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.
The Securities Information Center operates a database for the SEC containing lost, stolen, missing, and counterfeit securities certificates. When a paper cert is deposited, it's supposed to be checked against this database. Not sure at which level -- broker, clearing house, or DTC.
AFAIK, BCIT's TA didn't initially notify the SIC w/ cert numbers because they weren't known. So, the database check would have shown no problems. Then, there would have been a time lag as the certs moved from customer to broker to clearing house to DTC over to the TA for re-registration.
All residents wouldn't be "known innocent" until the perpetrators were caught and successfully prosecuted.
Do you live in a really deep red state or overseas? You don't seem to understand an important concept behind the US legal system that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Onus is on the plaintiff to prove you're guilty.
FYI, submitting a broker statement and claiming you weren't a participant doesn't prove you're innocent. You could have created authentic-looking trade confirmations and broker statements w/ a tool like Photoshop. Paper cert entries can vanish w/ a couple strokes. You could be hiding multiple accounts in which you deposited fake certs.
Whenever a crime occurs in your town, do the cops arrest and file charges against all the residents in order to catch the perpetrators? Do you have to appear in court for each case and prove your innocence? Living in the local area, you're a potential suspect. Using your logic here, the cops ought to charge you and everyone else in town when there's a crime.
Think real hard why they don't this.
Is that site registered w/ the SEC? If not, what he's doing is illegal.
The NOBO list should reflect number of shares each investor has. The DTC generates a report which breaks out holdings by broker-dealer. With their help, IMO he should have been able to pinpoint which ones served as an entryway for the fake stock into the market. Those broker-dealers in turn should be able to identify the responsible clients.
I don't know what Megas is trying to do. If the goal is to cancel fake stock, IMO there was no need to make false allegations against everyone. If the goal is to go after culprits, he should have narrowed down the list prior to filing. When a crime is committed, cops don't charge everyone in the local area to find the perpetrators.
The danger in tipping your hand first is not knowing what's in his. The info might be used to change his case before he does show it.
I agree, but it doesn't seem to matter to some investors. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the allegations. Look how many submitted documents to support their innocence w/o the plaintiff doing so. The DTC and brokers won't roll over that easily.
Did you file a cross-claim against them?
I think a cross-claim is used for bringing action against a named party on the same side of a lawsuit and counterclaim is for action against the plaintiff and/or someone else. I don’t know whether one can file it after the first answer. If this is something you want to consider, recommend talking to a licensed attorney.
Upon filing an answer, I believe you will be accepting that court has jurisdiction over you. If that happens to be a concern, recommend talking to an attorney before submitting anything.
If determined, the Judge will tell the MMs Brokerage house and DTC that they better come up with an idea of how they plan to correct this matter..And it BETTER be LEGIT!!
No, she won't. First, you would need to bring them into the case as named defendants. Then, you would have to present a compelling argument to the court on why it's their responsibility to correct the issue and counter any dismissal request or defense presented.
Megas hasn't requested this in his petition. I doubt any of the defendants so far have bothered to do it either. It's not the judge's responsibility to argue his or your side of the case or rule against unnamed parties.
What's the State of Texas maximum allowed A/S??
Texas does not impose a maximum limitation on a company's a/s.
Why are we leaving Nevada when...." The Great State of Nevada"
Ask West. My guess is because he wants to live in Texas and not have to deal w/ future actions against the company in another state. When someone takes legal action against a company, he can file either where it's incorporated or has a physical presence. By moving incorporation to Texas, he can deal w/ all that type of stuff locally.
Why is the Nevada SOS listed as our Resident Agent when I was just told by the Nevada SOS they are not for hire to perofrm such duties? ( L O L )
It's a default entry used on records for corporations which have been dissolved thru merger, moved incorporation to another state, or removed by statute. I think it's their way of keeping the online record active. Since these entities don't have RA's in NV anymore, a process server or whoever will see that they should contact the SoS who turn can provide further info on where the company reincorporated or merged.
Recommend you reread the wording in Megas' emails, which have been posted here, because you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.
Two did something similar in the prev suit. Here's one of them.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/getimage.tif?submitted=true&casemasterid=1961767&db...
