mytigger,
When you get a chance:

The sequence of events is obvious from the screen shot that you provided:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2010/10/18/wpibnScreen_shot_2010-10-18_at_11.28.37_PM.png

It reads from bottom to top and there are 4 relevant transactions in the account:
1. On October 15 the account was credited with the EIGH dividend.

2. On October 18 the account was debited for the same amount, however the transaction was incorrectly attributed to Burlington ( a company that has not traded as a separate entity since its acquisition by Berkshire, which owns ALL of its shares and would receive all dividends that it issued).

3. Subsequent to realizing that the debit was misidentified, the broker credited the Account for the Burlington entry, effectively erasing the Burlington reference.

4. Finally, the broker debited the account for the canceled EIGH dividend.


You provided the above example. Please explain, in detail, how it supports your original statement that "Some E trade divi's are being traced back to Hedge Funds paying for them".

I look forward to your explanation.

This is silly....
The sequence of events is obvious from the screen shot that you provided:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2010/10/18/wpibnScreen_shot_2010-10-18_at_11.28.37_PM.png

It reads from bottom to top and there are 4 relevant transactions in the account:
1. On October 15 the account was credited with the EIGH dividend.

2. On October 18 the account was debited for the same amount, however the transaction was incorrectly attributed to Burlington ( a company that has not traded as a separate entity since its acquisition by Berkshire, which owns ALL of its shares and would receive all dividends that it issued).

3. Subsequent to realizing that the debit was misidentified, the broker credited the Account for the Burlington entry, effectively erasing the Burlington reference.

4. Finally, the broker debited the account for the canceled EIGH dividend.


You provided the above example. Please explain, in detail, how it supports your original contention that "Some E trade divi's are being traced back to Hedge Funds paying for them".

I look forward to your explanation.

"It would only take selling 12 million shares at .30 average to attain this 40 mil windfall"

Check math.

No problem......agree 100%.
Some of this (albeit a teeny piece) mess can be attributed to what I'll call the FINRA>OTCbb.com>OTCMarkets Interface. The information seems to flow in that direction and what APPEARS to be a duplication in the end probably resulted from its entry in the middle:
http://otcbb.com/asp/dailylist_search.asp?SearchSymbolForm=TRUE&OTCBB=OTC&searchby=symbol&searchfor=eigh&searchwith=Starting&image1.x=52&image1.y=4
The ACTUAL intent of the Pinksheets(OTCMarkets) listing that appears without a record or payment date was to show the cancellation. But the triumvirate of knuckleheads mucked up their communications.

One thing's for sure...the company dropped (or kicked) the ball, but FINRA, assigned with assuring the proper notification to the public of the issuance of dividends only a couple of weeks ago, hasn't figured out how to do it yet.

"I don't think the company informed FINRA."

Obviously they did at some point. Was my post too long, too sloppy or both?

This was taken from the FINRA website just prior to my posting it:

EIGH - 8000 Inc Common
Declaration Date:

9/16/2010 Ex Date:

9/28/2010 Record Date:

-- Payment Date:

--
Dividend Type:

Cash Dividend Dividend Amount:

+
Notes:

+Refer to Daily List of 9/24/2010: Dividend cancelled by Issuer.

nomo,
re: "the fact was brought up that the effort for the paperwork to be in place with FINRA to execute a special divy says something"

Just an FYI:
The following is a link to the form required to be filed with FINRA prior to declaring a dividend. As you can see it requires very basic information, none of which deals with the company's ability to actually fund the dividend. This form and a $200 check was the extent of the effort extended "for the paperwork to be in place with FINRA to execute a special divy". It's amazing to think about what the REAL cost of that form with check attached may have been in the marketplace and in some shareholders brokerage accounts......and in the end, perhaps to EIGH itself.

