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.
So under your post, lets say the government is screwing me.
I've been paying my taxes but I'm not going to any more until the government gets their act together.
How well will that go over?
The updated filings are what is needed for a MM to take trading responsibility. By signing off on updated filings, Megas takes legal responsibility for the content of those filings including share count, etc.
mikie, Megas handed himself a crapload of shares in exchange for covering legal fees. You would think a guy who is supposedly going to become uber-rich thanks to shorty would be bending over backwards to meet all demands. Yet, you get childish emails and repeated bahvior that is not in the best interest of this shell corp.
Here fructose....
Posted by: mastaflash Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009 1:18:20 PM
In reply to: daveXV19 who wrote msg# 123016 Post # of 123127
Agree in principle, however, I have two points:
1. The costs of attaining and maintaining reporting status is beyond the abilities of most startup companies ( typical cost $1.2M-$2.5M annual).
I followed that up with an example and a question as to how pinks and bb's can afford to remain compliant?? My example was WES Consulting.
is that no one...not Burns, not DTC, not SEC...can legally or morally, prevent BCIT from trading on the basis of being a non-filer.
It's written in the trade halt releases. Part of the reason BCIT must file is to show that Megas is not in fact the one behind the share issues. Fully audited financials, up-to-date expense listing and share issuance information. With updated filings, a Market Maker can come in and represent an updated 15c-211.
Follow the rules......and then ask for the rules to be enforced. Pretty simple.
No fructose.
What I said was "follow the rules....and then ask for the rules to be enforced".
You close any excuses the SEC can use and then ask them why the very rules that exist are not enforced.
Did you ever try calling Mike Michaud's office in Washington (wink wink)
Ask if Matt Robison is still working there.
You do not need a CFO to contract with an auditor to have your quarterly and annual financials created. Lots of shells file without a listed CFO.
Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs small companies with actual operations less than $100,000 in expenses. Far less if you have a shell corp. Surprised YOU didn't know that.......
Posted by: mastaflash Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009 1:18:20 PM
In reply to: daveXV19 who wrote msg# 123016 Post # of 123127
Agree in principle, however, I have two points:
1. The costs of attaining and maintaining reporting status is beyond the abilities of most startup companies ( typical cost $1.2M-$2.5M annual).
Masta...how do you think compliant shell corps file their financials? Shells like WES Consulting (WSCU) are able to file their quarterly's and annual filings and it does not cost a million bucks to do so
Some pink shells and almost all BB shells mysteriously are able to file without huge expenses, yet you act like Megas is going to run into a huge bill. That's complete and utter BS and another excuse for Tom's lack of compliance.
This point isn't worth even debating
Not with you it's not.
Yes he is.
Keith was told Mike was FOS since I knew who Mike was.
Funny, no one brings up how the RB Corbel thread was opened by Judy Cline and her first post stated "Shorty opened Corbel for trading".
Houser was told the very day that Corbel merged with BioTech that the previous insiders would screw him. Keith's response was "a little share sales will not hurt".
Houser is a total clown.
Hey Jim,
Thought you would get a laugh out of this. Keith Houser might not.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21189a.htm
That's not true at all Masta. Stinky pinky with no operations is very easy to audit.
Call these guys and ask them if the annual costs works out to $1.2M to $2.5 Million annually.
www.sealebeers.com
1. The costs of attaining and maintaining reporting status is beyond the abilities of most startup companies ( typical cost $1.2M-$2.5M annual).
No, but I bet there are 100 others he could have used. Why Legacy of all companies to approach?
So you have no response to Janice's post as to why Megas keeps getting suckered into deals with shady people?
Mario Pino?
Stewart?
Mark and Legacy?
How about James Stock?
Settling with Capital Growth and JH Darby?
Posted by: janice shell Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 12:01:54 AM
In reply to: mastaflash who wrote msg# 122708 Post # of 122738
That wasn't my point at all. If this were the only time a sleazoid had turned up in connection with Megas, it would be meaningless. Thing is, sleazoids have been turning up in connection with Megas for nearly ten years. I'd call that a problem.
Good question.
Then again, how did Rufus end up using Legacy to pump his sham?
Mark's Dad was finally busted too and the Texas Attorney General charged them all with multiple criminal charges.
My favorite was when posters here were trying to claim that Mark was not connected to his Dad's scams.
Uh..absolutely what this shell needs. Thank you for posting that.
Is that not what I stated about Legacy Holding?
Mark's facing potential criminal charges for his role in the Conversion Solution's pump and dump.
masta..I'll gladly apologize. I even tried to correct my post at one point.
Also, would you at least do us the courtesy of admitting when you are wrong?
Sure. I hope the same is extended.
At least then your condescending attitude might be seen under a more realistic light
Ironic.
Can it be Gatorade?
Make sure you have DRY POWDER !!!
It has been and always will be a civil legal issue between the company that was screwed and the brokerages who helped screw the company.