Megas didn't ask for a forced buy-in in his petition. It appears he's satisfied w/ canceling the fake and giving you the ball to chase whoever you want.
Unless the shares issued in the Pino et al settlement are distributed, there aren't enough real ones out there right now to do a buy-in. Filings show the broker, which served as the entryway for the mess, tried to purchase stock in the open market after the DTC demanded replacement certs back when the stock was trading. Since the market was so flooded w/ fake, the broker ended up w/ FTDs.
I doubt most will bother to file. This is one of those stocks broker-dealers will probably remember for a very long time.
On a positive note, I've heard arbitration cases are more often ruled in favor of the customer.
oooooh. lol /eom/
Only one of the 20K has done something. lol
I think it's odd that they filed a separate suit for Urbie rather than include him in the one w/ the others. You may be right that they have different plans for him.
What happens if every defendant on the list denies the allegations?
Yours is pretty funny too. First you say Cede owns the stock then a few lines later say the brokers do. Whoever is listed on the cert is the shareholder of record. It's usually Cede for streetname.
The reason brokers can loan stock from someone's account is because he willingly agreed to this term when opening a margin account. For cash accounts, there isn't a similar agreement between the two parties so loans aren't made from them.
Someone posted an email, which Megas allegedly wrote, saying this is to help everyone become a real shareholder. How do you think that will happen if the judge doesn't rule in his favor and against you on at least holding counterfeit stock? The current petition can always be amended to get to the right issue pertaining to you.
Why would you ever tell someone else accused of serious allegations that it's unnecessary to see an attorney? Lots of innocent folks have been found guilty after making a similar assumption as you did here.
Okay, I'm wrong and withdrawal my comment. lol Back then the NYSE was buying Archipelago which traded OTC stocks. I forgot those two merged.
Why not ask your buddy Victor? The share amount for each investor should be on the NOBO list.
On Moriarty's filing? That attorney asked for an extension from 8 May not 8 April. His client must have been served on ~18 April. That would be after the petition was filed.
Because BCIT is sitting in the grey market. The daily lists only report delinquent filers which trade on the BB or an exchange.
Um, the NYSE doesn't deal w/ OTC stocks. Exchanges already have the power to halt trading and kick off stocks which don't comply w/ their rules. Federal law is what limits the SEC's power.
Just correcting wrong info because you didn't. After seeing so many repeat a similar claim, I took time to check it out.
Whatever made you think I expect people to only "talk about rainbows and candy canes?" To the contrary, I think defendants ought to take this suit seriously and seek legal counsel. This could potentially haunt a person for the rest of his/her life.
It's funny you think discussing the lawsuit from different views on a forum is somehow an attack yet have such an open mind that being sued in court for mail and securities fraud is necessary to help you.
If you do a little more research, you'll see a plaintiff is not required to sue for $10K to have a case heard in district court there.
my DD indicates that the 10,000$ mention was required to get it out of small claims court, so that the rulings (whatever they are) would have more impact...
Oh really? Maybe you should educate the folks in Oklahoma County since the district courts there hear cases under $10K.
Title 12 Section 2005
A. SERVICE: WHEN REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided in this title, every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original petition unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party or any other person unless the court otherwise orders, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties. No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Section 2004 [12-2004] of this title.
B. SERVICE: HOW MADE. Whenever pursuant to this act service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court or final judgment has been rendered and the time for appeal has expired. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him or by mailing it to him at his last-known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. Delivery of a copy within this section means:
1. Handing it to the attorney or to the party; or
2. Leaving it at his office with his clerk or other person in charge thereof; or
3. If there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or
4. If the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person residing therein who is fifteen (15) years of age or older. Except for service of the summons and the original petition, service by mail is complete upon mailing.
C. SERVICE: NUMEROUS DEFENDANTS. In any action in which there are unusually large numbers of defendants, the court, upon motion or of its own initiative, may order that service of the pleadings of the defendants and replies thereto need not be made as between the defendants and that any cross-claim, counterclaim, or matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense contained therein shall be deemed to be denied or avoided by all other parties and that the filing of any such pleading and service thereof upon the plaintiff constitutes due notice of it to the parties. A copy of every such order shall be served upon the parties in such manner and form as the court directs.