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@mt/documents/appsupportdocs/p122176.pdf

"If they had, that would have been noted by FINRA"

Buried deep within the bowels of FINRA there is indeed a note. If one merely does a dividend search on the FINRA site for EIGH they will still find the same old info box (sorry about the layout..too lazy to fix it, but I'm sure you can follow):

Dividend Search Results for EIGH

EIGH - 8000 Inc Common
Declaration Date:

9/16/2010 Ex Date:

9/28/2010 Record Date:

9/30/2010 Payment Date:

10/15/2010
Dividend Type:

Cash Dividend Dividend Amount:

0.005 Spl
http://otcbb.com/asp/dividend.asp?sym_id=EIGH&dDate=9/30/2010&sDateType=Record_date


HOWEVER, when one does a search for Dividends based on the declaration date of 9/16, the results include 2 information boxes for EIGH......one identical to the one above and one as follows:

Dividend Search Results for EIGH

EIGH - 8000 Inc Common
Declaration Date:

9/16/2010 Ex Date:

9/28/2010 Record Date:

-- Payment Date:

--
Dividend Type:

Cash Dividend Dividend Amount:

+
Notes:

+Refer to Daily List of 9/24/2010: Dividend cancelled by Issuer.
http://otcbb.com/asp/dividend.asp?sym_id=EIGH&dDate=9/16/2010&sDateType=declaration_date

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I looked at the Daily List of 9/24 and unless I missed it there is no mention of EIGH in any context. What, if anything, was communicated to or by FINRA on 9/24 is a mystery to me. One would hope that the company did not tell FINRA on that date that the dividend was canceled.....they were unaware of any changes to the original declaration when I spoke with them on 10/14. However, that second info box makes it clear that FINRA was notified of the cancellation of the dividend AT SOME POINT. I wish I (or someone) had done a more thorough search sooner and maybe we would know when that second box first appeared. It would be nice to know what the 9/24 date refers to, but calling them to find out is something else that I'm too lazy to do.

Get the pizza.
I believe they are vanquished.

I don't doubt for a minute that "the divi's will be pulled from anyone's account who received them."

You know that I had to ask, right?
And I'm pretty sure that it's tough to get in touch with FINRA on Sundays. So your source is either from within the company or it's hearsay. I wouldn't give mine up either, if I had one.

ps. There is a non-descript entry that appears newly as of yesterday on the Daily List search for EIGH, so something MAY have happened at some point, but the entry is incomplete.

You're welcome. I was elsewhere.
My first post here was on October 7, when your holdings were worth 74% more than they are today, 10 days later. I thought it was pretty good:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55259947

I'd be bitter, too. But I'm not here to save anybody, just to express my opinion and dig up some facts. You are free to ignore me.

Would that be a FINRA someone or a company someone?
Those are the only someones that would be close enough to the situation to speak authoritatively.

"The divi was cancelled by EIGH through FINRA."

It still appears on the Daily List. How do you know that it "was cancelled by EIGH through FINRA"?

"It was much more than a simple request for information"

How so?

"Can you post more info on Duncan with EIGH and also how he may influence other stocks like XMDC"


I took it to be a simple request for information and responded accordingly. I didn't know who XMDC was then and I don't know who they are now, if that has anything to do with anything.

"To suggest or infer anything more than:
“15. On November 19, 2001, Duncan entered into a Consent Order with the Commissioner, in connection with Duncan’s role as securities counsel for Respondents during the period of the alleged violations of the Act. Duncan consented to a suspension from practice before the Division and paid a civil monetary penalty of $500.00”, is out of line."

I didn't, but it wouldn't be. I'm pretty sure one of the reasons these here message boards exist is so we can analyze facts, draw our own conclusions from those facts, and express them. But I didn't.

A poster asked another poster "Can you post more info on Duncan with EIGH and also how he may influence other stocks like XMDC". I took the liberty of responding and posted links only to the first 2 PDF's that appeared in a Google search for "Carl N Duncan". It sounds like you would rather I hadn't.

