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.
op9, I'm not so sure that we are not still a public co.
We have not been revoked by SEC, we were however de listed from the OTCBB, and in turn removed from the pinks to the grey quotation bureau, due to the lock on our trading by the DTCC.
The above action was not taken because of the lack of "Q" filings as Megas continued to file even after we were locked.
My thoughts now are I hope that the company can find a method of requesting and sponsoring a cert pull by all shareholders.
As individuals, the brokers will not fill any request for certs, however if it is a company request and sponsored, I think the brokers will have no choice than to comply, I sincerely hope that is the reason behind this action that is now being taken.
Normally that would be looked on by the SEC as stock manipulation, however it would not be a material exercise, as we are not trading, therefore will have no material effect on the pps
BTW I think the method taken (without a PR) is the correct one at this time, a Pr would be required once they have a finality of whatever this action is designed to achieve. I hope every shareholder compiles with this simple request, imo it would be un wise for shareholders to not go along and aid the quest of the only positive action by the company in years.
AlanC, Just happened over here, what info are they looking for?
thanks
Well I don't know about that, if what you say is true, does that now mean that Waren Buffet now controls Bank of America because he bought 5 billion in B of A shares, or is he just a large shareholder?
Lets see if I have this right:
We sold 46% of total stock holdings in copperstone, when the gold price was aprox 1,150 oz, that value was locked, it also leaves 54% that must be obtained in order for the buyer to achieve the 100% ownership contract that he established as a requirement for our stock sale.
Bouse was aprox 23% of their stock held then sold to the buyer, at the same price of gold, that leaves 77% left to acquire before the contract is complete.
Now that gold is nearing the $1,900 mark and if the stock buyer (NMGL) has not completed their accusation of the remanding shares of Bose and Copperstone, I would say the price of GOLD has a profound effect on us getting our Dividend. (Comments?)
PS What gets me about all this, is NMGL has paid in full for their purchase from FFGO, why would they do that with the remanding shares of Bouse and Copperstone (the greater amount) not secured? Ok back to my hole lol.
Mike 2211, Why does that surprise you, you are putting the order to sell at the ASK price, the MM would have no spread to fill your order, it will never happen!
True there is no bid however the ask is published as .0001, they would need to establish a bid before they could or would fill your order at that .0001 you are asking.
SevenTenEleven, Yes crazy, then you add the fact there is no "BID so every trade to the "SYSTEM",looks like a sell.
The "SYSTEM looks at "ALL BID" trades as buys, and "ALL ASK" trades as sells, so if there is no bid then it would make sence that the system indicates the short % you are posting it is erroneous as long there is no "BID"
The system is not programmed to look at buys/sells it is programmed to look only at the BID/ASK bid = buys, Ask = sells, so everything on the ask is recorded and published as a sell.
You are 100% right on the shenanigans of the trading brokers, they deal with us only in electronic markers.(IOU'S)
puppydot, What in the world are you talking about? What sub lease are you referring to?
It would be nice if you would put a little effort in doing some DD before you make statements like that.
Here is a clue for you
1. FFGO never had any type of "lease".
2. FFGO owned a large percentage of "STOCK" in Bouse and Copperstone, to irritate the word' STOCK! STOCK! STOCK, "not leases" STOCK!!.
3. FFGO sold their STOCK holdings to NMGL (key word "SOLD STOCK")
4. NMGL in turn paid FFGO in full by issuing A and B preferred NMGL STOCK to Western Diversified a subsidiary of FFGO, where it is being held while other conditions on the sale are being compiled with
Can't lose a sub lease that you never had!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Reply to puppydot post:
"lol... ffgo has no gold or silver.. just a small piece of a sub lease most likley about to be lost due to poor company management
and SEC violations"
paunch. Yup sounds great, however I do not believe that there is an on line broker that would ever trade his in house generated IOU'S for company issued CERTS, not going to happen.
He has your CERTS neatly tucked away in his name sitting in the DTCC depository.
If you have any doubt just call your broker and request CERTS, would be interesting what excuse he will offer lol.
molson No, what I am saying is there is no pressing need to get NMGL back on the OTCBB, that is not a requirement to issue dividends or to purchase the remainder of the Copperstone/Bouse shares to reach 100% stock ownership in those mining companies.
It almost looks to me they failed to report Q's on purpose, as a pink stock they can operate without disclosing all that is going on, they always have the option to have an MM file the required 15c-211 and bring filing up to date.
In the mean time they are now looking like most exploration/development companies, they all seem to like the pinks.Not a bad place to hang out during these operations.
molson. It would do NMGL no good to file until they find an MM that will file a 15c-211 they are on pinks and it now takes more than a filing to go back on the OTCBB, it must be done by filings as well as a MM request.