Let's see what Megas adds in, that will be very interesting
Another Mario gold mine? Hiring Felipe Massa for infomercials on the new Energy boost for skull fracture victims? Palm oil? Barcelona real estate? Time Deposit from Stewie's fiasco with Sentinel?
That's a lot of cash, gold coins, and other collectibles sitting in Urban's camper seat cushions....
Edwards must have a poop pile of Jade sitting in a Chinese bank
For the last time, when I get a chance, I'll post up some of the deals I work on. My company uses DTCC procedures to transmit Bank Guarantees, Medium Term Notes, and structured corporate bonds. Been there, done that.
You are not waiting on the DTCC to decide whether they want to let BCIT trade. You are waiting on a legit MM to set a market, file the proper paperwork. You need to be back in compliance before any legit MM will take the legal risk to represent this company.
The DTCC is only handling custody of BCIT shares as of late 2005 and nothing more. Even stated so in writing.
For the last time, Depository trust does not clear trades. They are a friggen "bank" where their members (broker-dealers) electronically ledger their holdings.
When your overdraw on your bank account, you must deposit funds in your account to come back into a positive balance.
When Broker Joe has a negative share balance on his DTCC ledger, Broker Joe must deposit real shares with the DTCC to bring his corporate account back into balance.
Capital Growth and JH Darby can even show you why.
now the real question that you seem to be unable to clarify in your mind or anybody elses here is whether it's worthwhile to become regulatorily compliant with the SEC
That is not an option. There are steps companies must take and being fully compliant would help tremendously.
Sorry your honour...we were compliant once, but we're pouting over the treatment we received so we're not going to spend the money to stay in compliance.
Save your posts. Ex-clearing?
Ex-clearing contracts can only be set up with a contract between the broker-dealer and the party requesting sales. That contract must guarantee delivery and the Transfer Agent must show proof the requesting party does in fact have the shares available to guarantee delivery.
glaszman...any chance you could read the whole post?
you said we had a trading halt, not me. go look at your own post #122334. i know that we did not have a trading halt
We didn't have a halt? Of course we did, followed immediately by the global lock.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/34-52363.pdf
a trading halt is not the same as a suspension
LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. Ok, you are correct in the sense that a company can halt their trades pending news.
stocks are also frequently traded on the grey sheets after the ten day suspension. this one could if the brokers weren't unwilling.
Not stocks under a lock due to counterfeit shares.
as for resuming the entering of quotes? that only applies to OTC, and not the NASD or the NYSE, (you see i did read most of the SEC regualtions, just not all of them)
Reading and comprehending are two different abilities. If you READ the NASD letter on BCIT's trading, you would see that no one is allowed to trade BCIT without a 15c-211. In addition, members were warned to verify all deposited shares with the T/A.
a 15c-211 was in fact filed and the filings were brought up to dfate at one point, you know that, can you tell me exactly why the members did not have confidence that a company's financial statements were not current and accurate when Megas did bring the filings up to date?
i can.
You mean the shammy Legacy which was not recognized by many broker-dealers. Even TDAmeritrade was caught making a comment that they refuse to recognize any quotes made by Legacy. Who was the auditor who signed off on BCIT's financials glaszman? That's step number one to realizing why this is stuck in trading hell. Step Two glaszman is 15c211's do have to be updated from time to time. Step 3 is learning the difference between finally becoming compliant again and falling out of compliance.
please elaborate about why Legacy did not have the proper filing
Legacy is a crackpot broker-dealer with a shady history. What worries me more is how and why Megas even tried to work with Legacy after it was exposed Legacy helped Rufus Harris run the Conversion Solutions sham stock increase.
You want a MM with a solid reputation. By the way, who is backing our updated and current 15c-211 at this moment?
I think I posted that answer in my response to you. Did you read the whole post?
Who said I had a need to switch? I lost my email and was unable to retrieve my old alias of EngrishPetey.
IHUB let me
glaszman..
i haven't read THE WHOLE SEC rules, but i am pretty sure i've traded a couple of pinksheets that are non-filing
I'm pretty sure you have never traded a locked company that was required to have a valid 15c-211 as part of their reinstatement.
No one is allowed to trade this stock without a current 15c-211.
i know for a fact that there is a time limit on how long the SEC can halt, or more specifically, suspend trading in a stock for, and i know it isn't four years-
Is that what we had glaszman...a trading halt? LMAO
Members are reminded that, pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-11 and NASD Rule 6740, no quotation may be entered unless and until a member has complied with all of the requirements of the rules, including SEC Rule 15c2-11(a)(5). SEC Rule 15c2-11(a)requires, among other things, that based on a member’s review of the issuer
information specified therein, a member must have a reasonable basis under the circumstances to believe that the issuer information is accurate in all material respects and the sources of such information are reliable
f1...
To [sic] bad you were not around this stock in late Oct 06, you would have seen this happen with no results do to the DTC shutting it down. We do not need the filings up to date until we have written proof we will be given a clean bill of health to trade from the DTC.
I was around. I posted under my original alias that Legacy did not have the proper filing and they would not be recognized as a legit MM for Bancorp. Guess where my post ended up?