This is neither a suggestion nor an inference:
Mr. Duncan has associated himself with securities laws violators in the past.

I'm not usually that blunt, but apparently a simple posting of the facts isn't enough for some people.

Thanks scion,
FYI, this is the most recent financial report showing the operating results and financial condition of STBV, evidencing the effectiveness of the team of which Mr. Duncan is a part.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=36626

Duncan was the securities attorney of record when his 2 clients sold securities in violation of the Securities Act of 1934 on 33 different occasions. He was suspended from practicing before the Maryland Securities Commission for an unspecified period and issued a small fine.
To characterize that as getting "his hand slapped for being in the wrong place at the wrong time" seems a skosh too gentle to me. He wasn't the maintenance man.

Penny stock falls despite campaign (from the Seattle Times.com 10/16/2010)

Cascadia Investments, a Tacoma-based penny-stock company, has been championed for a year by a website that claims it can organize traders to "lock up" all available shares in a company and cause its price to go through the roof.

Instead, this past week the stock went through the floor.

Cascadia shares (traded as CDIV on the over-the-counter market) fell 49 percent to 7 cents on Thursday, capping a drop that's taken them from 70 cents in April.

Three other stocks touted by the same site also plunged Thursday, losing from 24 to 81 percent. Cascadia fell 18 percent more Friday, on 13 times the usual volume.

That hasn't shaken the faith of Edward Watkins, of Annapolis, Md., an Air Force employee on the East Coast who bought Cascadia shares with other followers of the Monk's Den website.

"I myself am still 100% in," he e-mailed late Thursday.

Cascadia itself is insubstantial, to put it charitably. A visit to the company's headquarters last February found a dingy, one-room office marked only by a yellow sign indicating Cascade's previous endeavor, real estate. "The cheapest rentals," it read.

Its financial statements, which are not audited or filed with regulators, show that for the three months ended June 30 it had a mere $361 in revenue and $24,076 in expenses.

CEO Nazir Maherali, a former denizen of British Columbia's breeding ground for speculative stocks, says Cascadia is building a portfolio of "tour de force" game applications for the iPhone and iPad.

But the handful of 99-cent games it recently introduced have overwhelmingly negative user reviews.

Even at 7 cents apiece, its 207 million shares imply a market value of $14 million.

None of that concerns the coterie of CDIV believers like Watkins.

Egged on by Monk's Den and its financial guru, Jerry Williams, they've banked on the theory that their group can buy up all the freely trading shares of CDIV.

Then, the story goes, short-sellers who've bet against the stock will have to pay dearly to obtain the shares needed to cover their obligations.

"It really doesn't matter what the company does," a Monk's Den leader under the screen name Lone Grey wrote last fall on the InvestorsHub website, which has accumulated an astonishing 158,000 posts cheerleading for CDIV. "While I feel Cascadia is fundamentally sound and will grow nicely, take a peek at what we did with two worthless companies."

He went on to describe scenarios where "a group of disciplined investors" bought up all the freely trading shares of companies and supposedly drove up the price short-sellers had to pay.

In Cascadia's case, CEO Maherali said in an April interview that 147 million of its shares were restricted; that means the float, or freely trading shares, is about 50 million. The official website for the OTC market indicates the float is only 23 million.

Whatever the correct number is, subscribers to the float lockup theory presume that none of the restricted stock is being sold by the unidentified people who own it.

That's a big leap of faith. And it runs counter to numerous examples of penny-stock insiders profiting while their companies' shares are temporarily lifted by one story or another.

But sometimes faith is unshakable. "Eventually this will work," wrote one poster on a CDIV message board early Friday. "I'm not worried."