However they still have a TA.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/service-provider/Holladay-Stock-Transfer?id=2250&b=n&filterOn=6&page=4&pageSize=50
Mike2211 Not to worry as you will NEVER get them in CERT form period, and you will never be able to transfer to anyone without CERTS!!!!!!!
If you want a lesson in broker activity just call your broker and request certs see what he says.lol.
Mike2211, First thing you need to do is locate the transfer agent ask if you can sell your position,I personally don't know how, as the TA deals only in company issued certs.
Unless you are holding certs, they are sitting in the DTCC depository,in brokers name, how you get them out of there I haven't got a clue.
Might ask the TA.
Good luck with that.
overachiever, I have to say, for the first time I agree with your statement:
"FFGO owns no gold, has no gold properties and holds no gold property leases"
However what they did own was 46% of the STOCK in copperstone and 23% of the STOCK in Bouse.
I don't believe that anyone that has followed this,believes that FFGO own or operated any mining leases or property.
They were stock holders nothing more nothing less, shares were sold to NMGL which in turn issued A&B preferred NMGL shares to Western a sub of FFGO for payment in full.
OldBen, Now the kicker where I cannot understand how the company can issue the dividend without losing the value promised.
If for example they issue the brokers A&B's that are trading the very fact we spoke of comes into play, if FFGO is trillions short then the dividend will also be trillions short and if trading will get hammered out of the gate.
No the dividend value will not be established in the dividend marker, if trading, it will be as any other stock, they will adjust the value to the number of shares o/s including the shorts.
If they issue without registering for trade, I see no way to get our money out.
This to me is a very perplexing problem and am not sure anyone has an answer for it. ,
OldBen, Sorry I didn't get down the rabbit hole far enough before I started answering your question lol.
The short in the dividend will accure automaticly because they must put dividends in every account regardless of the short in the underlying stock, the short is not done by any purchase by the brokers, it is done by the simple method of generation, they just put markers in accounts to cover all IOU"S that they hold, then hope that everyone doesn't sell at once.
I'm still not convinced that the company knows how to address this problem, and still maintain the value promised on the dividend.
If FFGO was not short there would be no problem, however I suspect we are short in the trillions, and as the stock goes so also the dividend goes they can't get around it, they must show the dividend in every account no matter the short.
Your question
"If the brokers "short the dividend to the level of the underlying stock short, and put markers in our accounts to cover the dividend" then at what price do the brokers "short the dividend"??? Would they have enough volume to find enough buyers?? Or does it matter, because, if "markers are put in our accounts to cover the dividend" then it is HOW we redeem or cash out the markers that is the bigger question????"
No Lebron23 I am not overlooking the large actual "shareholders" here their Cert positions, including brokers as large shareholders as well as insiders are apples and oranges to the secenario we face with IOU'S, they hold their CERTS, we hold brokers IOU'S.
Of course that is not always bad, as the Brokers are like a buffer zone for us they must redeem their IOU'S at some point and pay all / any dividends as long as the stock trades.
OldBen To sum up I define a broker as any firm that brokers stock, i.e. E*trade etc, those that take your money, and your shares, put them in their broker name and put markers in your account, they of course are tide at the hip to their collective MM/s and the depository (DTCC) where shares are housed.
Our only tie to that outcome is we are on a broker obo/nobo list, that holds a record of whom has purchased shares and received IOU'S.
An example is if there are one million (pick a figure) so called shareholders, and five separate brokers holding their shares in their street name, the shareholders count as far as the TA knows and the company must reveal is "five actual shareholders".
To add clients are of multi billion $$ offshore hedge funds with large margin accounts, and so many bankers that got cought with hands in cookie jar i.e Chase, Citi, BoA, Goldman S etc.
OldBen Excellent post.
There is always one very important item in this whole equation that for whatever reason is over looked.
To answer your question (Below) the one item missing in your scenario is the fact that we so called shareholders are in fact not shareholders, we are broker promissory note holders, all underlining shares are in fact in broker names, (unless you have obtained your certs or paid $75.00 to have them taken out of broker name and registered in your name).
So that said, the Brokers have a fiduciary duty to make good all promissory notes at market value (BID) on demand (as long as the stock is still tradable).
Now if a dividend is announced, if it is a stock dividend, then the brokers will short the dividend to the level of the underlying stock short, and put markers in our accounts to cover the dividend.
If the dividend was cash (probably will never happen) however, just as a hypothetical scenario, if 'cash' then the brokers would go to the DTCC for the cash and cover all their markers (IOU'S).
In turn the brokers will put out margin calls to all their clients to re reimburse the DTCC.
Least we forget, that all shares are held in brokers street name, very important that be remembered !!
