FINRA's explanation of the dividend as of this writing, based on a lengthy conversation with the gentleman that runs the OTC Dividend desk and processes the paper, is as follows:

EIGH filed a Company-Related Action Notification Form with FINRA indicating that they would pay a $.005/share cash dividend on 10/15.
EIGH designated the dividend as special, not FINRA. FINRA does not assign the term special to any dividends.
FINRA assigned the record date of 9/30 based primarily on the date of receipt of the Form and the 10 day period required between the action declared by the company and the record date.
If the amount of the dividend had exceeded 25% of the share price when declared, the ex-dividend date assigned would have been the day after the payment date. Since it did not exceed the 25% criteria, the ex-date assigned was the "normal" 2 days prior to the record date, so if you held the shares on 9/28 you are entitled to the dividend. Shareholders, then, are NOT required to hold the shares through the payment date in order to be entitled to the dividend.
The gentleman in charge of OTC Dividend's with whom I spoke indicated that a company could, in fact, change the amount of the dividend by simply notifying FINRA. He indicated that he was aware of no such notification as of the time of our conversation, which just occurred.

Finally, he was unable to help me with the issue of the timing of the payment, indicating that FINRA was in no way involved with the rules and processes involved in payments. I can only add that the 10 regular dividend payers that I hold make their payments on the payment date without fail. If a payment is not reflected in your account as of tomorrow's close, a phone call to your broker would be a reasonable action.

"he is not involved with the company now."

Are you confirming that he has sold his 62,500,000 share holding reported at the end of March?

Don,
I agree that the rules are different for certain "special" dividends, although I only learned that very recently. However, the different rules that I have read apply to special dividends that exceed 25% of the share price. The dividend that FINRA has on file (.005) is clearly less than that, so I can't help wondering if the rule that requires holding through the payment date does not apply and that the use of the term "special" by FINRA is only being used to differentiate it from a "regular" dividend where the record date dictates whether a dividend is due to the holder.

Please comment.
Are you sure that the .005 dividend requires the same holding requirement as a 25%+ dividend would require?

Risi,
All due respect to the very creative theory of cybercyber, I wonder if the mystery financing might not be better explained as the fruit of the vivid imagination of the person responsible for the PR. My reason for this pure speculation is:
"8000inc has drawn down $10M USD" (note: past tense)
On and around 2/23/10 the shares changed hands for around a nickel. Assuming that the entity was able to borrow the full value of the shares put in escrow (interest free, I might add)...an assumption that I'm sure you would agree isn't very likely given the downside risk to the lender......the deposit would have had to be around 200,000,000 shares. The total shares o/s according to the company at that point was and still is a bit over 143,000,000.
A very very dirty summing of the volume from 2/23 through today provides a similar result (200m give or take), suggesting that the sell side of virtually all the trading done during the period would be attributable to the shorting by the entity, assuming that the shorting process is now complete.
Another "problem" with the theory is that it requires the entity to have the expectation that EIGH would fail to repay the loan so they could access the collateral to cover. Of course, that's a lot easier to accept since it was an outcome that they could determine themselves.

But anything (here) is possible, and cyber is obviously more knowledgeable in these things than I am.

A couple more confused thoughts:
I still wonder how they could have rendered the debt and the share activity on the 3/31 and 6/30 financials invisible to the human eye.
The "Quarterly Report Q2 2010" indicates that there are no off balance sheet arrangements.
$10M USD is just a little less than 50% more than the entire market value of the company on 2/23/10.
A $40,000,000 "windfall" in "relative earnings" equates to around .36/share.
Yesterdays close was $.13 and the company has promised a .10/share dividend payable tomorrow. This means that the market either considers the ex-dividend value of the company to be $.03/share or it does not expect that dividend.

Tink,
Thanks for taking the time to wade thru all that nonsense.
I could not resist the temptation to try and get Scottrade to address the issue of verifying the legitimacy of shares held in a non-taxable (in my case, IRA) account. Here's an edited version (omitting unrelated issues) of their response:

"To summarize your previous inquiry, you would like assurance that the shares in your Scottrade account are legitimate and are not the result of "uncovered short selling." Due to the differences in the treatment of taxable and non-taxable accounts explained in our previous message, it is not possible to get the exact same assurance of the legitimacy of the shares in both types of accounts.

