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.
kenco...I'm not familiar with court proceedings, so you may be right.
I find it hard to believe that the word "frivolous" would ever have been attached to this lawsuit.
1) How could this simple point have escaped the notice of TM's expert laywers?
2) TM wasn't suing his "real" shareholders, he was suing those with counterfeit shares. I would not consider suing someone with counterfeit money as frivolous, even if they were eventually found innocent.
kenco...the suit wasn't dismissed by the judge...that's exactly my point. If some here, with the limited info we have, determined that this lawsuit was frivolous, the judge would have seen that too, and dismissed the case. And he would have done that a long time ago. What happened instead was that the plaintiff withdrew it
f1fans...good point. If so many "smart" people here assert that from what they see, this is a frivolous suit, how much easier would it be for the judge to realize that. He has access to a lot more info than we have. In the end the suit wasn't dismissed by the judge for being frivolous.
stockasaurus rex...what are you accomplishing? Your shares are either counterfeit or air. No chance of getting anything for them, unless you sue the brokers; and you have very little time left for that. Suing Megas? Well, if you have the time and money, go for it. Doubt you will get anything there either.
Thanx f1, hope you're right...eom
luxytx...then why innitiate a law suit if things were already settled?
Well, the dismissal is very disappointing. The lawsuit did not accomplish what it was set out to do. According to the annual report:
The lawsuit requests the court to rule that the stock certificates held by the defendants representing the Wrongfully Issued Shares be declared void and that we be awarded damages and attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the Stock Certificate Litigation.
That is now not possible. Hopefully he has a plan B.
mastaflash...thanx for posting that. Hoping I'll get mine soon.
mAjOr dAmAgE..thanks for your reply. I don't understand the more complicated legal matters, but I have a strong sense of justice. The application of laws can be used to pervert justice. In this case it would be just if those who took our money for the shares they sold us, would give us legitimate shares, which they have refused to do.
I will not sign over my shares and hope that a judge will eventually declare my shares as invalid.
mAjOr dAmAgE...just some questions about your statements:
I think that it's dangerous to just file an answer without including counterclaims to declare your shares valid
How do you do that? How do you propose to present evidence that your shares are valid? Most have included the only evidence they have: a broker's transaction statement. Does that prove that our shares are valid? What kind of "vocal" claims do you think we can make that the court would accept as prove?
to oust you all as shareholders
We are not legitimate shareholders. How can he "oust" someone who is already on the outside? We belong to the brokers.
they get the cream and you get nothing
What cream? A shell that's worth nothing? Wow, that sure was a dirty trick on their part! Well, I guess, I'll let them have the cream and I'll get the nothing
stockasaurus rex...resistance is futile - your species will become extinct!
jumpy...I did not receive a summons, just an option to surrender my shares in order to be dismissed as a defendant. Even though I don't own many shares I will, nevertheless, not sign it. Although the letter states that "the Order provides that you do not waive any claims you may have against third-parties regarding your purchase of the falsely issued shares", I feel that my claim against third-parties may be weakened if I no longer own the shares. I am also voluntarily submitting an answer to the Oklahoma court pro se, with evidence of my transactions through my broker. I want to be a defendant whose shares are declared invalid by the judge.
All the best to you.
P.S. Please do not view this as a recommendation as to what you should be doing. It was simply a response to your question what other Canadians are doing.
alynnb...was attending to some serious business this morning. When I saw your post I broke out laughing. Thanx for helping me snap out of my sombre mood.
buddyglass_00...BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO...best post of the week! Thanx for expressing that. Hope it doesn't get deleted.
BuyTex...the brokers will be told: It has been determined that there are so-and-so many known counterfeit shares in your accounts. It just happens that the company has exactly that many shares in their desk drawers and is ordering you to exchange them for good ones - please.
"What?! You have more invalid shares than were introduced into the market! What did you do?!"
grasswhacker... the share exchange has not yet occurred. I don't think he should reveal any other strategies at this time. It might endanger the success of that process.
Art...you say "perhaps the dtc didn't want them to" as a response to why Megas did not lay things out openly for us. You may be right, that may have been the case. I tend to lean toward an explanation from another angle.
Megas many times indicated that he was silent because his laywers told him so. That may have been a strategic move on their part, because they did not want the brokerages to know what they were up to. "Suing their own shareholders...he is crazy...how dare he do that... ha, ha, ha, this guy is funny"; these were feelings and reactions of posters and very likely brokers, too. Sued shareholders natural reaction was to inquire of brokers whether they had real shares. The brokers not wanting to look bad, and being totally taken in by the apparent stupidity of the law suit, assured them the shares were good. That's exactly what Megas' lawyers wanted. By sticking their necks out and declaring the shares as good, they have created a real problem for themselves if the court rules the shares invalid. Shareholders will be screeming: "YOU LIED TO US".
Revealing this strategy would have put the brokers on guard. I believe as time passes, and as they're starting to get the drift of things, they will be less reluctant to reveal what cusip # your shares are.
Just a thought.
stockasaurus rex... waste of time and money. Megas is suing us for having illegitimate shares. There is nothing illegal about that. No one can successfully countersue him for that.
But, you live in a free country...go for it.
My last post. See you tomorrow.
Art...EXACTLY, Megas all along wanted to exchange counterfeit shares with legitimate shares. The brokers are saying we have the 106 cusip #'s, which are invalid from BCIT's standpoint, but valid according to our brokers. By suing us we had to submit evidence to the court that we have these shares in our broker's accounts. With this hard evidence he can go to the regulatory agencies that have halted trading and effectively make the share exchange.