Your question:
"In this situation, when NMGL goes to pay a dividend based on 75 billion and there is suddenly 1 trillion shares. What happens??? Do the first random 75 billion shares of FFGO get "converted and redeemed" to NMGL A&B's and get cash???? What happens to everyone else??????????? Will the SEC and DTCC track down all the shorts??? It is not the job of the DTCC to make MM's to cover at the dividend price. The DTCC is there to make MM's, etc., cover short or margined shares. After the $258 million is gone. Will NMGL issue A&B's??? Will those A&B's have any value after the dividend has been redeemed to a random 75 billion shares???"
AlanC I have no doubt that we are NSS, probably in the trillions as per the well placed bait, however I do not believe it is still going on.
I am of the opinion that we are being cellar boxed on a daily basis, if that is indeed the case I suspect the reporting of trading is not reflecting the actual activity.
Texan, Maybe the % is due to reverse trades,most days it is a high % rate of all trades, I just don't think the system is geared to report buys and sells but only what is traded on the ask and bid, and if a part of that equation (BID) is missing the whole reporting is un reliable.
Rocket I am beginning to think that the reason for the negative report on volume is due to the fact that we have no bid, therefore the activity is reported as sales.
The system does not look at buys and sells it looks only at BID and ASK, to the reporting system.
Hi Rocket, The first thing that link brought to mind, was the wonderment of what the term "IMMEDIATE" and no "DELAY in our current plans means? Nice web site though.
It will be interesting to see how they pull this off without crushing some regulatory toes.
Go get em FFGO!
I don't know Rocket, seems to me they better figure out "HOW" before they concider "WHEN" JIMO.
AlanC Registered for trading would be a step in the right direction, however unless everyone sold at once the brokers will still carry on with their Ponzy operation, as you know, there are only two ways to force covering, 1. "CERT" pull... 2 "CASH"
If A&B's are registered for trading without a moratorium it would help however.
Well varmit, sounds good, however back to the real world,have you noticed that those that are in the know and have been down this road are not answering my question.
Do not hold your breath on a mass short cover on FFGO if non registered preferred shares are issued without any information how they can be converted to cash.
Here is what will happen, hypnotically speaking, lets say there are 1 trillion shorted in FFGO we all ("except" those holding certs or have paid to have shares registered in their name in lieu of broker street name).
And lets say there are 75 billion shares to be qualified for the .0034+ valued A&B'S (that most are in broker name), now these A&B"S can not be traded so what will happen is the broker will CREATE IOU's to cover any/all shares he has on his OBO NOBO list.
Now lets say that the brokers find that hundreds of billions of shares are now representative of that list due to the trillion short,the broker has a fiduciary duty to generate a reflection of the dividend into his OBO NOBO clients accounts.
So he inserts IOU's for hundreds of billions into shareholder positions,(he by doing that, just shorted the h;;* out of our dividend) giving the shorts ample time to cover, as the A&B"S are not even registered for trading.
So the door is open, we have no way to force his hand when holding un registered shares both the broker and his short clients are under no pressure.
What I am saying is until the company clearly defines the method of converting those A&B'S into the promised CASH there will be no short covering on FFGO.
Some here that I have posted too, know what I am saying as we all have been down this road before.
When I read that last 8K on this A&B scenario is when I cut back on posting hoping that the major question I had would be answered, so far it hasn't been.
If and when I receive the means and that question is answered, I will help relieve the MM's of their ask burden ASAP
AlanC "Cat's meow I would say so,in fact I had those same thoughts and have intended to relieve the MM's of some of their ask bourdon on level II, that is of course if fruition is achieved in our other endeavor.
That is exactly why I have been trying to get thoughts on the mechanics of exchange of A&B's into cash, we both know that any stock payment will just be adjusted by the brokers, and appear in our accounts as IOU's,to cover all underlining FFGO shorted and O/S. (I believe the bait attracted in the trillion range)
Thereby the A&B'S will be automatically shorted, in turn devalued by that action..
It would be great if FFGO would come back long enough to explain how they intend to get around that one major glitch of issuing a un registered stock dividend to street name brokers, and expect that we will somehow be able to cash it out.
mattyhoho, I continue to have a problem with the mechanics of issuing/exchanging those A&B preferred shares out of WD to FFGO shareholders, and still retain the value of .0034+.
In my last two post I laid out the scenario as I see it, so far I haven't received any response or comments on my concern, maybe you can help after reading my last two post
Thanks.
That's why they have workman's comp and liability insurance.
If they don't they should not be in business, an accident should have no bearing on the operation of a company, so much bs imo.
Rocket, Thanks for the response, that info in my post on the dividend shorted to cover any shorts in the under lying stock, is not from hear say it is from actual experience I have been through in other stocks.
I certainly would like to know the mechanics that will get us a cash payment of the promised .0034+ of the A&B preferred that are now sitting in WD awaiting conditions to be met.
The "only way I can see what we all are hoping for, is that NMGL does not register the shares for trading and offers to buy back all outstanding A&B's for the predetermined cash amount.
