokers found it very lucrative to take our cash, and treat the shares as they would in a margin account by putting them in their street name.
They justify this by allowing you to use the money on a sold stock immediately, without waiting for the "T" + 3 clearing time.
Problem is by doing that, the broker generates another entities to trade i.e. IOU'S,they are traded like shares, while the original shares are in his name and used in the stock borrowing program or hypothecated to generate additional NSS.
AlanC, Fully agree, I also am not to inspired with the so called cut off date, just because someone bought their shares before August 16, should have no more credence than someone that bought post that date.
We all made our purchase in good faith through a broker, totally obvious of any shenanigans going on, we should all be in the same boat and not be divided by someone's cutoff date, especially since the stock continued to trade and the OTCBB did not de list it until October of 2005
Folks you need to bypass the customer service and go to the "compliance department" (back office)
AlanC. I think we need to talk to CH, after reading info he is getting and where he is getting it from, kinda reminds me of another case where an SEC attorney, stated in open court that there was no such thing as NSS. Where is IBM when you need him, never mind I know.
I see a great deal of resemblance in this and a prior case that we know about, maybe we can prevent the wheel from being re invented by providing some known procedures. IMO there is no difference in counterfeit shares or billions of unregistered shares dumped into the system,same results.
dukewin, Call E*trade and tell them you want to talk to the "Compliance" department
AlanC Yeah But! CH stated that I would have been selling counterfeit shares as they would have been after the cut off date he provided.
So would that mean that the brokers would now be after me to return what ever my gains were?
And how do we know that some have not sold at those prices and conditions?
AlanC I like that analogy "magic", or is that called dazzling foot work. LOl
Anyway, as a hypnotical, just supposing that I had sold some of those shares I purchased as per my last post, before the OTCBB de listed in Oct of 2005 and sold them for .15???
OK!! So here is my question, according to my tranaction history, I purchased shares (IOU's) on Septembet 15, for .01 so if GLOBAL LOCK happened on August 16, as stated, how in the world did the stock increase in VALUE (after I purchased my shares) to .15 pps at the time trading was stopped, delisted by the OTCBB (on a so called clerical error)??????????????????????????
obull, Actually according to my E*trade history transactions it shows my last two buys as 09/15/2005 settlement as 09/20/2005
so they were trading well into September of 2005.
You posted,
"BCIT!They only stopped selling when the SEC stepped in around Aug. 31st. and put in that temporary trading halt! Where'd the brokers get all those shares they weren't supposed to be trading? "
How to retrace all trading TRANSACTIONS in E*Trade.
1 click on accounts
2.look for "statements & Records click
3.Left side drop down box click on "Trade Conformations"
4. Dot "range" Type in Dates you require i.e.From 01/01/2000 to 09/23/2011 for every trade in that time frame, all info is there.
Example of what you will find
Note: Multiple trades placed on the same day may appear in one trade confirmation statement.
Next>
Trade Date Description Principal Amount
03/12/2009 Bought DKSC $74.00
02/27/2009 Bought DKSC $70.50
02/03/2009 Bought HGLC $500.00
01/14/2009 Bought HGLC $100.00
01/09/2009 Bought HGLC $100.00
01/08/2009 Bought HGLC $100.00
12/16/2008 Bought HGLC $175.00
08/29/2008 Bought WEHI $100.00
08/28/2008 Bought WEHI $400.00
08/12/2008 Sold FFGO $1,000.00
08/04/2008 Bought FFGO $300.00
07/31/2008 Sold HGLC $1,375.00
07/24/2008 Bought FFGO $100.00
good luck
latestart, They are all there in E*Trade I just went there yesterday, typed in From 01/01/2000 too 09/23/2011, and got the whole list with all data needed.
I just went back to confirm the method of how I got there in transactions, and today I got this, so I will be back latter with the instructions :
FROM E*TRADE 11:00 PDT
A L E R T
"Scheduled System Maintenance E*TRADE is currently performing scheduled system maintenance. We expect this work to be completed at approximately 6 p.m. ET. Tax record information and Realized Gain/Loss details will be unavailable online during this time. We apologize for any inconvenience"
I don't know who your brokers are, however E*Trade has a link under Account, that leads you to "transactions", there you can type in the "to and from" dates, will give a compleate list of all transactions during the period requested.
megas, is responsible only for shares that he issued through the TA, any IOU's generated by the brokers is totally the brokers responsibility, it's not Megas fault that the IOU broker CASH/MARGINE system doesn't work.
If Megas was to offer anything for shares, he only needs enough to cover what shares he issued, the brokers are on the hook for all others, with their promissory notes held by their clients.
I still think that a company sponsored cert pull would force brokers to pony up, or buy shares from the company to cover their generated IOU's
The date we purchased is inmaterial, they excepted our money and gave us a receipt in the form of the IOU's. not our fault the broker screwed up, not Megas fault the broker screwed up.
