Hi all, after the debacle with ENTI being pulled from the DTC I had to stop paying attention to this for a while.

So basically, I just wanted an update on what the PTEL divi situation is... I still don't have it in my account yet.

Thanks!

Been trying to find info on Christopher Davies since the posts tying him to all these pinksheet companies kinda was worrisome to me. Here's his address on google maps:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2234+North+Federal+Highway,+boca+raton+fl&hl=en&ll=26.370359,-80.076867&spn=0.006618,0.011689&sll=26.031426,-80.14329&sspn=0.003319,0.005845&z=18&layer=c&cbll=26.370268,-80.076898&panoid=vrxneVXAJZdi1sKm2i0oYg&cbp=12,290.59,,0,21.69

Anyway, looks like a strip mall. If you google the address you find that there are tons of companies located at the same address. Could be an office building somewhere I guess. What is really strange to me is that when I tried to find him on the Florida Bar website, I got this: http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/b3d48eb6a195095985257199006687f2!OpenDocument&Click=

Now, I suppose it's possible that he's now licensed to practice here and this isn't updated, but it is the Florida Bar website, so that seems strange.

Also, someone else would have to confirm but wasn't Atlas Capital Holdings mentioned once as a LOC provider for ENTI or PTEL? I could be wrong... don't remember. Anyway, Davies heads that. Gotta go for now, would be interested to see if anyone else finds anything interesting.

I think it's more likely that it is dumping by investors trying to get out before we're in a no bid scenario.

I thought today was the day of reckoning, when the shorts would have to cover?

Not everyone can afford to wait forever... quite an opportunity cost in doing so.

People will sell at one if they fear that no bid is coming.

Does anyone really believe there is massive shorting and they are going to have to cover, making the price skyrocket? I've been around here for about a year and I've heard the same thing over and over and over and over. It hasn't happened yet, I don't think it will.

lol, Jim. Average number of shares per shareholder means nothing. I'm sure there are a ton of people with less than that number and a ton of people with more.

I really don't think DTC ineligibility can be considered a good thing. Sure, it can't be manipulated as much, but it also kills the liquidity.

Out of this at .0002. Painful to do, as that's a huge loss, my average was at .00067. Oh well, for my circumstances (aka needing that money now) it was the right decision. Better to snag what I can now before it hits .0001 with no bid (that's my fear).

Hoping PTEL is a success!

I was wondering the same thing. As it is a new dividend, and we are still keeping the ENTI shares, I'm assuming that we'll need to hold it for a year after we receive it for it to be long-term.

They can't not honor it. I bet we'll get charged a fee though.

Not everyone's brokers are preventing them from buying. So you can sell to those people.

They will let us get rid of what we have, but not buy more.

So then those shorts haven't covered yet?

I'm surprised I'm not seeing more discussion of the fact that Tony said ALL 4.8B shares were short... Doesn't this seem like a huge claim?

I'd love for this to be substantiated... hard to understand how it wasn't reflected in the price going up. Can anyone explain? Were 4.8b shares really shaken out in the past month?

Yes, it does make it harder for people to invest, because lots of brokers (like TD Ameritrade, in my case) won't let you buy DTC-ineligible securities because of the extra cost of processing/storing trades of actual hard copy paper certs.

So... ENTI chose to be DTC-ineligible. Great... that's fine if that's what they want to do, but some warning ahead of time so we could get out beforehand would have been really helpful.

Also... he said all 4.8b shares held by DTCC were short? How is that even possible and how would the price not have had to go up for them to cover? Hard to believe.

Regardless, I'm a shareholder of record and hope this thing manages to succeed under PTEL, but I'm not that pleased with the lack of a choice in the matter.

They were probably made by their labels or management or whatever...

He's mentioning 4.8b because that's the amount of shares that DTC had control of. DTC holds shares for a lot of big brokers, so that 4.8b is the holdings of a lot of individual investors put together.

Now that the shares have been put back into the hands of the DTC, I'm curious to hear the full story of what happened that Tony has been promising us.

I disagree, if this extra week gives me my shares in hand before the divi, I'll feel much happier about it.

I don't quite think he's saying all 4.8b shares are short. He's saying they have 4.8b shares. This is because DTC is used by many large brokers that many of us use. So they have our shares.

He's insinuating they might have some kind of short position that is causing a delay in them sending our shares to the TA, but who knows of this is really the case. It seems unlikely to me, but I guess it's possible. In any event, their short position wouldn't be the entire 4.8b amount, probably just some portion of it.

It's not a regulatory agency. It's a private company that is a depository for shares. They hold shares electronically for lots of different brokers. They set their own rules for what companies have to do to make their shares eligible. If the company doesn't meet the requirements, they won't store their shares electronically.

I did/do have the investment mindset on this, but I (like many here I assume) aren't professional traders with huge portfolios. If my shares were available to trade right after the f/s, I'd still be holding them, I just like having the option to liquidate if I need to, and would have made a final decision on whether to ride this through the PTEL divi restriction based on all the circumstances at that date. Now that I'm essentially being forced into it I'm kind of uncomfortable with it.

I know he warned us there would be issues, but what I haven't heard from him is why the new issue isn't DTC eligible. If he told us that it should have been, then I'd feel better about the current situation. My fear is that it isn't DTC eligible by his own choice. If that's the case, he should have told us ahead of time, so we'd have known the impact it'd have on our shares' liquidity. I sent him a very polite email asking for some clarity on the issue but got no response (not that that necessarily means anything, I'm sure he can't get to every one). I'd be thrilled if all this were caused by shorting and stuff, but claiming broker misconduct for what appears to have been his choice isn't a good enough explanation for me. A podcast with some info on this would make me feel infinitely better.