If they issue registered stock it will be shorted to the same level as FFGO, and that will in turn devalue the dividend.
A buy back will definitely result in a short cover, however it would also be treading on SEC as a possible stock manipulation,SEC has been protecting the shorts for years and even with all the new regulations I see no encouraging factor that indicates any change in attitude, sure some will say it's against the law, but think what NSS has always been, selling what you don't have, that surely has always been against the law, and all can see where that got us.
temeku. Wouldn't it be great if your scenario was true, however in the real world it is not.
Those that are short are much better protected by the market and it's regulators (I'm sorry to say), if all it would take is a stock dividend to hang them out to dry, every company would do that to get them off their stock.
As we stand, we have two sets of preferred shares sitting in our FFGO subsidiary Western D, those shares are payment in "full" to FFGO by NMGL, for the stock held by FFGO in Bouse and Copperstone, that payment removes NMGL from any fiduciary responsibility to either FFGO or it's shareholders.
It has been stated that when conditions are met, those non trading preferred shares will be issued to the shareholders by FFGO.
So who are the actual people holding the FFGO float shares,the DTCC or one of the their subsidiaries, held in our Brokers names in the depositary.
So who gets the dividend when issued? Believe it or not it is those that hold the shares in their name, "the Brokers".
The brokers in turn hold a list of all FFGO holders (OBO/NOBO) that are holding their (Broker) IOU's, the brokers will receive the dividend and issue IOU's into our accounts to cover that list.
However if the FFGO shares are shorted (and I truly believe they are could even be trillion with the bait that was used imo) the brokers will not be issued enough preferred shares to cover the entire float and short, they will still issue preferred IOU'S even without having the shares to back them up, in other words they will SHORT the Dividend.
Until the preferred stock is either registered for trading and we "all sell" at the same time, or NMGL offers to pay cash and buy back those preferred shares, there will be no need for shorts to cover (just like any other Ponzy operation.) And to add, if the dividend shares are registered for trading, what do you think the brokers shorting the dividend to cover their IOU'S that we hold will do to the value of the dividend?
The "ONLY" thing that will force shorts to cover immediately on any dividend, would be a "CASH" dividend, they will not cover on anything else but.
That is because Brokers can not put IOU'S in our accounts for "CASH" dividends as they do with stock dividends.
Then you have to ask, how many cash dividends has anyone seen in the penny/pink market? Like I said the shorts are well protected by the system IMO.
Tex, With nite being involved and no bid, you can bet there is cellar boxing going on, I don't know the mechanics but if they can nss shares it would stand to reason they can also fudge the reported volume.
However there may be some requirement to insert the fudge into the average volume for bookkeeping purposes hoping no one notices who knows?,.
Isn't it great that we can trust no one in our so called regulated oversite market.
Texan, Don't know where you are looking, I see todays volume as 1,100,000
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=squote&symbol=FFGO
Ken, Least we forget just how we are situated in all this, the Brokers have taken our shares and put them in his name thereby issuing his promissory notes (IOU's).
Now the brokers have a fiduciary responsibility to us to pay us on demand the market value (bid amount) of the underlining shares that is in his name providing the company shares are still trading.
So any dividend issued will also go into the street name of the brokers, and once again brokers will issue promissory notes for those dividends into our accounts, there will be no change of business as usual, there will be no mad rush of shorter's to cover, as the brokers have the buffer zone well covered.
The only way that shorts will need to get involved, is if EVERY IOU holder sells their issued dividend (IOU) at the same time, to one entity i.e. NMGL for cash, then and only then will the DTCC get involved to issue the cash to the Brokers (for cover of any shorts) to put into our accounts, in turn the brokers will issue margin calls to all their clients that have a short position (including Off shore hedge funds).
Once the brokers receive the margin call funds from their clients they will pay the DTCC back the funds.
The only way to cause this scenario is to inject CASH into the equation, all else will only generate additional shorting yes even of the dividend,because as I stated dividends will be issued to street name brokers giving them full control.
Mastaflash, I don't know that I would lay any money down on that bet. officer up date (fees) list was due 06 30 2010
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=o7z3K8dqRyNPEJHXnelUxw%253d%253d&nt7=0
If this has been posted already please delete.
Does BCIT Suffer Like xxx Shareholders?
« Thread Started on Apr 3, 2011, 7:25am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.let-bcit-trade.com/
Have you ever bought anything? Have you ever bought anything expensive? How would you feel if you spent thousands of dollars for an item, and the seller never delivered what you’d bought? Now, how would you feel if the quasi governmental agency responsible for the integrity of the transaction was the very reason your seller never delivered your item? What if you were left, now out thousands of dollars, with no item to show for it, and no authority that will listen to your complaint? How would you feel? Angry? Confused? Betrayed? Powerless?