Please note that there are several barriers and deterrents for brokerage firms such as Scottrade to engage in the illegal practice of "uncovered short selling," also commonly referred to as naked short selling. Current industry regulations permit short selling in taxable accounts with margin trading privileges only. Margin trading privileges are not permitted in retirement accounts such as your own. Naked short selling is not permitted in any account type. Furthermore, brokerage firms such as Scottrade are subject to regular audits by industry regulators such as FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) to ensure compliance with industry rules. The consequences of failing to comply with these rules, including fines to Scottrade, serve as deterrents to illegal activities such as naked short selling.

In summary, the shares of stock in your IRA account cannot be legitimized by getting a stock certificate issued. We do, however, have incentives to conduct business in a manner that maintains the integrity of the marketplace."


Maybe I'm the only one, but I found the results of this exercise to be fascinating in terms of what appears to be the very real inability of a "shareholder" who owns shares of a company in a non-taxable account to determine whether they are legitimate shares or shares acquired from a "naked short seller".

"8000inc (EIGH.pk) receives US$40M windfall"

Just some background:
The PR with that headline was released on 9/28. It said, among other things:
"As announced February 23, 2010, the 8000inc finance team developed and agreed to a unique financing model utilizing non-dilutable stock as collateral. 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."

I dug out the 2/23/10 press release, entitled "8000inc (EIGH.pk) draws down $10M USD for planned Stadium Development", that the above refers to, in the hope of better understanding the "unique financing model" and its relevance to the "cash windfall in relative earnings".
http://financial.businessinsider.com/siliconalleymedia.clusterstock/news/read?GUID=12014494

I encourage those that are interested to see if they can summarize this "unique financing model", explain where the $40 million in relative earnings is coming from and, if they can, locate the stadium and the related debt on either the Q1 or Q2 balance sheet. BTW, how is the stadium developing?

That's the same gentleman (there can't be 2 guys with that name!) that emailed me asking for my number and from whom I expect to hear. But it's obviously getting late in the day.

thewicks,
It was based on your message that I made the original phone call. The respondent at the number that you provided was UNABLE to verify that statement and provided me the email address of the OTC Dividend section. I used that email address and it appears that they would rather discuss it over the phone.....so I await their call.

And here we are.

mytigger (and Ramsey AC/DC, to whose PM I am unable to respond):
I sent FINRA an email (2 actually, an original and a second request) with my questions in order to get their responses in writing, given that I clearly have not established any credibility here and do not enjoy having my word questioned.
Prior to asking for Janice's opinion, based on what I perceive is some significant experience, I emailed FINRA with my phone number. No matter how Janice responded I would have made an effort to confirm it..I don't take "someone else's word" for anything.
If and when FINRA returns my call I will post what they say, but you'll have to confirm the validity of their responses just as I will.

Janice,
re: "If the company wants to make any changes with FINRA, it must do so by tomorrow."

I have sent the following questions to OTC Dividends at FINRA, but it sounds like you might be able to answer them. Please do, if you can:

Good Morning,

I have been referred to you by FINRA Operations for an answer to my questions:

A cash dividend with a record date of 9/30 appears on the Daily List. The issuer has made the following statement in a press release:

"The company had to file details with FINRA to ensure that the dividend payments were made as announced. The company can at any time alter the dividend typically incurring a late filing penalty."

Can the amount of the dividend be changed after the record date?

What action must an issuer take in order to change the amount of the dividend:

Would the issuer be required to file a new Company-Related Action Notification Form, re-establishing a new 10 day wait requirement prior to the new declaration? Or is there an amendment form for such a purpose?

How would the penalty fee schedule apply if the issuer were to change the amount of the dividend without a filing?


Thanks.

Regards,
XXXXXX X XXXXX


ps. The company in question is symbol EIGH and the payment date is 10/15, so the question is reasonably urgent.
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dividend.asp?sym_id=EIGH&dDate=9/30/2010&sDateType=Record_date


I am aware that an applicable rule went into effect on 9/27, but it does not appear to address my questions.