— Rami Grunbaum

Comments? Send them to Rami Grunbaum:

rgrunbaum@seattletimes.com or 206-464-8541.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/2013174497_sundaybuzz17.html

http://www.ceoclubs.org/section/biographies/legacy/duncan.pdf

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Securities/Actions/2004/efox.pdf

The Suite 300 10432 Balls Ford Rd, Manassas, VA appears to be a basic time share.
http://www.regus.com/locations/US/VA/Manassas/VirginiaManassasBattlefieldOverlook.htm

Any company can "lease" space at the address for use on an as needed basis and many do.
http://www.google.com/search?q=10432+balls+ford+rd+manassasva&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=17259,25907,26637,26792,26815,27101,27103,27138,27151&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=10432+balls+ford+rd+manassasva+%22suite+300%22&cp=42&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Vhj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=10432+balls+ford+rd+manassasva+%22suite+300%22&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9e16c424e074a256

So rather than make an old man feel a little bit better about himself, you choose to provide poor li'l old FINRA with an excuse.

Fine. :o)

Thanks again.

So in the case of a dividend that is less than 25% of the pps the record date establishes precisely who is entitled to the dividend and in the case of a dividend in excess of 25% the record date provides precisely the same list of holders which is then corrected by purchases made subsequent to the record date and prior to or on the payment date via the attachment of the due bill. Correct?

Would you not then agree that including the following Endnote following the FINRA article, which defines the record date in a manner inconsistent with its own example, might have been unwise and misleading?
Endnote
1The term “record date” under the Uniform
Practice Code means the date fixed by the
trustee, registrar, paying agent, or issuer for
the purpose of determining the holders of
equity securities, bonds, similar evidences of
indebtedness, or unit investment trust
securities entitled to receive dividends,
interest or principal payments, or any other
distributions.

Toss me a bone here. I'm a drowning man.

a42,

Sorry, first I heard of the guy was less than 2 weeks ago. Would like to help, but cannot.

A dividend reinvestment would truly be an extra fine mess to have to undo.

patchman and Renee,

It's tough to tell just HOW MANY potential violations are involved here.

patchman: "If they can not show the cash in possession at the time of the declaration the SEC will 100% view the announcement as fraud and manipulation."

renee: "The burden of proof is entirely on EIGH to prove the company had $40 million liquid or escrowed cash at the exact moment the dividend was declared."

The chronology would seem to start with the notification to FINRA, which called for a dividend of $.005/share.
Would that notification date be the deteminative date in terms of the requirement to have funds available? (To my knowledge, FINRA has not published that date.)
If so, the cash requirement would be $700,000+.

The next company communication was a PR on 9/16, which said:
"In recognition of the company's over target performance, 8000inc today announced that its board of Directors approved 30% of company retained profits will be allocated for a shareholder cash dividend on the company's common shares for all shareholders of record as of 30th September 2010. Due to the significant reported shareholder equity, should this cash dividend fall below $0.10 per share, the company reserves the right to convert this payment to a 1 for 10 (10%), stock dividend ensuring shareholder value and return."
There seem to be multiple potential problems here. The company IMPLIES several things:
That there might be a $.10/share cash dividend, requiring cash of $14,000,000+(note that this later turned out to be more than in an implication, but a declaration....in the cancellation they state "As a result, The Board of 8000inc announces that this review indentified, subsequent to declaring a dividend of 10 cents per share to be paid on October 15 2010....).
That the company had "retained profits" in excess of $40,000,000 (30% of X = $14,000,000).
That a 10% stock dividend in lieu of the cash dividend would provide commensurate "shareholder value and return".

On 9/28 a PR was issued stating:
"Due to the progression of the company, its operations and its increasing market value, the direct result to the company and its shareholders is a US$40M cash windfall in relative earnings. The exact figure will be known to the company October 3rd, 2010."
I don't know exactly what is meant by "relative earnings, But I definitely know what a US$40M cash windfall would mean if I got one. It would mean that I was the proud new owner of $40,000,000 in cash and I would not care what anyone called it.

