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.
We're supposed to accept a 1:100 R/S...
and do a happy dance? No way. If after all this time, we just get R/S'ed away, Megas will have a lot of angry planks out there. Question is... would we have any recourse?
Still waiting to see truly what's next, since this all is still just conjecture, but the tone of the conversation is not so pleasant at this point, that's for sure.
I'm not getting the warm fuzzies from keenly's response. Ugh.
keenly...
any chance you could reply to my earlier post... http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11839120 ?
Thanks.
I guess I asked for too much?
Keenly seems to have gone away now. Sorry, folks.
It would be nice to actually know that this is not going to be just another of the "put your money in the box, and poof, it's gone" kinda stocks I have had the misfortune to have been burned on. GVRP/MAMG and GRYF are two that come to mind. I want to believe that we will make as much as $1+/share as Superman has been hoping for on RB, but yet, I don't trust the pinky games. So, I asked the questions, and will wait and see.
keenly...
What are Megas' plans for us "planks" who bought the so-called counterfeit shares? Does he plan to let the shorts buy back from us through trading, or is Megas working out deals with those who are short? Additionally, will there be a reverse split, and if so, when, relative to the commencement of trading?
I guess the summary of these questions is: will those of us "planks" who bought shares in May through August 2005 at minimum be able to recoup our initial "investment" in BCIT (or be allowed to make a profit), or are we being set up to be wiped away out of the picture?
TIA.
July 19, 2006 at 10:47am EDT
I envision Miss Fowl, Jimmy Neutron's classroom teacher, singing this...
(LOL)
I'm a plank, er...
You're a plank, er...
Would'nt you like to be a plank, er... too?
Be a plank, er...
(Drink Dr. Pepper? Or is it Purple Flurp?)
Okay, where's Chuck Barris and that gong, already?
Annual LO Due Date
Annual List of Officers due date which is the date the corporation is required to renew their filing fees in order to keep their officers and corporation filing status current and free from delinquency. Annual Lists are always due on the last day of the month the entity was originally created. This field may actually contain an Initial LO due date which is the date the Initial List is due which is the last day of the month after the month the entity was created. When using this field as a search condition you may enter in negatives values to return future dates. Example: To get all entities whose list of officers are due at the end of the month, and today is the 15th, you could specify an Annula LO Due Date search condition of "After 1 day ago" and "Before -20 days ago".
Hyperlink to above: https://esos.state.nv.us/SoSServices/AnonymousAccess/help.aspx?Topic=Annual%20LO%20Due%20Date&DefID=0
Aye... we are the Pirates of PAIN!
Let's have a look at the BCIT chart once again...
We haven't seen fringe here for a while... perhaps he could do his magic T/A on this chart and defibrillate it. (LOL)
BTW, I'll ask again... is there any incentive for Megas and/or Sytner to help the shorts out, or, rather, would Megas/Sytner want to see the parties who are short have to pay higher prices to settle up their positions? Aren't higher share prices beneficial to Megas/Sytner, as for the rest of us planks?
Why wouldn't Megas want to see the short MOASS play out instead? Why help the brokerages out?
Is this the same company that Megas just hired?
http://www.pcaobus.org/Inspections/Public_Reports/2006/Lieberman.pdf
Score one point for keenly...
Who's keeping track of the score? LOL
June 27, 2006 at 10:37am EDT (eom)
Quick... where's the defibrillator?!!!
The 8-K you speak of...
would refer to the replacement of accountants and auditors, perhaps?
http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2006/0412/20207772.tif
I have pasted the tif as a jpeg below:
Strange... what does it all mean?
Is the SEC still investigating, and does this "trading" indicate anything?
GREYFIELD CAPITAL - Nasdaq National Market: GRYF
Time & Sales most recent next page
Rec. Time Action Price Volume
3:59:42 PM Trade 0.01 500
3:49:26 PM Trade 0.01 500
3:48:50 PM Trade 0.0005 500
3:48:50 PM Trade 0.001 500
3:48:44 PM Trade 0.0005 500
3:48:44 PM Trade 0.001 500
3:04:46 PM Trade 0.001 5000
3:04:46 PM Trade 0.0005 5000
2:40:00 PM Trade 0.0001 908500
2:40:00 PM Trade 0.0005 91500
2:40:00 PM Trade 0.0001 91500
1:40:18 PM Trade 0.01 1000
1:38:44 PM Trade 0.0001 200000
1:38:44 PM Trade 0.0001 200000
30 more days to wait?