I understood that the restriction was coming,what I didn't expect was to have my shares tied up a month earlier than the 1:1 date.

From everything I can tell it's painful because they are going from electronic shares to paper shares. I don't know for sure, but this seems to be because of the company not the DTC. So if Tony knew and didn't tell us this was going to happen I'm not too happy about it.

Ahh, I see, thanks

He could have told us all this ahead of time so we could have been able to get out if we didn't want our money tied up. Now it looks like I'm going to be stuck with this till after the 6 month restriction, and I'm not comfortable with my money being tied up so long without my consent. I'm furious about this.

Yeah but come on, that's such a pain in the ass, who wants to go through all that trouble? Are we supposed to get tens of millions of certs sent to our houses? To our brokers? Who has to pay for all that?

I have a hard time blaming my broker for Tony making the new issue DTC ineligible...

What cash-flow will it have without mmx? Pretty sure the other projects were all shelved

1. Why would you or anyone expect the terms to be public?

2. Shouldn't we expect the terms on a LOC for any pinksheet company to be brutal?

What's the big surprise/secret here? It's the nature of the game.

Same situation here

Info on TDA fees (and restricted divis)

First email I got, I asked for more info and got the second email. Basically it states that they've gotten the new shares for the restricted divis but not for the unrestricted shares... very strange.

------------------------------------------------

XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting TD Ameritrade. We received your email regarding the mandatory reorganization fees assessed to your account. These fees were a result of two separate forward split/exchanges to the CUSIP 29259J972 - ENCOUNTER TECHNOLOGIES INC RESTRICTED.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Travis Ho
Corporate Actions and Dividends, TDA
Division of TD Ameritrade, Inc.

------------------------------------------------

Mr. XXXX,

Thank you for your inquiry. Each of the restricted positions completed new exchanges and combined into one newly issued position. We have received the new shares, so we updated these positions accordingly. ENTI has also performed the same kind of exchange, but the depository has not yet received the new ENTID shares. Once they arrive at the depository, you will see those shares exchanged as well. Please contact us again if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Derek Whitehill
Corporate Actions and Dividends, TDA
Division of TD Ameritrade, Inc.

Info on DTC Eligibility:

DTC Eligibility—Since mid 2010, companies cannot get DTC eligibility without approximately $100,000 per year in revenues. This is a guideline, and not a steadfast rule, but it has become very difficult to obtain DTC eligibility for companies that do not come close to this, and would not be worth taking a chance. In addition, the cost has risen from virtually free, to approximately $7,500 if you can find someone to do it.

DTC stands for Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Stocks held by DTC are kept in the name of its partnership nominee (Cede & Co.). Not all securities are eligible to be settled through DTC ("DTC-eligible"). First a little history: DTC eligibility used to be almost automatic after a company cleared its registration statement and its 15c2-11. One of the company shareholders would deposit their shares with their broker, who would apply for DTC-eligibility through a clearing firm affiliated with DTC. Once done, the stock could then be bought and sold electronically through brokers or online. Recently, this ‘automatic’ DTC eligibility approval by DTC is no longer occurring for many smaller companies going public. Some are having trouble even finding a broker or clearing firm even willing to submit the DTC-eligibility application. The cause of the change is easy to pinpoint, but as usual, the reaction by DTC, clearing firms, and brokerages is not so easy to understand. In Jan 2009, FINRA issued a notice to its broker-dealer members reminding the of their responsibility to insure federal securities laws and FINRA rules are complied with when they are participating in the sales of unregistered securities. Since these brokerage firms were charged with investigating the stock issuances of issuers to make certain there were no unregistered distributions, smaller companies were immediately hit the hardest, because they have the shortest operating histories and are more likely to trigger red flags with FINRA. The end result is that it has left many companies, and even attorneys, at a loss as to how to become DTC-eligible. The problem is that many shareholders of these non-eligible companies cannot deposit or trade their shares. Obviously, this is a huge problem. In addition, name changes, stock splits or other things that cause companies to obtain a new CUSIP would also cause the company to be required to re-apply for DTC eligibility. In a nutshell, a company needs to be 'real' and not a 'shell' in order to become DTC eligible.

Further Correspondence from TDA on DTC holdup

Mr. XXXX,

Thank you for your inquiry. The decision to make a security not DTC eligible comes from DTC. Due to the risky nature with penny stocks or OTC traded securities, they can make the decision to not allow electronic delivery or holding of the position. They may require the company to deliver physical certificates to ensure they are not fraudulent shares. In those cases, our positions are updated once DTC receives the certificates. This can be a reason for a delay in updating positions. You can read more about the eligibility process at the link below in the section titled DTC Eligibility. Let us know if you have any questions.

http://gopublicpros.com/benefitsofgoingpublic.html

Sincerely,

Derek Whitehill
Corporate Actions and Dividends, TDA
Division of TD Ameritrade, Inc.

The person you were in contact with at Schwab probably hadn't been in direct contact with the DTC. From what I can gather from other peoples' posts, the DTC is who needs the opinion letter (something to do about getting the new issue DTC eligible I assume). Other brokers probably haven't said anything about it because no one has forced them to call the DTC about it.

Response from TDA when asked if they've sent my shares:

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your email. Our depository, DTC, has informed us that the new shares of ENTI are not DTC eligible at the moment. DTC is working with the company's agent to have this issue DTC eligible. It is possible that we may required to take physical possession of the shares if it cannot be held at DTC. At this time, we do not have an anticipated swing date, although we would be more than happy to share any updates as we receive them. This process could take as little as a few days to a few weeks. Please feel free to contact us back for updates or if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Travis Ho
Corporate Actions and Dividends, TDA
Division of TD Ameritrade, Inc.