But we all have been paying the price, regardless of when date of purchase was.IMO
itsmikie, looks like a very impressive post, however there is no product, only a hypothecated facsimile.Sorry!
itsmikie, Where do I start?
Lets try it this way, when you made your, or any of us made a purchase, the results of that purchass had nothing to do with buying shares of stock.
What we purchased was broker promissory notes, he took our money and gave us his promis, that we could sell those IOU's using the underlying shares of BCIT value, that the broker is holding in his name at the DTCC.
It is his fiducary responsibility, that he took on when issuing the IOU's, that he will in turn pay market value of the stock he used to establish value(BID) on demand.
Of course it the stock he is holding at the DTCC is not able to establish value, he is off the hook on any reponsibility, until trading resumes.
Here is the way on line brokers work,
1. They establish a cash margin account that you cannot take a margin,(borrow any money on) but he can still put shares in his name as is done with a normal margin account.So we end up with a Cash/Margin account, Cash from us and Margin for brokers.
2. Shares are the foundation to the trades, they are located in the DTCC, and when a sell order is placed with brokers, broker "A", he makes a deal to exchange *IOU's with broker "B" the DTCC takes broker "A' his street name certs, and transfers them to broker "B"'s account,clearing out his IOU's,and pays his seller, while the buying broker establishes IOU's for his buying client when exchanging for his client's money.
Bottom line stock is not purchased or sold only the IOU's that the brokers generated.That is how I see this fiasco.
The broker only swapped IOU's, shares had no part of the sale, other than to establish the value.
That scenario however would preclude from any counterfeit IOU'S in accounts that we hold, the brokers are our buffer as long as we hold that position.
molson, No I do not know under the circumstances of being revoked, however I do know that the brokers are required to provide that info to the TA upon request of a reporting company.
It may need to be subpoenaed through court order?
itsmikie, My point was that all shareholders in BCIT are the "BROKERS", which in turn hold all the information of who he (brokers) issued his promissory notes (IOU's) too.
So Carlton H, should be able to get any needed info from brokers, as they are required to maintain a OBO/NOBO list of those clients.
All positions purchased through brokers should be solid, we are really not even in the loop of shareholders.
We hold broker IOU"s, I know of no way that IOU's can be counterfeited period.
Is there anyone here that actually has certs in their possession, doubt that there are very many, unless you paid for your certs or paid your brokers $75.00 to register shares in your name and not be held in street name. Then you are in the majority and the only real shareholders are the brokers. period.
Wow, a trade today on the ask, 1,300,000.00. not much, but at least it firms up the bid so we don't lose it...yet!!!.
Losing the bid would be the final nail in the coffin.
Janet, Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that anyone should pull their certs individually, not unless it is requested/sponsored by the company and everyone is involved.
I do not think that (a cert pull) will happen, although IMO it would be a great way for the company to rencile their shares and bring the shorts home to roost.
Yes it is true that pulling certs will let the brokers off the hook, as they would clear out the IOU's we now hold,I think it would be more like ripping the hook out in lieu of "letting" him off.lol
Janet, if everyone pulled all certs, then if we for whatever reason were able to trade again, if all shares are in public hands and none in broker hands, the brokers would have nothing to trade.
I don't look for that to be a problem, I think if it turns out that BCIT/energy source is a viable company, and the proper re listing is achieved, that brokers will be happy to trade us again.
There will always be some broker that will want our business.IMO
AlanC, As you are aware, the brokers will use every excuse in the book to hang on to those certs, from our past experiences.
However if the company was to issue request that ALL promissory note holders (IOU's) request their original certs through the TA, then I believe the brokers must comply.
Note! he took our money and our certs, he still has our money, now we want our certs back!!
If I remember correctly there was a broker that hand carried certs from NY to Tx to for fill a cert pull request that was sponsored by that underlying company.
I see no reason why it couldn't be done here it most certainly would lay out what, where, and how in this saga.IMO
AlanC, This may be a dumb question, but I have not been here in some time, question is do we still have a TA, I suspect not but don't know for sure.
If we do however manage to get one, I think it would greatly enhance this effort if the company order all to pull their certs, and monitored the results.
The company knows exactly how many shares they issued, the brokers with their on line manipulation, have increased that amount by issuing IOU'S in our accounts, and putting our certs in their name to do what they want with. i.e. loan out or sell.
So if the brokers put a marker in our accounts, then in turn sell our certs to some one or loan them out, is that not in fact generating an extra position for every share we thought we purchased, the broker hypothecated it by generating that marker and allowing the cert or shares to be traded by others.
Now the correction would be for us to demand our certs be taken out of street name and sent to us.
If that was initiated, the brokers would have to get all that they have IOU's for covered, that would mean purchase from the company to fill the requirements of all the generated IOU's and loaned out shares, even those phantom shares that never were.
A cert pull would tell ALL!!!! and force the brokers to reconcile our accounts with real certs.
,I can't believe that there are still some that do not know what that law suit was about.