Let the trading begin!
BTW Art, thank you for all you've done. You're a good moderator, even if you may have deleted 2 of my posts. That's your job.
Texbanker...how does he "increase his own percentage ownership" with fake or "air" shares?
chisox.. what are your chances you hold legitimate shares? He's not trying to find a needle in a hay stack. It's a stack of needles he's suing.
Ms. Shell...that's what you're implying. My statement was in reply to the benefits of confiscating of shares, not suing someone.
Can you comprehend that?
Ms. Shell...have you ever done anything in your live as a courtesy to others? I won't go any further, because my post will be deleted.
Sorry, chisox.. I should have said: "Do you think Megas' seasoned laywers would charge you for a crime with the purpose of securing a conviction FROM INNOCENT PEOPLE?
RDG013...key point: you own COUNTERFEIT shares!
1) What could their "motives" be for confiscating your counterfeit or "air" shares that are in your possession? To enrich themselves?
2) You say: "they knowingly filed a false law suit". Is it wrong to file a law suit against someone who has counterfeit shares?
Hope you're not too angry, and that I have introduced some rational thoughts for you consideration.
BTW, did you read my post # 77633?
RDG013...being sued for something you didn't do can sure strike panic into someone with insecure feelings. If you crossed an intersection with video surveilance, but you clearly crossed when you had a green light, would you panic if you were charged with crossing an intersection illegally? What are your chances of these charges standing up in court, when the videos would prove you innocent? Do you think Megas' seasoned laywers would charge you for a crime with the purpose of securing a conviction? They know they can't do that. So, what's their reason for their unprecedented move?
Please see my post # 77633.
Hillbilly...read post 77633. eom
maverictx..."If I were the CEO, I would take any shares that those who chose to give back to me free"
If I were the CEO I would have no interest in these counterfeit or air shares
was trying for post 77777. Turning point. Milestone for BCIT. lol
TheLonghold..."a good friend...in law school" sure comes in handy at times like this. And they can be a good source of information in connection with the details of the law. But the situation at hand here requires more than knowledge of just reading legalese and understanding litigation procedures. Understanding human nature coupled with a little logic raises one's understanding to a level above the letter of the law. Your good friend was well meaning when he gave his take on this law suit.
Point 1) he felt that Megas or BCIT was trying to "get some of their shares back." - Think about it. If you were the CEO and you already had controlling interest in the company with GOOD shares, would you try to wrestle away the COUNTERFEIT shares from their owners?
Point 2) he felt the purpose of the law suit was to "weed out the crooks". Would you do it this way? I wouldn't. Megas' lawyers are mature, seasoned professionals. If WE wouldn't weed out crooks this way, why would they? Also, why would you give a potential crook a way out by simply letting them surrender their shares without the threat of a law suit?
So, your friend, although well meaning was only looking at the letter of the law and that's all he saw.
Keep him close as a friend, though, he might yet come in handy in the future.
Money doesn't motivate me; I'm not laughing; and i'm not a racist.
serfdom...you could be right, but imputing bad motives tends to cloud ones judgement.
"I'M BEING SUED! I'M BEING SUED!!!" To all those who are crying and whining: Yes, you're being sued. I'm being sued.
It's time to sit back and look at the overall picture.
Stock market fraud is like a cancer. Very difficult to cure. Those who counterfeit and naked short are not stupid. Some are also very powerful, rich and very influential. They know how to make their crimes unprovable. Companies and investors are frustrated that they are stymied by these corrupt forces. Innocent individuals have tried various ways to bring this corruption under control, without much success.
Thomas Megas is trying something different here. He's not directly going after the naked shorters, but by wanting to exchange his issued good shares for the counterfeit ones, he is exposing a huge naked short position in BCIT. He has chosen an unorthodox method to get the company's share exchange accomplished: Sue those who hold COUNTERFEIT shares. What does this do? It brings to the fore those who are entitled to GOOD shares, for exchange purposes. With this evidence in hand he can then go to those regulatory agencies who are not allowing BCIT to trade.
Will this work? No one knows, but those who own shares certainly hope so. Those who don't...well, we all know their spin.
Sometimes a cancer can be cured by chemotherapy. That must have seemed like an unorthodox treatment at first. Treat cancer with something that in itself has the potential of causing cancer? But many times it has proven to be a successful treatment. What informed cancer patient who is able to look at the overall picture would say: "I'M BEING POISENED! I'M BEING POISENED!!!" If you can't handle being sued give up your shares. You have that option. You have to decide what makes you more comfortable: making a defence for yourself, keeping your shares and hoping that this unorthodox method might get you the $'s OR giving up your shares and being relieved of the law suit.
Your choice.
chisox...of course, you're an honest guy. But who did you pay? Megas? You have a right to go after those from whom you bought.
chisox...if you bought fake merchandise with good money, you would have the right to sue the store. If you bought fake goods with fake money...well, you can figure that one out, can't you.
a.i. Megas is suing shareholders who are owners of COUNTERFEIT shares, no matter what brokers will tell us. He is not doing anything wrong by suing. If you were a store owner and you received hundreds os $'s of counterfeit money from a customer, you would have the right to sue that customer. The customer may have unknowingly received the bogus bills from a bank machine or someone else, so he was not knowingly circulating bad money. A law suit would bring that to light.
Thanx for the frequent updates f1. I's like taking snapshots of your growing kids. You can never take too many.