06/06/2006 CTFREE - 48116405 Jun 6 2006 1:49:13:663PM Realized $ 0.00
GUIRCH: SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT BY AND FOR DFT CHARLES WELLER PRO SE - OVERRULED AND 30 DAYS TO ANSWER, PLTF MOTION TO DISMISS - OVERRULED AND 30 DAYS TO ANSWER
OHBULL posted a couple of Megas responses...
on RB tonight:
http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=20379
By: OHBULL2000
05 Jun 2006, 09:35 PM EDT
Msg. 20379 of 20386
(This msg. is a reply to 20374 by h2nrg.)
Jump to msg. #
Hey h2, Capt. Jack here, well... got to Megas...
comments for you, this one is his usual one worder because that's all it takes:
From: "Thomas Megas" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: tpm8@harolds.ch
Subject: fshr BCIT stuff
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:24:03 +0000
no
tm
>From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: Thomas Megas
>Subject: BCIT stuff
>Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Howdy Mr. M,
>
> Have you made your way Stateside yet?
>
> Gotta ask a ? I almost hesitate to ask you, but you know me, are
the
>remaining filings being held up because of the cost to complete?
>
> Best,
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=20380
By: OHBULL2000
05 Jun 2006, 09:39 PM EDT
Msg. 20380 of -1
Jump to msg. #
And per your request h2, the second part...
From: "Thomas Megas" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: tpm8@harolds.ch
Subject: fshr BCIT/proposal
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:22:53 +0000
have no idea on this. Will give it to the legal boys.
tm
bcit
>From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: Thomas Megas
>Subject: BCIT
>Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
>
>BTW the reason I ask is in regards to something I mentioned sometime
ago
>about allowing existing "beneficial owners" or some such wording, the
350+
>of us, the possibility and therefore some financial support to BCIT,
the
>opportunity to purchase additional shares out of the market.
>
> This could work, in my opinion, if BCIT does come full circle and
people
>have certain guarantees that your plan has come full circle and will
trade
>again etc..
>
> Just thinking out loud.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(edit) Note that Playstk/Woogie has doubts about their authenticity.
That's what I've been trying to say on RB...
those of us NOT in the know are in the middle of this back and forth between two warring factions, not sure what is real info and what is disinformation. It really sucks, IMHO.
Just hoping that Megas will make good decisions for all of us. Until that happens, we watch and wait. Sigh.
I missed dimension's RB deleted posts. eom
Here's a picture of me...
<< EXTERMINATE! >> << EXTERMINATE! >> << EXTERMINATE! >>
LOL
Lovin' it, serf. Thanks for the laugh. eom
(edit) Uh, excuse me, Creede...
but I just wanted to alert you to what had been already posted on RB, and I traced it to the worm's blog location. If you look at my posts here on IHUB and on RB, I have never bashed or attacked. Please don't jump to conclusions. I figured you might want to refute the arguments, that's all. I'm hopeful for the future of GCHR myself.
BTW, I can understand why you might be angry, if what that person is stating is truly B.S. Please just don't throw your anger my way. Thanks.
Needs a bit more volume, though, Art...
LOL
Damn! A whole year, already???!!!
Are we rich yet? Has any justice been served?
Sigh.
Hoping that Megas doesn't expect us "fake shareholders" to walk that plank. LOL
"The Company is currently in the process of curing the above violations."
At least Megas plans to bring the company into compliance...
(from page F-16 of the 10-K...
http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=MARCH%20INDY%20INTERNATIONAL%20INC:%2010KSB,.... )
(d) The Company has been informed by the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") that the Commissions intends to
institute proceedings against the Company pursuant to Section
12(j) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The
Commission is alleging violations of Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 there under, to determine
whether the Exchange Act registration of the Company's common
stock should be suspended or revoked.
The Company is currently in the process of curing the above
violations. The Company has not determined what effect to the
Company, or its shareholders, will result if the Company is
unable to cure these violations.
So, we just need to get our 10Ks and 10Qs in to be compliant, it seems...
from http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/reg13A.html :
Rule 13a-1 -- Requirement of Annual Reports
Rule 13a-13 -- Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-QSB
BCIT 10K is finally out. eom
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Bancorp International Group, Inc.
(formerly March Indy International, Inc.)
We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Bancorp International Group,
Inc. as of December 31, 2001, and the related statements of operations,
shareholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Bancorp International Group,
Inc. at December 31, 2001 and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the
Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the
financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations
and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability
to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters
are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
/s/ Sherb & Co., LLP
----------------------------
Sherb & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants
Judgement against Kiberian--$15K + $5K attorney's fees
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getimage.tif?submitted=true&casemasterid=1961767&db=Ok...