FINRA just responded to my email with a request for my phone number. If you have opinions I'd like to hear them.

Thanks.

Not a bit, but I appreciate the effort.

Question 1: The quote is out of context.....please re-read the statement that preceded it in the post.

Question 2: I agree that special, in laymans terms, simply means out of the ordinary or non-recurring. However, the rules you quoted are for dividends with a yield in excess of 25%, which this one isn't. And FINRA shows the dividend as "spcl" in their Daily List, using your rules for a yield in excess of 25% in spite of the fact that the indicated dividend is $.005.

If you are aware of rules that apply to "out of the ordinary" dividends that differ from both the rules for regular dividends and the rules for dividends that exceed 25% of an issuers pps, please post them.


I don't think that I can be helped, but don't stop trying.

Edit: Almost out of posts, so I'm cheating this one a little........somebody tell investor_2009 that this is not a Nasdaq stock.

Thanks, that's just what I was looking for.

As might be expected, turning that rock over leads to other questions:
1. "the ex-dividend date shall be the first business day following the payable date."
This conforms to the Wiki statement:
"For this reason, the ex-dividend date is set one stock trading day after the payment date."
However, there is nothing in the quote you provided...I couldn't find anything in the lengthy document that you linked either.....that confirms the highlighted section of the following Wiki passage:
"To be entitled to receive the dividend, it is required that you be a stockholder on the record date and hold your stock until the payment date in order to receive the dividend."
There is nothing in the SEC stuff to suggest that the regular settlement rules don't apply, and they would require that you OWN the stock on the payment date, not that you HOLD it. Unless that is to be implied by the fact that the ex-dividend date is the day after the payment date, but I don't think that it should be.
I suspect few really care about this, but it's interesting.

2. The other thing that I found interesting is the 25% criteria required in order for these "special" rules to apply. I assume that calculation is done based on the pps on the date of declaration. Leaving us with 2 choices, neither of which qualifies for special treatment.
At .005, the yield is far less than 25% no matter what date is used for the pps.
At .10, the required pps would have had to be .40 to be a 25% yield and the price on the date of the "announcement" (9/16) was a good deal less than that.

Which means that FINRA, in assigning the "special" designation on their Daily List, has a different definition than the one that appears in your quote.


Are we having fun yet?


Thanks again.

ud,
What fun would this be if it wasn't confusing?

Unfortunately this conversation is using Wikipedia as a source for some of its assumptions and I'm having difficulty finding something more official. For instance, while you have cited the statement that the "determining factor for a special or significant dividend is usually when the dividend is 20% or greater in relation to the underlying price of the stock/security", I have seen definitions that use a 25% criteria and others where the fact that a dividend is not regular or non-recurring is enough to define it as "special".

And Wiki clearly says that "To be entitled to receive the dividend, it is required that you be a stockholder on the record date and hold your stock until the payment date in order to receive the dividend." Essentially that requires the recipient to be the shareholder of record 3 days beyond the payment date, which strikes me as odd.

I'd like to see another source for these rules. On the off-chance that wiki is mistaken, the price adjustment for this purported dividend could be reflected in tomorrows pps.

As to why the stock has dropped in the face of this promised dividend, it makes as much sense as its dropping when it should be supported by all that short covering. The only things that I can think of are lack of credibility and a shortage of shorts.


ps. Your penguin clip made an appearance on the TV show Castle a couple weeks back. Still a favorite for me (the clip, not the show).

That's exactly what I wanted to know.
So, if I understand you correctly, settlement does not enter into the issue on the payment date end.

kezzek,
One last pass at this badly battered dead horse:
"With a special dividend you have to own settled shares on the record date (9/30 for EIGH) AND own the shares on the dividend payment date. Special dividends are ex-dividend on the day after the payment date, unlike regular quarterly dividends."

Taking your statement literally, a person that bought the stock on 9/28 was the shareholder of record on the record date and that person could sell the stock tomorrow and still be a shareholder of record on the payment date, thereby entitling them to the dividend.