Unbelievable? Impossible? Could this happen in America? You bet it could, and it did, to about fifteen hundred people who bought a little known stock called Bancorp International Group (BCIT), back in 2005.
What follows on this website is the incredible account and explanation of what happened, is currently happening, and yet needs to happen for these very people.
The BCIT Story
The Corporate Identity Theft – A Company gets stolen
As the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) claimed in Litigation Release No. 20466 Energy Source, Inc. (f/k/a Bancorp International Group, Inc. – BCIT.OB), was a victim of corporate identity theft in 2005. Between May and August 2005, the market was flooded with 41 counterfeit stock certificates representing approximately 245,000,000 shares. These counterfeit certificates were produced by fraudsters Mario Pino and Pamela J Thomson. These shares were then introduced and cleared into the public markets by brokers J.H. Darbie (Darbie) and Capital Growth Financial (CGF), and ultimately the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the private corporation and self regulated organization (SRO) mandated by Congress for the clearing and settlement of security trades. The number of these counterfeit shares exceeded the easily verifiable legal outstanding share count of 4,890,000 by a factor of fifty.
Due to the appearance of these counterfeit shares and the huge unexplained increase in trading volume (from May to August 2005 the company’s trading volume was 2,076,500,035 shares – 424 times the shares outstanding and 1892 times the shares in the legal public float), the company contacted the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA, then NASD) and the DTCC to alert them of the anomalous trading activity. Subsequently, due to questions arising about the certainty of the company’s capital structure, the DTCC suspended clearing services on August 11, 2005 though the stock continued to publicly trade until August 31, 2005 when the SEC announced a temporary suspension of trading in the company’s shares from 9:30 a.m. on August 31, 2005, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on September 14, 2005.
The Company Responds – A straightforward solution, or so we thought
In early September 2005, the company and its executives met with SEC officials in New York City to examine the capital structure uncertainty issue and attempt a solution to the problem. The SEC resolved that the company was basically on its own to clean up the fraudulent shares. So, after consulting legal counsel, the company initiated a civil action against Mario Pino and defendants in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma seeking the return of approximately 245,000,000 shares of common stock that were invalidly issued and the defendant’s receipt of proceeds from the sale of those shares.
Shortly thereafter, Darbie and CGF, the brokers which Pino and defendants used to distribute and clear the fraudulent shares filed as intervenors in the lawsuit, claiming they had no foreknowledge of Pino and defendants fraudulent activities. The company then, though of questionable decision, resolved to avoid a long and expensive litigation by settling the lawsuit with the intervenors and the defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement the company recognized the approximately 245,000,000 invalid shares as legal freely tradable stock exempt from registration under Section 3(a)(10) of the Security Exchange act of 1934 in exchange for cash damages by the various parties, detailed in the settlement agreement linked above.
The settlement agreement removed all uncertainty from the company’s capital structure. All the fraudulent shares were recognized under section 3(a)(10) as noted above and the settlement agreement was approved and ordered by Noma D. Gurich, Judge of the District Court.
At this point in time, the “capital structure uncertainty” issue was resolved. There were no more “fraudulent shares”, and BCIT should have regained normal clearing and settlement services from the DTCC and should have been allowed to publicly trade again after the SEC temporary trading suspension by filing a form 15c2-11.
After settling the Pino civil action in January 2006, the company continued its process of regaining “current status” with its financial filings at the SEC. It was current with financial filings by July 2006 and then submitted its form 15c2-11 to NASDAQ for relisting on the OTCBB exchange. After going back and forth with NASDAQ for comments and answers, in October 2006, the 15c2-11 was accepted and the company was relisted on the OTCBB exchange and Legacy Trading was selected as the sponsoring market maker to furnish quoting on the exchange. BCIT should have started trading normally again at this time.
The DTCC Obstructs Justice – Lucy tricks Charlie Brown again and again
After almost a year of accounting, filings, legal work and expenses, BCIT was approved and ready to trade. It appeared on the OTCBB dailylist as noted above, and should have started to trade normally. Somehow though, the DTCC claimed some kind of “clerical error” occurred which has yet to been explained, and as a result Legacy Trading was unable to furnish quoting services on BCIT for four consecutive days and pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-11, BCIT was delisted from the OTCBB exchange. This was DTCC victory number one in the effort to keep BCIT from trading.
Then in December 2006 the company participated in a conference call with DTCC, NASDAQ, NASD, and SEC representatives to discuss BCIT trading requirements. All parties except the DTCC agreed that BCIT was up to date with filings and was eligible to trade. The DTCC representative however stated that a court order determining which shares were valid would be required before the company’s stock could trade again, even though all fraudulent shares were removed from the market via the settlement agreement in the Pino civil action in Oklahoma. So, since the company was at the mercy of the DTCC to regain settlement and clearing services, they acquiesced and proceeded with the ill fated “shareholder lawsuit” in which all approximately 1500 shareholders were sued for Securities fraud, in an effort to “determine which shareholders held invalid shares.”