How can we get GVRP/MAMG in the radar of these investigations?
http://www.marketcenter.com/stocks/story.action?id=ITR116r5731
News Story
StockGate: SEC Chair Cox Tells Senators 'Shares Must Be Delivered'
Wednesday Apr 26 2006 02:17:15 EDT
Apr 26, 2006 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) --
April 26, 2006 (FinancialWire) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Christopher Cox has told a Senate hearing that "from the standpoint of orderly markets, it's vitally important that shares be delivered."
He was responding to questioning by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett, who noted that small companies have been "devastated" by illegal naked short selling, and that some companies, such as Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), Marthat Stewart Living Omnimedia (NYSE: MSO), and Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (NYSE: KKD), have been on the Regulation SHO list months on end. He also questioned Cox about how naked short sellers owning no stock may be manipulating shareholder elections, citing El Paso Corp. (NYSE: EP), Mony, Alaska Air Group and others.
Bennett punctuated his remarks with an anecdote that when he had sold short in the past, he was told by his broker when the trade wasn't going well, "He who sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to prison." Bennett questioned why that doesn't seem to be case any more.
In recent days, the media has been working overtime changing its tune from "naked short selling is something that happens in Roswell" to "it's a problem on Wall Street."
Writing for TheStreet.com (NASDAQ: TSCM), Arne Alsin boiled the issue down to its bare essentials:
1. A share may or may not be a share.
2. A vote may or may not be a vote.
3. A trade may or may not be a trade.
He added that investors deserve to know what they own.
The NASD has also issued a new guidance on short sales, raising some eyebrows by converting T+3 to T+13, for which it cites a March 17 interpretive guidance by the staff of the SEC Division of Market Regulation. The guidance, at http://www.nasd.com/web/groups/rules_regs/documents/notice_to_members/nasdw_016418.pdf, The guidance now requires clearing agencies to "take action" to "close-out" failure-to-deliver positions.
Perhaps more pertinent is the fact that several published articles and comments have begun to worry that Stockgate may be a "systemic" failure, especially due to billions of dollars in possible hedge fund abuse.
In effect, the articles are now beginning to suggest that the entire market system could drift into a catastrophic domino-effect failure if left unchecked.
The fear is that one of those dominos may be the massive lawsuits filed by some hedge funds against the industry's biggest brokerages.
The Electronic Trading Group, LLC, for example has charged brokerage units of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), Bear Stearns Cos. (NYSE: BSC), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and others with charging unearned fees, commissions and interest on short sales when the broker-dealers failed to borrow or deliver the stock to back a short position, according to the Dow Jones Newswires.
Others defendants in the suit, which the plaintiffs hope to convert to a class action, include Credit Suisse Group ((NYSE: CSR), Deutsche Bank ((NYSE: DB), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Lehman Brothers Inc. (NYSE: LEH), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Bank of New York ((NYSE: BK), and UBS AG (NYSE: UBS).
"Defendants collusively condone and engage in these practices to their individual and collective enrichment, routinely alternating among themselves in the roles of prime broker who fails to deliver and third-party broker-dealer who permits the (failure to deliver) to persist," according to the filings.
According to the Dow Jones, the complaint says that Electronic Trading Group isn't challenging the practice of naked short selling per se, but rather is suing the broker-dealers for anticompetitive actions "by which they have arrogated to themselves illicit and anticompetitive profits at the expense and without the participation of their clients."
The lawsuit alleges the broker-dealers charged Electronic Trading Group and other legitimate short sellers for "covering" short positions that the broker-dealers actually didn't cover and then concealing that fact.
Electronic Trading Group said in the complaint it was charged improper fees, commissions and interest by the broker-dealers from April 2000 to present.
"In effect, plaintiff and other members of the class were charged and paid costs and fees, but did not receive the bargained-for value in return," the lawsuit claims.
At the same time, a group of hedge funds are also contemplating a similar lawsuit, according to Milberg Weiss.
Hedge funds are also considering forming an association, which David Rubenstein of Carlyle has said in Financial Times is to "be prepared for a response" in the event a "gigantic buyout" fails and critics charge it was built on "a house of cards."
Steven Schulman, a Milberg Weiss partner, was quoted as saying: "This is not about the evils of short-selling, which is part of an efficient market. We think that the short-sellers themselves are suffering injury. The market may not be operating in the way that participants assume and pay for."
Fees from prime brokerage are estimated to total more than $10 billion each year, and the business is dominated by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Bear Stearns is also a significant player and many other investment banks ' such as UBS, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America - have been battling to win market share.