The specious reasons provided for the cancellation of the dividend on 10/14 have been covered previously, so I won't rehash them here. I guess all I'm saying is that the company probably should not only fear sanctioning "If they can not show the cash in possession at the time of the declaration", although they should certainly fear that. And that the statement that "The burden of proof is entirely on EIGH to prove the company had $40 million liquid or escrowed cash at the exact moment the dividend was declared" isn't quite correct. They never hooked those two elements up in their statements.
But:
They implied that they had $40 million in "retained profits".
They stated clearly that they had a $40M CASH windfall in "relative earnings".
And they declared a $.10/share cash dividend on 9/16, which by your understanding of the law would have required them to have $14,000,000 available for funding on that date.

There's plenty of stuff for the SEC to choose from, isn't there?

"I'm not sure if we're on the same page yet. "

First let me say how much I appreciate your persistence....I'm here to learn stuff and I just did.
The concern that I have had with my own understanding was based on one of your earlier statements, which I should have given greater consideration:
"Understanding that the stock price will be adjusted down by the dividend amount on the Ex-Dividend date, without a Due Bill, there would be no reason to purchase shares between the Record Date and the Ex-Dividend date."
Indeed.

You have addressed that concern.


Just one thing that still puzzles me, which may account for my slow grasp of your correct understanding of the rule.
Please correct me again if I'm mistaken, but there appears to be no reason at all for a Record Date in the "over 25%" situation. Clearly SOMEONE would have had to buy the shares on the Record Date, yet the following definition of the term, ironically provided at the end of the example that you linked, does not apply:
Endnote
1The term “record date” under the Uniform
Practice Code means the date fixed by the
trustee, registrar, paying agent, or issuer for
the purpose of determining the holders of
equity securities, bonds, similar evidences of
indebtedness, or unit investment trust
securities entitled to receive dividends,
interest or principal payments, or any other
distributions.

In fact, in the example provided, the holder on the record date IS NOT "entitled to receive dividends,
interest or principal payments, or any other
distributions".

What purpose does the record date serve in the case of "over 25%" dividends if the person entitled to the dividend is the person holding the shares on the payment date?

The example says "In this example, September 1
is the day on or after which a buyer
would purchase the security without
the dividend and, therefore, the day
on which the price of the stock is
adjusted downward."
And you in fact say "The same would be true if a buyer bought shares on August 31."
I assume that those statements, which essentially say the same thing, are correct. What they mean then, is not only the person entitled to the dividend not required to have been a "shareholder of record" on the August 10 record date, but they are not required to be the "shareholder of record" on the payment date either. The sole requirement is that they were the last ones to have executed a buy order for the shares as of August 31.
No wonder I had trouble grasping this rule.....it appears to contadict EVERY OTHER RULE governing the payment of dividends.

I hope we're on the same page NOW. If so, thanks. If not, I may be too old to absorb this stuff at this point :o)

The example is indeed very clear in the following document, if one parses it out :

"For example, if an issuer has announced August 10 as the record date and August 31 as the payable date, then the ex-date will be September 1, the first business day after the payable date. In this example, September 1 is the day on or after which a buyer would purchase the security without the dividend and, therefore, the day on which the price of the stock is adjusted downward. In this example, a seller of the security on August 15, even though the holder of record to receive the dividend, would have to relinquish the dividend to the buyer. Indeed, because the value of the security on August 15 has not yet been adjusted downward to reflect the dividend distribution, the seller in this example would be unjustly enriched by keeping the dividend."

1. August 10 is the record date.
2. August 31 is the payment date.
3. "a seller of the security on August 15, even though the holder of record to receive the dividend, would have to relinquish the dividend to the buyer." Which I believe conforms precisely to the statement that I made in the post that you are responding to:
"In the "over 25% cases" that you describe the shares would have to be held from the record date through the payment date."


ps. I admit to not understanding the Due Bill crap at all.....thank goodness the example made it unnecessary.