D. FILING. All papers after the petition required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may on motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers and responses thereto not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. All papers filed with the court shall include a statement setting forth the names of the persons served and the date, place, and method of service.
E. FILING WITH THE COURT DEFINED.
1. The filing of papers with the court as required by this act shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with him, in which event he shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk.
2. A duplicate of any paper shall be acceptable for filing with the court and shall have the same force and effect as an original. For purposes of this section a duplicate is a copy produced on unglazed white or eggshell paper by mechanical, chemical or electronic means, or by other equivalent technique, which accurately reproduces the original. A duplicate that is acceptable for filing shall not be refused because any signatures thereon are duplicates. A carbon copy shall not be considered a duplicate for purposes of this section.
3. Papers may be filed by facsimile or other electronic transmission directly to the court or the court clerk as permitted by a rule of court. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall promulgate rules for the district court for the filing of papers transmitted by facsimile or other electronic transmission device. Rules for facsimile or other electronic transmission filing must have the approval of the Supreme Court.
4. The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices.
http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=94865
Too funny. lol /eom/
Pino and gang filed to reinstate the company from revoked to active status on 13 Jan 2005.
They filed an annual list of officers the same day. I don't see why you think that's even an issue for this.
https://esos.state.nv.us/SoSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/corpActions.aspx?lx8nvq=qOsJlTJVMStlCK2sa1Q2HQ%253d%253d&CorpName=BANCORP+INTERNATIONAL+GROUP
Speak of the devil. lol
Also, I find it curious that the transfer agent said they are going back to the bankruptcy court for permission when they publically filed that they are now out of bankruptcy, this still makes no sense at all,
I think it makes sense. IMO they should request permission otherwise why bother following any terms of the court order. By going back to the judge, this helps to show the error was an oversight and not some pre-planned scheme. Getting the judge's approval will provide legal cover on the fix.
=====
As far as I am concerned this is fraud and if they insist on pushing the reverse through I intend to turn this over to my securities counsel to defend my rights in court,
Why wait? I doubt the company will screw the participants in the BK proceeding to solve the problem. So, look for a r/s or a lot more stock being issued to them.
I think shareholders will eventually get some money, but it'll probably take several more years and the amount won't make them whole. The culprits will probably disgorge only a small percentage of total profits.
IMO our regulatory system sucks. If given the opportunity, I bet I could develop one that operated very fast and would not favor bad guys like the current.
I don't know who you're addressing. For me, I've wanted to see the real culprits here held accountable and disgorged. It's been frustrating watching you all chase a mythical NSS bogeyman for so damn long.
When West and Frizzell didn't run away after opening the corporate boxes and decided to continue pressing on, they gained a lot of respect in my eyes. Having fixed some huge messes myself, I can relate to what they're going through. Even if they don't get very far, the mere fact that they're trying shows there's more to them than we've realized.
To be honest, I think chances for success are pretty low. What they're attempting to accomplish is not trivial. If they don't go after Urbie and other insiders who committed wrong, I believe their pursuit against culprits can be easily harpooned. I would love to see wealth transferred from the bad guys back into shareholders' pockets or the company's coffers.
Great update! West always struck me as a one-dimensional guy whose entire world revolved around chasing the NSS bogeyman. It's nice to see a different side of his persona.
I'm impressed w/ his drive in trying to untangle a monumental mess and addressing rumors head on. It would be far easier to start from scratch than tackle what he inherited. Up another notch on the opinion meter.
Interesting. Why falsely accuse everyone of securities fraud in the process? Wasn't the stock issued back in Jan 2006 in the Pino settlement supposed to do the same?
Excellent! The judge though won't order trading resumed on stock Megas can prove is fake. Electronic trading records don't prove it's real.
A company can r/s validly issued stock. They cannot do it on fake stock. They can however replace the fake w/ real first then do the r/s.
When a r/s occurs, the stock is assigned a new CUSIP. The old cert then represents the right to exchange for a new cert w/ the share amount split adjusted. If your holdings went to zero, the TA won't issue a new cert.