Though this April 2007 “Shareholder Lawsuit” was initiated to derive a court order that determined who held valid shares, and most shareholders with common sense replied with documentation of their purchases in the open market, there was an element, in some cases spurred on by various brokers, that endeavored to fight the lawsuit, and even filed countersuits in some cases. As it turned out this case became such a fiasco, “shareholders being sued for buying stock,” that it became clear it would end up being a long, protracted and financially unrealistic effort for the company, and the lawsuit was dropped. The DTCC knew what kind of circus this effort would be and enjoyed victory number two in the effort to keep BCIT from trading.
For the next year, the company had various communications with the DTCC regarding the resumption of trading, and what would be required of the company for this to occur. What the conversations always came down to as a solution was the company issuing share certificates to the DTCC to cover the untold hundreds of millions of shares over and above the initial 245,000,000 Pino counterfeit shares sold by various brokers (E*trade, Ameritrade, Scottrade, Schwab, and many others) to satisfy buying demand in 2005 that the DTCC cleared and settled but for which could not now produce valid certificates.
In April 2008 the company succumbed to the DTCC blackmail and agreed to recognize an additional approximately 550,000,000 shares and to effect a 1 for 200 reverse split and filed a schedule 14A proxy statement in this regard. They also purchased a new CUSIP number and filed the reverse split with the Nevada Secretary of State effective June 27, 2008. We have yet to see this reverse split show up on the OTCBB daily list.
The company had several further communications in August and September 2008 with the DTCC as evidenced by this letter from their legal counsel Conner & Winters. Yet STILL no results or further communication from Isaac Montal at the DTCC. Victory number three by the DTCC in the effort to keep BCIT from trading.
What Can Be Concluded – The Regulatory and Systemic Fraud after the Corporate Fraud
Though put into a situation no fault of their own, the company has spent over four years and nearly $800,000 in legal actions, financial filings and other expenses to correct a problem created by fraudster Mario Pino, facilitated by the brokers Darbie and CGF, and exacerbated by the DTCC.
The company has since satisfied its regulatory requirements with the Nevada Secretary of State where the corporation is domiciled, the SEC with whom the company had filed all their annual and quarterly financial reports, and filed form 15c2-11 with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA/OTCBB) to resume trading.
The DTCC however, to obscure their negligence and liability in clearing the hundreds of millions of naked short shares by brokers, has unilaterally obstructed the company’s efforts to trade via their “Global Lock” on settlement and clearing, and has refused to remove this “Global Lock” or advise the company why it still remains. There are no fraudulent shares remaining in the market after the “Pino Lawsuit” settlement agreement. What “Share Uncertainty” still exists that justifies a “Global Lock?”
This is currently the central issue. From May to August 2005, BCIT traded over 2 billion shares. 245,000,000 of those shares were the original fraudulent Pino shares which were made good via the Oklahoma “Pino Lawsuit” settlement. The remaining shares (some number between 245,000,000 and 2,000,000,000 – to account for some combination of buying and selling) are made up of shares sold by brokers fulfilling buyer demand in 2005. These shares never had legal certificates to back them up. In essence these shares were sold naked short by these brokers and to this date have never delivered a single good certificate. Pursuant to REG SHO Rule 203(b)(3) brokers are compelled to either deliver good shares or go on the open market and purchase them.
This is why the DTCC has blocked BCIT’s efforts to trade again at every turn.
Just who is the DTCC? Well it is owned by its principal users, the “DTC Participants” which just happen to be comprised of the very brokers who are subject to financial harm by being forced to cover the above “naked short” positions if BCIT were allowed to trade again. This situation is simply nothing more than the DTCC, an SRO (Self Regulatory Organization) ignoring its own statutes and regulations; REG SHO Rule 203(b)(3). Rather they are intentionally obstructing BCIT from trading to ensure their owners, the “DTC Participants” have no potential exposure to financial harm.
What Shareholders Want – Just Follow the Rules That Have Been There All Along
As a shareholder base, we want it made clear that we bought shares in the open market through our various brokers whom we have signed contracts with (Rule 15c3-3), and are entitled to either receive good shares or have our money refunded. Four years in limbo land is in violation of statute and unacceptable.
We have not yet sought legal representation because the company’s president Thomas Megas retained Conner & Winters, LLP at great expense toward the end of removing the DTCC “Global Lock.” To date though, their efforts have unfortunately been unproductive. At this point we feel that filing complaints with State Attorney Generals, State Securities regulators and the United States Senate Finance Committee are the means to remedy our situation.