I was on the phone with FINRA at the same time that the PR was released announcing the cancellation of the dividend. In that conversation the person in charge of OTC Dividends told me that he had no information from the company that would indicate that any changes had been made that would affect the issuance of the $.005 filed. It seems that some brokers may have relied on the FINRA Daily List and issued the dividend accordingly. I wonder if FINRA has been notified even at this point. I would think that the brokers would not have any trouble just debiting their customers account for the amount paid, but some parties are sure to be unhappy about the way this went down.

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=44793971&symbol=NO^EIGH

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55544019

"In fact, in these cases, you can actually purchase shares on the pay date and still get the dividend."

That's not correct. In the "over 25% cases" that you describe the shares would have to be held from the record date through the payment date. Nonetheless, that rule did not apply here because $.005, the amount of the dividend on the Notification Form filed with FINRA, was not in excess of 25% of the pps on the date of the notification to FINRA.


I learned a lot in this exercise in futility.

Nifty find, Mr. s.

Guess who just qualified for defense cost coverage under the company d&o policy!

"d. On or about June 25, 2009, MOSKOWITZ and TEPFER signed a document purporting to be a loan agreement that falsely indicated that a loan had been made on February 9, 2008, from Wesley to Spongetech in the amount of $210,000.

e. On or about June 25, 2009, TEPFER signed a letter to an attorney, whose identity is known to the grand jury, requesting that the attorney issue a legal opinion letter so that shares of Spongetech stock be unrestricted based on the false February 9, 2008 loan agreement.

f. On or about July 27, 2009, MOSKOWITZ and EISENBERG signed a document purporting to be a loan agreement that falsely indicated that a loan had been made on February 16, 2008, from Asset Management to Spongetech in the amount of $30,000.

g. On or about July 27, 2009, EISENBERG signed a letter to an attorney, whose identity is known to the grand jury, requesting that the attorney issue a legal opinion letter so that shares of Spongetech stock be unrestricted based on the false February 16, 2008 loan agreement.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551 et seq.)"



I could be mistaken, and I'd rather not spend Pacer money on "just curious", but I am reasonably certain that the dollar amounts of the loan agreements referred to above are the same as those which appeared in the documents that were used as exhibits to motions regarding Halperin in the SEC case. I don't think that you have to guess. Also, he was hired in June......it seems unlikely that they would be sending requests to anyone else at the end of July.
It's kind of interesting to see how the authorities decide which names to use and which names not to use in some of these documents. There have been MANY occasions when references have been obviously made to Lazauskus, yet he is unnamed and referred to as the third owner of RME or something like that. I don't know if it's part of their deal or just an unstated concession to the "helpful".

"On or about June 25, 2009, TEPFER signed a letter to an attorney, "

The attorney letters from May of 2009 were Bomart letters. Something tells me that Tepfer wasn't mailing his requests to Bomart.

From the original SEC complaint comes what I guess must be your answer:
91. Beginning in June 2009, Spongetech's new transfer agent,Worldwide Stock, began removing restrictive legends and transferring stock based on attorney opinion letters authored by Halperin, one of Spongetech's new attorneys.


Edit: Just guessing, but I suspect A LOT of the evidence supporting the indictments against the "new guys" might have come from Halperin. It's likely that he held onto the original requests and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't thinking CYA a long time ago. He knew what he was doing in spite of his protestations to the contrary.

Apparently it was never included in the original electronic filing.....presumably a correction will be filed.

Who cares? I do!
It comes at a point where I would have expected to see the specific Speranza statement under oath "that he did not believe to be true". I was kind of hoping that his meeting with the guy in the elevator who subsequently was no longer available to testify, so to speak, was fabricated and that he was really asked to create the funky websites by a fat guy with a baseball cap and glasses who was wearing an Easter Bunny outfit and carrying a checkbook and approached him in a parking garage.

Or maybe it explained the naked short position.

It's SUSPICIOUS, I tell ya!
The very fact that you ask "Who Cares?" makes me wonder if you're in on it somehow.