We do not need up to date filings? HAHHAAHAHHA. That's funny F1.
You always need up to date filings to stay compliant when you are halted by the S.E.C.
Where in the world did you come up with the old theory of "well...we were ok once so there...."
F1...Who is the current MM backing BCIT's trading and has signed off on a valid 15c211 for September 2009?
Staying in compliance is not an option.
You need fully updated financials in order to find a market maker to sign off on an updated 15c-211.
Who is going to sign off without updated financials in light of a SEC order preventing anyone from trading this stock without a 15c-211?
Another scammy broker-dealer like LEGACY?
File the f#$#$# quarterly's and get on with it.
Politicians are corrupt....geez..I'm going to stop paying taxes. Brilliant thinking.
Depends on what you deem a "deal"???
Yes, Megas won a judgment against certain individuals. Yes, Megas did not cut a deal with certain people.
However, Megas ended up cutting a deal with Capital Growth Financial and JH Darby. Winning a judgment does not include having to cover their sales with new shares at prices far below the last known trade before the halt.
Capital Growth Financial, L.L.C. and JH Darbie & Co.intervened in the Civil Litigation (the "Intervenors") and alleged that the Company negligently hired the Defendants and negligently supervised their actions and activities, and asserted Oklahoma and federal securities fraud and failure-to-register claims
against the Defendants and the Company.
In conjunction with the Civil Litigation, the Registrant reached an agreement with JH Darbie & Co., whereby the Company delivered 25,075,000 common stock shares to JH Darbie & Co. to be held pending settlement or conclusion of the Civil Litigation. These shares were delivered to JH Darbie & Co. to satisfy the requirements of Depository Trust Company ("DTC") until common stock shares eligible to be resold without restriction could be delivered by JH Darbie & Co. to cover its short position in the Company's common stock. Furthermore, JH Darbie & Co. placed in trust $72,500 to be used to pay the costs of registering the 25,075,000 common stock shares under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the applicable state securities laws in the event that registration was required.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Company's claims against the Settling Defendants and the claims of the Settling Defendants against the Company were resolved by the exchange of release of claims, a release of the Wrongfully Issued Shares and payments to the Company
Furthermore, the claims of the Intervenors against the Company were exchanged for the issuance of 25,025,000 shares of the Company's common stock to JH Darbie & Co. and 219,723,000 shares of the Company's common stock to Capital Growth Financial,L.L.C. for an aggregate sum of 244,748,000 common stock shares.
LMAO.
You hit your head on a rock at Thunder Hole?
No, I did not know that.
What I do know is that the DTCC never asks companies to cover all shares for their members. The norm for the DTCC is to ask the broker-dealers to seek shares from the company directly.
So, either Isaac was doing what he was instructed by a higher up, he was acting at his own discretion, or someone is lying about what Isaac asked for.
Ditch, it's a simple answer. I posted it before. Go find it.
Egor,
The way I read his earlier post, he was not quoting Snowe at all.
How does this lend to your creditability quoting her on BCIT???
I believe kruy is implying his Senator also sits on the Senate Finance Committee and kruy is claiming he has received a response from his political rep. That's the way I read it anyhow.
Arakit is claiming his Senator, Olympia Snowe, is still looking into the BCIT situation and Arakit has not received a response on what she inquired about.
Snowe's staff is waiting.
You would have better luck with Mike Michaud's office. His staff includes left-overs from Baldacci's staff.
Baldacci's staff cornered the SEC back in 2002 into asking why so many PCBM shareholders owned shares beyond what the company had filed. They forced the SEC into investigating and later exposed the insider scam.
made the mistake of not copying it...
not really in the mood to see it disappear again
Have you not seen his posts elsewhere?
There are several who mock him as ChasZero.
I get you and I'll post one more time. You just don't like the answer.
The reason why we do not sue the DTCC ourselves is because we have zero proof. We only have Tom's heresay. We have several red flags with the insiders and do not want to file a lawsuit only to find out the insiders lied.
That's why WE do not file for ourselves.
Which part of we will not file based upon all heresay from Tom do you not understand?
And I answered your request as to why the previous suits were thrown out.
Once again Ditch, you sue the employee, not the company. I've posted this a dozen times. I wrote a long winded explanation as to why and what specifically you file against Isaac for. I received a PM from Art about that post.
How many more times do I need to post you sue the employee, not the DTCC in general????
Want to guess where my response went?
They made the mistake of suing the entity. Supposedly, according to you guys, Megas was screwed with by an employee.
You sue that employee demanding to know why he wanted more shares issued. That's not the DTCC's position to request such an action.
That's an issue between the company and the brokerages.
Then why don't you and your friends sue Montal instead of badgering the famous 4 into doing it? You are all talk.
You want us to sue the DTCC based upon heresay? What would you like our pleadings to state?
The DTCC is very bad because Megas says so, in emails. Therefore, it must be true..
Why doesn't Megas sue Issac since Tom has all this super proof?
I'd rather just exchange emails with Art. I'll give him a few names he will recognize