Do I have that right or do you have to straighten me out yet again?

I believe that you are correct. There are many examples of companies that have paid dividends in excess of both current and retained earnings.

ud150,
I had the same understanding, but I was relieved of it:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55356576

I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that I don't agree with it.

I definitely remember saying that I don't understand it. "It" being the following:
"Subsequent to the report, the company undertook a sample audit of 545 accounts, correlated to their clearing or brokerage firm. These accounts showed a current held position of 82,745,008 shares of 8000inc common stock. Further assessment identified significant short positions, (>10%), within this sample. Of the total number of retail shares that they purchased, 29,581,931 common 8000inc shares, bought and held in trading accounts, are yet to be allocated to the various market makers and or brokerages. These figures were measured against the absolute certified stock report for 8000inc prepared by the company's transfer agent. Notably, the short positions identified are attributable to less than 65% of the recorded retail share purchases of 8000inc common stock of this sample cohort and do not include stock purchases by the market at large."

I'm not afraid to say that it may be that I'm just not sharp enough to understand it.

However, one should not forget the subsequent time spent on the Group W bench, being treated in the same manner as those who committed somewhat more serious offenses.

We'll see.
Rest assured that I will apologize if mistaken, but misinforming the investing public may be taken more seriously than an improper disposition of the garbage. I suspect that there will be more than glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one as evidence of impropriety.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/8000inc-eighpk-cash-dividend-update-103845653.html
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/dividend.asp?sym_id=EIGH&dDate=9/30/2010&sDateType=Record_date

"MSG wins ruling against SpongeTech"

"This is completely TENDENTIOUS and DISTORTION of **REALITY** and TRUTH."

I'm not 100% certain of what "tendentious" means, but that headline was used in July in the case of Madison Square Garden v Spongetech Delivery System and it was as true then as it is now.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/spongetech_loses_in_court_PmlwxmGwsYP6rk6Wykk0gP
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=Wi6ATK7yODVEr8oo3CzcVg==&system=prod


There was a summary judgment made in the case at that time and 3 months later MSG asked the court to seek recovery for the funky RME check that Spongetech tried to use to pay its debt from RME and was successful in that. Kaja did not write any bad checks.


But it doesn't matter anymore.

Don,
There's nothing wrong with your reading.
In reading the history of the FINRA Rule 6490 that was created to codify the notice requirements of SEA 10b-17 and create the fee penalties it was indicated that it was their hope that they would encourage compliance. Doesn't sound too serious, does it?

Unfortunately FINRA, in this day and age, only provides phone numbers and not an email address for questions like this and I don't trust non-black and white answers.

kez,
Of course it's VERY strange.
Sometimes I'm a little too sarcastic for my own good......

I'll get heat for it, but this is the kind of "Press release differs from official filing" issue that can draw a suspension. I'm not sure that it's not too late for the company to be "dealing with" and don't know how it could be satisfactorily resolved by them.

Either the Daily List or the pr (maybe both) is in error and investors had the expectation that they could rely on both.

"So this is what we all wanted to know. For a minor cost penalty they could submitted update to the divy a day or less from what is appears to be 0.005 to 0.10. "

Your question was based on this statement in the company's dated 9/27:
"The company had to file details with FINRA to ensure that the dividend payments were made as announced. The company can at any time alter the dividend typically incurring a late filing penalty."

I'd like to suggest that this issue be viewed from a common sense stand point. The rule that onehundredmph referred to in his response to you is SEA Rule 10b-17, which says in part:

Rule 10b-17 -- Untimely Announcements of Record Dates
a. It shall constitute a "manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" as used in Section 10(b) of the Act for any issuer of a class of securities publicly traded by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange to fail to give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) hereof of the following actions relating to such class of securities:

1. A dividend or other distribution in cash or in kind, except an ordinary interest payment on a debt security, but including a dividend or distribution of any security of the same or another issuer;
-------------------------------------
b. Notice shall be deemed to have been given in accordance with this section only if:

1. Given to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., no later than 10 days prior to the record date involved or, in case of a rights subscription or other offering if such 10 days advance notice is not practical, on or before the record date and in no event later than the effective date of the registration statement to which the offering relates, and such notice includes:
v. For a dividend or other distribution including a stock or reverse split or rights or other subscription offering:

a. In cash, the amount of cash to be paid or distributed per share, except if exact per share cash distributions cannot be given because of existing conversion rights which may be exercised during the notice period and which may affect the per share cash distribution, then a reasonable approximation of the per share distribution may be provided so long as the actual per share distribution is subsequently provided on the record date,
-----------------------------------------------------

That's the rule. Its purpose is simply to make sure that investors are aware of the details of a dividend, including its amount, prior to the date on which they actually own the stock. It may seem strange, but some investors actually give consideration to a stocks price relative to the size of a dividend prior to making an investment or deciding whether to hold an investment. The rule is made for them.

If "The company can at any time alter the dividend typically incurring a late filing penalty" without filing a new Company-Related Action Notification Form it would defeat the whole purpose of the form. It makes no sense.
In my opinion, for what that is worth, a new Form would have to be filed 10 days prior to the declaration of any dividend that differs in amount or record date or payment date from the $.005/share due for payment on Friday that FINRA has included on its Daily List for that date.

By the way, FINRA doesn't give a hoot whether the company can fund the dividend or where the money comes from. There are only 5 specific areas that can render the tendered form to be deficient and inadequate funding isn't one of them.

Good Luck.

"Shareholders can now sleep peacefully at night knowing they have lost it all. No more false hope......."

One might reasonably think that's the case, but....

Musicman
Oct 11, 7:05 pm
I'm giving it till the 28th of this month........... and heres why.

According to someone who is "In the know". There is a plan here. It's
working through its pace. There should be a filing by the 19th. (this
date is not set in stone yet. I should know a definative date by
Friday). The chap 7 filing was done to speed the plan up.
CLUE: Opposition can be filed by the 27th.
Sorry to be cryptic but I want to keep this persons confidence.

Who knew Spongetech Kitchen and Bath had cash?

Maybe if we had known that sooner.........

"MOTION OF THE CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR AN ORDER
CONVERTING THE DEBTOR’S CHAPTER 11 CASE TO A CASE UNDER CHAPTER 7"

"Wherefore, the Trustee respectfully requests that this Court enter an order substantially in
the form annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” converting this chapter 11 case to a chapter 7 liquidation,
and granting such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper.
Dated: Jericho, New York
October 8, 2010
SILVERMANACAMPORA LLP
Attorneys for Kenneth P. Silverman, Esq.,
The Chapter 11 Operating Trustee"


I guess this means no webinar.

Rightly or wrongly, Yahoo shows the 3mo avg daily volume to be 1.2m+, meaning that a 1.5m short position would result in a short interest ratio of less than 1.3. Less than many relatively riskless large caps.

Just for frame of reference purposes:
The cost of covering a 1.5m share short position at today's closing price would be about $300,000.
The cost of a $.005 dividend would be about $$700,000.

"The company had to file details with FINRA to ensure that the dividend payments were made as announced. The company can at any time alter the dividend typically incurring a late filing penalty."

I don't believe that to be true and would like to see the wording of the specific FINRA rule that allows the company to "at any time alter the dividend typically incurring a late filing penalty".



The item in the PR immediately preceding your quote is "The actual dividend payments will not be known until October 4th 2010 as this is affected by multiple factors unknown until October 4th, 2010.

October 4th was a week ago. Why would the company not confirm the opening statement of the same PR, which was:
"The company is issuing minimum cash dividend payments of $0.10, October 2010, to all fully paid-up shareholders of record on 30th September 2010."

Why did the company commit to a $.10 dividend in the PR when it had previously filed their intention to pay a $.005 dividend?



Your question is a good one (but only if the underlying premise is correct) and I join you in looking forward to an answer.

"... So I guess it's not really that unheard of."

I was speaking based on my personal experience only. 10 of the 11 stocks that I hold pay REGULAR dividends. All 10 of those payments result in credits to my account with the dividend on the payment date announced when the dividend is declared...NOT a day or two or three or four later.