We seek this support to compel the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the statutes already in force. Specifically that the SEC exercise its oversight of the DTCC (Securities Exchange Act of 1934 §19(g) and §19(h)) and compel the DTCC and brokers to act according to current statutes, specifically REG SHO Rule 203(b)(3).
We call on these organizations do what is required of them by current statute:
•Since there are no remaining “fraudulent shares” after the “Pino Lawsuit” settlement agreement, for the DTCC to lift the “Global Lock” and resume settlement and clearing services for Energy Source, Inc. (f/k/a Bancorp International Group, Inc. – BCIT.OB)
•And, for the DTCC and brokers abide by REG SHO Rule 203(b)(3) and either facilitate the delivery of physical stock certificates to all shareholders desiring such as required by Uniform Commercial Code § 8-508 or ensure current shareholder positions are backed up by good shares purchased through the open markets.
•Or, for brokers to compensate shareholders with a settlement of 15 cents per share which is the price of the last legitimate trade on the open market, plus some amount to be determined in damages for the opportunity cost of this settlement amount being locked up for four years.
Statutes That Apply in the Case of Energy Source, Inc. (f/k/a Bancorp International Group, Inc. – BCIT.OB)
REG SHO
•Rule 203(b)(3) If a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency in a threshold security for thirteen consecutive settlement days, the participant shall immediately thereafter close out the fail to deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
•Section 6(b)(5) This statute limits the authority of the SEC and the SROs by prohibiting them from regulating and selectively enforcing rules and statutes, in a way that is discriminatory against equity investors and issuers in favor of others. By "allowing" fails to occur through selective non enforcement of existing statutes and rules, the SEC and SROs are doing exactly that.
•Section 9 This statute makes it unlawful to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security registered on a national securities exchange, or to create a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security, and to effect any transaction in a registered security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership. False and misleading statements are also unlawful under this Section. Trading, confirming, taking money for and crediting fake and undefined securities in place of the real contracted for securities are violations of this federal statute.
•Rule 10b-10 The trade confirmation rule. This SEC rule requires broker-dealers to confirm the identity, quantity and price of securities obtained on behalf of customers. When the brokers receive nothing but "fails to receive" rather than the contracted for securities, the brokers should not confirm the trade and confirm the quantity of the contracted for securities, because none have been obtained. When "fails" occur, broker-dealers confirm the trade to customers anyway, creating a false confirmation statement.
•Rule 15c3-3 The customer protection rule. This rule requires broker-dealers to promptly obtain and securely maintain securities, even in the event that securities are not delivered by the settlement date. Doing nothing is not an option.
•Rule 15c6-1 The settlement cycle rule. This is the first line of defense and is the foundation of the market. It spells out the settlement date delivery requirement of securities. As long as the contracted for securities are delivered by the settlement date, all is good and all is as it should be. When delivery does not occur by the settlement date, there is a "fail to deliver.”
•Section 17A Statute requires that settlement and clearing of securities be linked and that they happen promptly and accurately. It also requires that trades effect the transfer of record ownership of securities. When trades fail and phantom securities are delivered instead, these requirements are all violated.
•Rule 17f-1 Every reporting institution shall report the discovery of any counterfeit securities certificate to the Commission or its designee, to a registered transfer agent for the issue, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation within one business day of such discovery. Every transfer agent shall make the reports required above only if it receives notification of the loss, theft or counterfeiting from a non-reporting institution or if it receives notification other than on a Form X-17F-1A or if the certificate was in its possession at the time of the loss. Every reporting institution that originally reported a lost, missing or stolen securities certificate pursuant to this Section shall report recovery of that securities certificate to the Commission or its designee and to a registered transfer agent for the issue within one business day of such recovery or finding. Every reporting institution that originally made a report in which criminality was indicated also shall notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the securities certificate has been recovered.
•Rule 19(g) Every self-regulatory organization shall comply with the provisions of this title, the rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules, and (subject to the provisions of section 17(d), paragraph (2) of this subsection, and the rules thereunder) absent reasonable justification or excuse enforce compliance.
•Rule 19(h) The appropriate regulatory agency for a self-regulatory organization is authorized, by order, if in its opinion such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of this title, to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months or revoke the registration of such self-regulatory organization, or to censure or impose limitations upon the activities, functions, and operations of such self-regulatory organization, if such appropriate regulatory agency finds, on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, that such self-regulatory organization has violated or is unable to comply with any provision of this title, the rules or regulations thereunder, or its own rules or without reasonable justification or excuse has failed to enforce compliance.
•FINRA Conduct Rule IM-2310-2 Fiduciary duty to customers by broker-dealers. Taking money from customers for the purchase of securities, but not actually obtaining them and misrepresenting this failure to obtain securities by misrepresenting the identity and quantity of securities in customer accounts and filing false trade confirmations, is against the interest of the customers.