StockGate has gathered critical mass, and it appears the issue of naked short selling will be not only front page news but likely the source of massive new regulatory investigations, for some time to come.
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net
FinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
Easy come, easy go...
my BPWWZZ shares showed up for a couple of days at Investrade, but reverted to Scottie at midnight this morning... now showing up as BPWWRES, with no value to them.
My BPWWZZ shares (my restricted BPWW shares from PRRM) just transferred over from Scottie to Investrade (a Penson company) yesterday... CUSIP shows as 088889993 , whereas the "real" BPWW CUSIP should be 088889100 , according to this site:
http://activequote.fidelity.com/mmnet/SymLookup.phtml?QUOTE_TYPE=&scCode=E&searchBy=S&se...
I have some leftover GRYF, too...
sold some on its way up, but not enough, unfortunately. Trying to figure out why the 0.0001 and 0.01 trades of late--strange--maybe short covering? I spoke with a couple of SEC attorneys a few months back--they were still investigating it. Maybe it'll come back someday?
Also still waiting for HSYN to finish its filings and trade again. Damn gray sheet stocks.
Nice of the SEC to protect us, eh?
serf...
A summary of new things (at least to me)--see the RB posts I noted in this post: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10532972
or read playstk's summary of that discussion in his post today: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10534397
Also, read OHBULL's summary of his call to the OK court...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17979
Arkait... did you read these posts...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17895
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17902
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17905
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17907
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17908
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17911
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17912
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17913
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17915
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BCIT&read=17966
(edited) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP provides the highest quality legal advice and representation to clients around the world. The results we achieve have set us apart for 125 years and become a model for the modern practice of law. Today, S&C is a leader in each of its core practice areas and in each of its geographic markets.
Our success is the result of the quality of our lawyers, the most broadly and deeply trained collection of attorneys in the world. We work as a single partnership without geographic division. We hire the very best law school graduates and train them to be generalists within broad practice areas. We promote lawyers to partner almost entirely from among our own associates. The result is a partnership with a unique diversity of experience, exceptional professional judgment and a demonstrated history of innovation.
Clients of the Firm are nearly evenly divided between U.S. and non-U.S. entities. They include industrial and commercial companies, financial institutions, private funds, governments, educational, charitable and cultural institutions, and individuals, estates and trusts. Our client base is exceptionally diverse, a result of our extraordinary capacity to tailor work to specific client needs.
S&C comprises approximately 600 lawyers. They serve our clients around the world through a network of 12 offices, located in leading financial centers in Asia, Australia, Europe and the United States. We are headquartered in New York.
http://www.sullcrom.com/firm/
They're interested in our little BCIT???
http://www.sullcrom.com/practice/servicedetail.aspx?firmService=73
Corporate and Securities Litigation
For more information on Sullivan & Cromwell's corporate and securities litigation practice, please contact Gandolfo V. DiBlasi or Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.
Sullivan & Cromwell's litigation practice is prominent in the representation of corporations and their officers and directors, financial institutions, and participants in the securities industries. Our litigators have been engaged, with a high level of success, in many of the highest profile corporate and securities litigation matters before U.S. courts in recent years. Our litigators frequently collaborate with lawyers from our criminal defense and general/corporate practices.
Sullivan & Cromwell has litigated a number of leading cases involving the fiduciary duties of corporate officers and directors. We handle a substantial volume of shareholder derivative and class action cases. We also handle matters involving, among other issues, disputes arising from the collapse of businesses, disputes growing out of joint ventures, distribution and licensing arrangements, contested acquisitions, and defaults in contractual performance.
In securities law matters, Sullivan & Cromwell acts for broker-dealers, banks and public issuers in investigations and lawsuits initiated by the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, individual plaintiffs and class plaintiffs. These investigations and lawsuits most often involve allegations of violations of the federal securities laws and regulations of the SEC and self-regulatory organizations, and frequently include allegations of insider trading, failure to disclose material information and proxy violations. We have been particularly active in the class action lawsuits and administrative proceedings that tend to follow significant declines in the price of an issuer's stock.
Several of our highest profile litigations have been securities class actions, including a number of such actions brought in the wake of Enron's collapse in 2001. The Firm currently represents Goldman Sachs and serves as liaison counsel to the underwriting defendants in the hundreds of now consolidated cases brought by purchasers of stock in IPOs. We represent Barclays in the Enron securities class action and UBS in the HealthSouth securities class action. We obtained the dismissal of an Enron-related securities action brought against JPMorgan Chase, and another, seeking more than US$ 150 million in damages, brought against UBS.