The FINRA rules require a company to provide 10 days notice to FINRA prior to declaring the dividend to its shareholders. This is the report of the EIGH dividend as it appears on the otcbb.com website:

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:Spl
Cash Dividend
Dividend Amount:0.005

Is the definition of "payment date" different for special dividends versus regular dividends?

If macjoga, jason_nambae, justdothis or yourself or any of your respective brokers can explain why the 10/15 payment date will not result in the dividend being credited to your accounts on 10/15 I'd like to know exactly what that explanation is.

You are saying that the absence of a dividend payment to your brokerage account by midnight on 10/15 would not be proof that the company had not paid the dividend. Do you really believe that?

Unheard of. Which broker told you that?

"We'll see what happens but I have to tell you, I'm sure looking forward to the Payment Date of Oct 15 even though it will probably take the brokers 3-4 days to credit our accounts. "

A Payment Date is a Payment Date. It is not the day on which your broker starts to try to figure out how to credit your account. In the case of a REAL dividend, one can rely on the ability to access the funds on the day following the Payment Date.

It appears that the company has had a due diligence recommendation at the end of all their Press Releases for a long time:

"This news release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected on the basis of such forward-looking statements. The words "estimate," "project," "intends," "expects," "believes," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are made based on management's beliefs, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, management pursuant to the "safe-harbour" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. For a more complete description of these and other risk factors that may affect the future performance of 8000 Inc. see "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB and its other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made and the Company undertakes no obligation to disclose any revision to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events."

There is no Form 10-KSB. And there are no other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Is it possible that they think you wouldn't notice? Or didn't care?

Your broker got everything that they need from you to accept a dividend on your behalf when you opened your account.

"It's as if Kelly believes his shareholders to be no more than ignorant village idiots who can't remember what he told them only two days prior."

The purpose of the links that I provided in response to the question asked highlighted exactly that. The information in the company's public releases demands closer scrutiny than some appear to be giving it.

Some. Not me.
Perhaps your post was meant for them.

As long as we're linking our own posts, how about this?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55369716

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/8000inc-eighpk-announces-acquisition-of-monks-den-102938819.html
MANASSAS, Virginia, September 15, 2010 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

- Strategic Acquisition of Monk's Den Delivers Annual Revenue Targets in Quarter 3 Prompting Share Holder Dividend

The Board of 8000inc is pleased to announce the acquisition of Monk's Den, one of the fastest growing and recognized on-line investor network and training programs. As a privately held company, Monk's Den, led by founder and CEO Jerry Williams Ph.D., has achieved not only proven success in trading philosophy, but media recognition in real terms, guesting several times on the Big Biz Show and on the American Forces Radio Network across 177 countries.

The acquisition of Monk's Den delivers the perfect educational vehicle and shareholder exposure for 8000inc. The US$5M projected annual revenue ensures the Group over achieves its first year targets bringing forward the projected dividend payments for shareholders.

Two days later:
http://tradingtipsnow.com/8000inc-eigh-pk-subsidiary-monks-den-to-deliver-its-trading-strategy-through-its-own-trading-and-informational-platform/
MANASSAS, VA , Sept. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – Monk’s Den, renowned for its Investment Training has developed a software program implementing the methods taught in its classes across the US and Europe . The program uses an algorithmic format to alert traders when to buy or sell based on the proven signals and principles developed by founder Dr. Jerry Williams . Audio and email alerts will inform traders of particular conditions within the market for those signals. The software will be based on a monthly licensing arrangement and will be available quarter 4 2010. Projections based on attendees of the Monk’s Den seminar’, have shown that the program will empower the individual to take the learned skills into the market and will ensure optimal execution based on the Monk’s Den proven trading philosophy. The revenue generation from this project is expected to double current Monk’s Den figures (to $10M USD ) by quarter 3 2011.

There must be an explanation.