:o)

So now it's YOU I get to sue, too!

49. On or about October 30, 2009, in the District of Columbia, the defendant GEORGE SPERANZA, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer and person, in a case in which the law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, specifically in testimony before an officer of the SEC, that he would testify, declare, depose and certify truly, did willfully and contrary to such oath state the following material matter which he did not believe to be true:

______________________________________________________
WHAT GOES IN HERE? (p.23)
______________________________________________________


Three, the United States will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds .traceable to the commission of the offenses, and all property traceable to such property, including but not limited to a sum of money representing the amount of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses.

51. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

scion,
I'm missing page 23. Who do I sue?


ps. Thanks to TavyCal.

There are a couple different kinds of "halts".
One occurs when there is the anticipation of some major news that is likely to have an effect on the price of a stock. It can happen at any time, usually doesn't last very long and normally is lifted after the news is released.
The other is an SEC suspension. It is a tool that the SEC uses when it is concerned that issues exist that may not allow investors to properly value a company's stock, usually as a result of either misinformation or a lack of information from management. It ALWAYS lasts 10 days and normally is announced prior to the open. It is an extreme measure in the sense that the long term prospects of a suspended company have historically been very poor. As a result, the SEC does not suspend a company without a seriously compelling reason.

There were 9 suspensions (no halts) announced today, all taking effect at 9:30AM Eastern.

8000inc (EIGH.pk) Announces Third Quarter Shareholder Dividend
"In recognition of the company's over target performance, 8000inc today announced that its board of Directors approved 30% of company retained profits will be allocated for a shareholder cash dividend on the company's common shares for all shareholders of record as of 30th September 2010."

8000inc (EIGH.pk) receives US$40M windfall
"Due to the progression of the company, its operations and its increasing market value, the direct result to the company and its shareholders is a US$40M cash windfall in relative earnings."

8000inc (EIGH.pk) Statement by the Board of Directors
"As a result, The Board of 8000inc announces that this review indentified, subsequent to declaring a dividend of 10 cents per share to be paid on October 15 2010, the accounting treatment of the cash windfall resulting from the Company's unique financing model cannot be deemed either revenue or retained earnings, and therefore, these monies are ineligible for the purposes of issuing a special dividend."


Next up?
Relative profits, of course.

Thanks for looking......there's a good reason for your lack of success.

I was since able to determine that dividend rules are covered by the Corporation Laws of the individual states. Most states do, in fact, limit the size of a cash dividend...Delaware says it must come "(1) out of its surplus, as defined in and computed in accordance with §§ 154 and 244 of this title, or (2) in case there shall be no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year." New York has a similar rule. Nevada, EIGH's state of incorporation, appears not to have such a limitation......at least I couldn't find one:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-078.html

So I am unable to confirm this:
"the accounting treatment of the cash windfall resulting from the Company's unique financing model cannot be deemed either revenue or retained earnings, and therefore, these monies are ineligible for the purposes of issuing a special dividend."

or this (not even sure what a Tax legislature is):
"To continue with the dividend could be a technical contravention of Tax legislature"

Nor do my meager accounting skills help me understand how the proposed cash dividend (.005 or .10):
"would negatively affect Corporate profitability and shareholder value".

But it should have come as a surprise to no one, least of all a corporate attorney or CEO that a cash dividend would "pass the TAX burden directly on to the shareholders."


So, while there was really no reason for the dividend, it turns out that there's no real reason for there not to be a dividend either.

PLLLLease,
Did you really think that the cash dividend was not going to be taxable?

Do you really think that the company did not think that it would be taxable to shareholders?

Sorry, I included too much of the quote in my question. Let me try again.

"cash divvies have to be paid out of retained earnings."

I didn't know that. Can you source it, please?

I'm not aware of the rule.

janice:
"The company knew perfectly well that cash divvies have to be paid out of retained earnings."

I didn't know that. Can you source it, please?