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.
I had a horrible experience with a fifth of bourbon, three Delta Zetas, and a cocktail waitress from Schenectady, NY. But I wouldn't trade that night for anything.
It wasn't the SEC or the SRO's that made the mess. It was Pino, Megas, and BCIT that made the mess.
No "real" company has ever been put out of business by naked short selling.
I suspect he's pulling your leg.
Because the old Pino shares were never validly delivered.
Well, no, not quite. When you naked short a security, you treat it as a contingent liability until the position gets closed.
Or until the security becomes worthless... like BCIT.
Anyone who was lucky enough to naked short BCIT was on the correct side of the trade.
I doubt they thought they could intimidate the brokerage firms to resume trading of BCIT. That was a tactic to keep the gulliblers in awe.
Even if a broker/dealer wanted to trade BCIT, they wouldn't do it. They'd be fined for trading an unregistered security.
Confirmed plans of reorganization never go anywhere, especially when there are classes of claims senior to the equity whose interests were impaired upon emergence.
That's not relevant as to whether or not the shares are currently registered.
What do you think BCIT's SEC File Number is?
(And FINRA plays no role in the revocation of securities that have gone delinquent with their filing requirements.)
"Faith" doesn't change the facts of what was in Corus Bankshares' Plan of Reorganization.
BCIT and "Energy Source" were both affiliated with one SEC File Number. That was "000-25261".
"000-25261" is revoked. At the time of its revocation, Megas had been sending in filings identifying the company as "ENERGY SOURCE, INC.
(formerly Bancorp International Group, Inc.)". The name itself doesn't matter. Any entity associated with that SEC File Number is gone.
If you're now going to tell me that BCIT is not the "Energy Source" entity, then what is BCIT's SEC File Number? If they don't have an SEC File Number, then they're not registered to trade.
The SEC is not going to play a game of Three Card Monte with Megas regarding the "legal" name of his outfit. If BCIT is not the "Energy Source" entity, then BCIT wasn't registered to have their stock publicly traded.
Either way, BCIT does not have a registration for their securities at this time and must register before they can trade. That's not a task for the SEC. That's a task for BCIT management, IF they really want to trade again.
The failure on their part to file their financials alone makes the revocation legal.
The real question is "Are their securities publicly registered?" At this time, they are not. Therefore, they will not trade until they do become publicly registered.
Which brings us back to that pesky 10-12G...
But we do know what it takes to take a company public. And we do know that TM is responsible for BCIT getting revoked in the first place. Anything else that might be going on "behind the scenes" is not relevant. Unless/until we see that 10-12G, we can safely conclude that they're just not serious about trading again.
There were no clerical errors with the revocation. BCIT was noncompliant with their filing requirements. The stock got revoked. It's a very simple process with a very simple outcome. And the path back to publicly trading is simple as well, IF they're serious about trading again. Without full, and current, financial disclosures, which is what a 10-12G brings to the table, BCIT will not trade again.
The SEC doesn't "remove" revocations. A revocation is a terminal event. BCIT got revoked because they weren't current with their filing requirements. If they want to trade again, they are back at square one.
Besides, at this point, preparing a 10-12G would be far less hassle, and less expensive, than preparing the four audited 10-K's and thirteen 10-Q's that would have been required to get BCIT current with their filing requirements.
If they're serious about ever trading again, the 10-12G is paramount. The absence of the 10-12G is all the proof you need that no one is serious about getting BCIT to trade again.
Well, I would! What's the point of befriending a Sasquatch if you can't goof on him?
I mean, unless, you think you can train him to paint your house or do some decent landscaping...
I don't know if you'd really wanna hang around Sasquatch near a camp fire...
Sasquatches are fun to mess with, though.
Speaking of Big Foot...
Tomorrow is probably the biggest day for cook-outs in the United States. Eddie Murphy covers both Big Foot and cook-outs in this very informative video:
Still no 10-12G?
BCIT COULD trade again. And some time ago, CarltonH intimated that a 10-12G had been prepared, which is the only avenue by which BCIT could trade again.
However, given the absence of that 10-12G filing, I suspect CartonH misrepresented the truth.
What is this "master plan" again?
He wouldn't be the first grifter to run for public office.
On April 30th, the question was posed to you, "...what about getting the stock back in SEC standing?" Which one would presume to mean, when will BCT be publicly traded again.
And the only way BCIT will ever trade again is if there's a 10-12G filed with the SEC, which is very much relevant at this point.
And in reply to that question, you stated simply, "In hand."
So, are you going to file a 10-12G and trade again? Or were you just blowing smoke?
Where is that 10-12G by the way? I thought you said you had it in hand back in April.
Some of them were bound to come to their senses.
Unless you're trading on insider information, there is nothing fraudulent about taking a position against an over-valued stock.
It's not the NASDAQ's job to ensure that prices only go up. Anything that brings market prices in line with fundamentals is a positive thing for the investing public.
Anyone, regardless of who they are, that shorted the Facebook IPO made the right call.
It is not in the best interests of the investing public at large to have stocks trading at over-valued levels.
Most of Main Street American doesn't get caught up in pump and dump jobs.
Have CH or Megas released a 10-12G yet? Unless/until they do, no one can talk about corruption at the SEC.
Not as long as there are people who don't understand what's transpired here.
In order for the old equity to have avoided cancellation, the claims from classes 3 to 6 can't be impaired. It doesn't matter to what degree they're impaired. If they're impaired at all, the old equity dies.
The FDIC lawsuit doesn't increase the size of the pool available for the Class 3 to Class 6 claims. All it will do is determine whether certain of the FDIC's claims belong in Class 3 or in Class 5. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to what's really behind the FDIC lawsuit. It's outcome has no bearing on the assets in the estate.
As far as it being out of your hands? Yeah, it's been out of your hands since October 27, 2011.
The impairment issue is not an opinion. It's a fact.
The FDIC lawsuit will not change the fact that there are claims senior to the old equity that will continue to be impaired. The FDIC lawsuit is about determining whose claims end up being impaired the worst.
Essentially, it comes down to whether or not the tax refund ends up being a Class 3 - FDIC priority claim or a Class 5 - FDIC Non-Priority claim. Since the TOPrS sit between those two classes, at Class 4, it should be easy for you to understand why this is an issue that's going to get litigated.
However, regardless of the court proceedings this Autumn, Classes 3 through 6 will still be impaired to one degree or another.
That's why the old equity, at Class 8, can't come back.
There are claims senior to the old equity that would still be impaired even if Tricadia is successful in their battle with the FDIC.
That's why the old equity is never coming back.
The California lawsuit was a joke.
It was an $800 action that was argued in small claims. A paralegal from E*Trade foolishly stipulated to accepting whatever decision a temp judge sitting in and hearing the case would decide.
I doubt you'll a mistake like that repeated in the future, especially if real money becomes involved.
I suspect too many of the old bagholders have awoken to reality. Now that many of them know what has to happen for BCIT to trade again, it's going to be much more difficult to string them along.
The Man's Guide to Salad