As of 3/31/10:
Item XIII: Beneficial Owners holding more than 5%
Conrad Wall Flat 6, 9 Grange Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 Common Number: 62,500,000

Shares Outstanding: 143,824,000
Public Float: 77,391,750
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=32440



As of 6/30/10:
There are no beneficial owners holding more than 10%

143,824,000 issued and outstanding on 06/30/10.
Therefore the actual available float is and still remains 77,391,750.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=36090



As of 3/31 Conrad Wall, 8000 Cannonball founder, held 62m shares of EIGH which presumably accounted for the vast majority of the difference between the shares o/s and the public float.
As of 6/30 he held something less than 10% of the o/s (=less than 14.3m shares), so he sold at least 47m shares during the quarter. Yet the public float did not change.


One of the following 6/30 statements is incorrect:
"There are no beneficial owners holding more than 10%."
"Therefore the actual available float is and still remains 77,391,750."

"You would do well to also read 'Applicable Fees' section. If you underdstand plain Englih, it basically means that by paying a fine you can even file a notice AFTER the corporate action date. And you guessed the fine.. right? Its $5K!!! A paltry sum of $5K."

What it shows is:
Late SEA Rule 10b-17 Notification
(Notice submitted on or after corporate
action date) $5,000

The entire purpose of the rule you cite (rule 6490) is to require an issuer to provide adequate notice to FINRA (10 days) to allow them to determine whether the action is deficient in terms of the following:
"Factors that may be considered by the FINRA Operations
in finding a request to process documentation related to a Company-Related Action
deficient are explicitly limited to the following:
1. FINRA staff reasonably believes the forms and all supporting documentation, in
whole or in part, may not be complete, accurate or with proper authority;
2. the issuer is not current in its reporting obligations, if applicable, to the SEC or
other regulatory authority;
3. FINRA has actual knowledge that parties related to the Company-Related Action
are the subject of pending, adjudicated or settled regulatory action or investigation
by a regulatory body, or civil or criminal action related to fraud or securities laws
violations4;
4. a government authority or regulator has provided information to FINRA, or FINRA
has actual knowledge, indicating that persons related to the Company-Related
Action may be potentially involved in fraudulent activities related to the securities
market and/or pose a threat to public investors; and/or
5. there is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the
security."

It also says:
"Where a Company-Related Action is deemed deficient, FINRA Operations may
determine that it is necessary for the protection of investors, the public interest and to
maintain fair and orderly markets, that documentation related to a Company-Related
Action will not be processed."


You seem to be suggesting that the dividend could be paid and that the Notice Form could be filed SUBSEQUENTLY. (I admit that the late payment fee also suggests that.)

If that IS the case, what would purpose would be served by FINRA not processing the document and exactly how would not processing the document be "for the protection of investors" and in "the public interest"?

The only real corrective action would be a requirement to rescind the dividend and we know that is not going to happen.

patchman,
Are you sure they can't find them?
Since all 5m+ of them are worth less than $50,000 at this point maybe they just aren't worth mentioning.

I apologize for my density and believe I finally have a grip on the date issues.


"Of course there's no way to trade ex-dividend without knowing the amount of the dividend."

I assume that it would be equally obvious that the amount of a dividend, along with its record and payment dates, would be required to be established at the time of its declaration and not on the date of its payment.

Phooey.
Live and learn...thanks.

How do you interpret the following?:
"In the case of special or significant dividends, the stock trades without the dividend from the record date, through the Payment Date, then adjust for the dividend paid and starts trading on an ex-distribution basis one stock trading day after the Payment Date."

Between 9/29 and 10/1 the stock rose from .34 to .36. Wouldn't the correct interpretation of the quote lead one to expect a drop of .10/share in that period if a .10 special dividend was declared for holders of record as of 9/30?

I realize that this is a "special circumstance" in the sense that a $.10 dividend has been publicized, but there is no evidence that it has been formally declared. As of this writing the symbol EIGH appears on the FINRA "Daily List" of stocks paying a dividend with a record date of 9/30 in the amount of $.005/share. It is my understanding that the company would be required to file a new Company-Related Action Notification Form with FINRA 10 days prior to announcing a dividend in another amount. So my question is more intended to confirm my understanding of the rule rather than to address the specific EIGH issue.