It wasn't about going after shareholders, it was about establishing those that held company issued shares, or those purchased through brokerage.
It was pretty obvious that they could not obtain the OBO/NOBO list from brokers, therefore used that method to establish the shareholder base that were holding broker IOU's,as well as those that held certs, to insure their authenticity.
masterflash, The reason that only 80 shareholders are registered is due to the fact that every brokerage regardless of how many shareholders he has issued markers (IOU's .) too in their accounts, he is counted only as 1 shareholder on the company register.
The company TA only issues to brokers in their street name, the brokers in turn maintain an OBO/NOBO list of their respective clients holding those IOU'S, could be hundreds of thousands of accounts, but still he is counted as One!
He takes our money, he takes our shares, and the company has no idea who shareholders are unless the broker agrees to provide a OBO/NOBO list
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan C, thanks, yes, I think it would be a good idea for the company to have a case report, to know the mechanics of the fraud operation first hand. Sounds like even responsible people get caught up in easy money. That was quite a confession.
Lex, Wow, out of all that the key words are "will no
longer trade publicly"
"No longer trading publicly" does not mean it is private,(as shares can not trade privately either, without certs) it means it can not trade publicly due to shares not being registered, that does not mean that all other ramifications of a public co has been removed.
i.e. Broker holding and refusing to send certs.
I did not see anywhere in that post that shows the brokers fiduciary responsibility of returning shares to privately held shareholders.
As long as brokers are able to not return our shares then we remain public. Yes true we can not trade due to being revoked.
But brokers can not have it both ways. (being private and holding our shares in their street name)
I just don't want folks here thinking that we are a pravite company that have their shares being held hostage by brokers unlawfully. The only reason brokers are able to retain those shares is due to our public status as a Revoked Public Co. (even though we can not trade publicy)
Lex, You say it "is a private company now".
I just do not see how that is possiable, as stated in my last post, as long as brokers are holding our shares in their STREET NAME, and we hold their IOU's in our accounts the company can not be private, The brokers could not continue to hold the shares of a privately owned co. under the circumstances that they are now being held.
And as long as the brokers are holding our shares there is no way we could buy or sell them to each other or anyone else, as we could not obtain the certs to sell. The brokers will not release them, can you imagine the havoc it would cause on their short clients, if brokers are forced to have them cover their positions.
That is why being a revoked company that has not filed BK , will remain as a Revoked Public Company.
If the company files BK, that will let the shorts off the hook, then and only then, would the asset remains be private (if there any assets left).
The fact that Mr. Megas has not filed BK, is why we still show those IOU's in our accounts, and the shorts are locked in.
If there is any doubt to what I am saying, just try getting your certs from brokers, you will hear every excuse under the sun why they can not send them too you
To help clear up the gray area.
If we were a private company then I would question why in the world are all our shares sitting in the depository in the brokers street name, while we hold his IOU's in our accounts.
Also to add to that why would it not be required that if in deed we became private why wasn't the short interest forced to cover all shorts when we were revoked?
Next I would ask why are brokers refusing to issue our certs back to us, that should be automatic if we were not a public company, where is the SEC when you need them lol.
I think since we are revoked, it is time for a massive cert pull sponsored by the company, oh wait!>>> how can they do that unless we have a transfer agent or do we?
I think this is my last allotted post for today, so I may not be able to respond to any comments, but will do it latter, when I get my next allocation lol.
Hi Mastaflash, I think even with the registration revoked to trade shares, you will find that we are still a public co. a revoked public co. as long as we hold shares here in the public domain.
Lex I stand corrected, I was not aware of the 2009 SEC action. That was long after the OTCBB de listing, and long after Megas stopped filing as the filings did him no good with that DTCC lock on trading. Seems like the revoke was by default and was not challenged by Megas, it would have done him no good as the DTCC still had the lock no matter what SEC/Megas did on the reporting/trading issues..
Lex, That comment, is a "canned" comment, that is not what happened, the 15 C-211 was not breached, as Megas continued to file for more than 6 months after the lock was initiated by the DTCC.
All these boards have a trading limit, if not traded within a certain time frame they get de listed to a lower exchange or quotation bureau, i.e. pink sheets the limit is if no trade within 5 consecutive days, they get sent to the greys.The OTCBB has same trading rules, the 15 c-211 is only one way of many that can cause a de listing to the pink sheets.
However de listing, is not being revoked, or loss of registration of certs, de listing is only de listing from the OTCBB not from the SEC.
To lose registration SEC must have a stock "revoke" court hearing , that never happened with BCIT.
Therefore we are still a public company sitting on the grey (yes that is the correct spelling not gray)sheets.
It will require a 15 C-211 and an MM request to go from the greys back to listing on the OTCBB. Which may or may not be the plan. We could trade on the greys once they get the DTCC lock lifted, that would be a company discretion how/where they want to trade and what effort they are willing to expend/needed.