•NASD Rule 3370 is a delivery rule and instructs that no NASD member shall execute a short sale unless the member makes an “affirmative determination” that the member will receive the security from the customer or can borrow the security on behalf of the customer.
Uniform Commercial Code
•§ 8-501b A person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary: indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been credited to the person's securities account; receives a financial asset from the person or acquires a financial asset for the person and, in either case, accepts it for credit to the person's securities account; or becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person's securities account.
•§ 8-508 A securities intermediary shall act at the direction of an entitlement holder to change a security entitlement into another available form of holding for which the entitlement holder is eligible, or to cause the financial asset to be transferred to a securities account of the entitlement holder with another securities intermediary.
Nevada Statues
•NRS 78.235 Stock certificates: Validation; facsimile signatures; uncertificated shares and informational statements; replacement.
?Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, every stockholder is entitled to have a certificate, signed by officers or agents designated by the corporation for the purpose, certifying the number of shares in the corporation owned by the stockholder. A corporation has no power to issue a certificate in bearer form, and any such certificate that is issued is void and of no force or effect.
This website has been put together by the BCIT Shareholders Group to educate the public, to encourage discussion and to advocate public action regarding the fraud that has been perpetrated on shareholders of BCIT. As a visitor to this website, take a few minutes; visit the various pages via the links at left to become more familiar with the specific history, facts and events of the BCIT saga. Peruse the many official documents and exhibits for a first hand account.
AlanC Yes I thought of that, so I obtained the aid of a long time well known poster on this board to open the door for me, which he did, however I suppose it my have still slipped thru the crack..
It was a shot in the dark but worth a try.
Also the Transfer agent and the alternative trader are all merged into one now.
My info was in the header of this board for a time (along with obull's alert), so all could see and comment on
AlanC, As most know I forwarded TM a alternative trading option for private/revoked companies, I forwarded all data needed to trade as well as the accompanying transfer agent (Transfer on line) I'm sure you have heard of them. To date I have not so much as received a common courtesy answer.
First of all I believe that the DTCC was let off the hook when we were revoked by the SEC, I would think now it would take the SEC to get us back on some trading venue before the DTCC global lock could be addressed.
I do not expect that to happen, and the very reason I forwarded the alternative trading info to TM.
The alternative trading entities also does their own clearing, therefore I would suspect the procedure would be that they would require all DTCC held certs be forwarded to them.
We know that the DTCC does not have certs to cover all O/S shares, and not because of the shares/actions of Pino or Pam,but because of the NSS generated against those counterfeit shares,that happened before the settlement of the Pino/Pam shares.
Those shares were all reconciled, however the shorting against those shares remains the problem, which no doubt was initiated by brokers/MM's, offshore hedge fund clients, and condoned/cleared by the DTCC.
IMO If alternative trading was established, the DTCC would be obliged to cover all outstanding shares that they previously allowed to clear and brokers issuing of IOU'S into our accounts..
No big deal at this point,they have been revoked by the State since January 31 2010, they need to file their list of officers along with the filing fee and they will be re instated.
There must be some reason why they are not filing their officer list, it isn't that big of a deal, unless they don't have the money for the fee.
Lebron23 Thanks for posting that again, this time reading it, I have a better prospective on the meaning (I think)
"100% ownership" imo means 51% of the stock, I have always thought they were holding for 100% of the shares of CS/B.
If that is truly the case then didn't FFGO sell 46% of one company and 23% of the other? If they are only trying to obtain 100% ownership they really don't have that far to go, only 5% more shares on one and 28% more shares of the other, giving them 51% of O/S shares or = to 100% "ownership" .
Just from memory so I could be wrong on the exact numbers
This statement I believe was constructed to leave a question to it's meaning,as it could be taken either way i.e. 100% stock or 100% ownership a vas difference imo.
"From the Company's website in 2010........
This Dividend will not be declared until NMGL has (a) acquired the balance of the Bouse Gold, Inc. shares of common stock giving them 100% ownership of Bouse Gold, Inc. through the issue of additional NMGL Preferred Series “A” shares (b) acquired the balance of the South Copperstone, Inc. shares of common stock giving them 100% ownership of South Copperstone"
AlanC, Thanks, that pretty much sums up what we have been saying for the past 5 years.
I'm looking forward to the A&B's, however I do not expect that the issue of those perffered shares will have any immediate effect on the covering of NSS.
The reason being, history has tough me that any dividend or any other issue of stock has only caused those shares be shorted, if the underlying shares of the currently held (i.e. FFGO) shares are indeed shorted,they will put markers in our accounts to cover any street named held shares.
Covering will only come if everyone sells at the same time, like any Ponzi operation that is the dreaded action they do not want to see.
I certainly hope that the proposed buyback by NMGL of those A&B's truly is what transpires, that would be the nail in the NSS coffin, as they (brokers/MM's) can not cover any cash transaction with markers.