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.
Less than 2 weeks before the International Wealth bank documents expire!! I hope that HH can get this done before the billion dollars disappears. On second thought, can something that never existed disappear?
Shocking!! LOL.
Only 3 ½ years late, but finally someone has confirmed that Oderli Ferrari was a fraud, just like everything else associated with this company starting with the Chief Criminal Officer Hillard Herzog.
Happy Belated Second Anniversary!!
It's been a little over 2 years since the SEC stepped in a literally put a halt to BGMO. Anyone know if HH is still alive?
From the Nevada Corporation Records website:
BERGAMO ACQUISITION CORP.
Business Entity Information
Status: Revoked File Date: 7/20/2004
Type: Foreign Corporation Entity Number: C19053-2004
Qualifying State: DE List of Officers Due: 7/31/2013
Managed By: Expiration Date:
NV Business ID: NV20041535366 Business License Exp: 7/31/2013
Registered Agent Information
Registered Agent resigned
Probably dead in Delaware too.
Anyone know where HH and/or SP are?
Tick, tock, tick, tock, BGMO was already blown to smithereens 15 months ago.
Who cares about this guy? Haven't heard from HH or SP in forever? What rock are they hiding under?
Here's the current status as displayed on the court's website:
Is it just me or doesn't this describe HH to a tee.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall for this one!!
22-Jul-2014 at 13:30 Honorable
ELLIOTT SATTLER H644 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE D435 - Heard ... filed on: 22-Jul-2014
Extra Text: COURT ORDERED: THE DEBTOR EXAMINATIONS OF DEFENDANTS HILLARD HERZOG AND SOHAIL PAREKH SHALLBEGIN PLACE TODAY, 7/22/14, @2:30PM IN THE DEPT. 10 JURY ROOM, AND CAN BE CONTINUED TO A LATER DATE IF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS & INTERROGATORIES NEED TO BE PRODUCED; COURT RESERVED RULING ON CONTEMPT ISSUE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXAMINATIONS.
I wonder what wonderfully tall tales HH spun at this examination. Looks like contempt of court is still on the table. Maybe HH and SP will see the inside of a jail cell real soon!
More like toilet paper.
New countdown, same result - NOTHING!!
Are we counting down to 419 419 419?
TWO MORE WEEKS!!!!!!!
Lol, no, I think what he says is that he laid out hundreds of thousands to cover fees or to secure collateral but that Newby never came through and changed the terms of the deal. One scammer scammer another, they deserve each other.
Last I heard of Shanon Newby was that he was being sued in Federal Court by Dean Bradley for scamming him out of 750k in another penny stock deal.
Did Salim Chamdia get fired as Chairman of the Karachi stock exchange yes !
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdia get fired from Arif Habib Bank yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdia get fired from Lucky Cotton Mills yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdia get fired from Stallion Textile Mill yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdia divulge inside information on FATIMA yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdia get slammed to the ground by business partner Manuf Sattar yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Did Salim Chamdis misappropriate funds at Arif Habib Bank yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Is Salim Chamdia and Salman Chamdia going to Central Prison Karachi to be a boy toy for the other Al Qaeda inmates yes!
DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BGMO? NO!!
Lovely quote from the S-1. Too bad that it's false and misleading. I'm pretty sure that the fact that Autilion is in liquidation is a material fact that has been conveniently omitted. That's probably considered securities fraud.
WHO CARES ABOUT SALIM CHAMDIA???
Did Salim Chamdia lie about the billion dollars from London Wall? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about sovereign guarantees from Pakistan? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about Greensafe Demanufacturing? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about the Bank of India financing? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about SunTrough? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about ESoft Infotmatics? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about the Japanese Mobile Software company? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about Lebanon? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about having received $75 million into a BGMO account? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about Thermal Power Plants? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about owning $100 billion in assets of a Euro Bond? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about Elpicon? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about a Brasilian Bank? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about audited financial? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about buying VSTA stock? No! That was an HH lie!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about judgments against BGMO? No! Those were HH lies!
Did Salim Chamdia lie about repaying CAMOFI? No! That was an HH lie!
EACH AND EVERY REPRESENTATION MADE BY HH HAS BEEN A LIE FROM THE BEGINNING, SO I ASK AGAIN
WHO CARES ABOUT SALIM CHAMDIA???
Why was BGMO busted down from "current" to "stop-no information"? If being raised to current was so important, how come being demoted to below where the company was before isn't important?
Stop Sign, Current, Limited, it makes no difference, the stock is a dog. I am still puzzled by the fact that BGMO made such a big deal when its listing moved up but hasn't said a word about it being demoted to lower than it was before.
New financials don't scare me. In fact I can't wait to see them. I could use a good laugh. Something tells me that LL Bradford won't be putting its name on anything else relating to BGMO, just a hunch.
An Open Letter to Hillard Herzog and Sohail Parekh
Dear Mr. Herzog and Mr. Parekh:
A few months ago Bergamo announced with great fanfare that it had been moved up on the OTC Exchange from from "limited" to "current" status. A short while before that Mr. Herzog stated publicly that he is committed to "transparency" so that everyone can see what goes on at BGMO. I am not here to question any of the financings that have been announced. The only issue that I would like you to address is the recent tier change from "current" to "stop". If you are truly committed to transparency you should provide the public with an explanation as to why this tier change took place.
Thank you.
What stock would that be, cuz it sure ain't BGMO?
There are no manipulators, that is a false accusation. All you have here is a garbage stock that has been pumped to death, but the pump wasn't successful. All the company statements about financings, acquisitions, buybacks have yet again proved to be false. If everything was HALF a good as HH wants the world to believe, just HALF as good, then there would have been enough money to get the financials updated so that the company wouldn't be downgraded to STOP - NO INFORMATION.
ALL OLD NEWS!! THE FINANCIALS ARE OUTDATED WHICH IS WHY BGMO's TIER WAS CHANGED TO STOP-NO INFORMATION. THE LINK IS MEANINGLESS AND USELESS.
I don't presume that there will be a public spin on this, there is rarely a public spin on disasters, only on fictitious positive events. I was referring to what HH is going to tell people who actually speak to him (assuming he takes anyone's calls) and ask about what happened. No doubt he will scream that it's is a mistake and threaten to sue OTC if they don't change it back immediately.
This is a complete and total disaster at this point. But no doubt we will continue to see posts about $1.5 billion being verified by CPAs and how BGMO made $88 million in one month and that verified copies of bank statements have been published, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think we've seen the last of Bradford, they will no doubt be branded liars and crooks soon enough, but there will be some new CPA who will say what HH wants him to say and the scam will be perpetuated till the SEC finally gets around to shutting it down.
It's laughable how when BGMO moved from LIMITED INFORMATION to CURRENT it was a huge event. Supposedly people didn't understand how important that move was. Now, the bottom has dropped out and OTC has moved BGMO to STOP - NO INFORMATION, a step BELOW limited. How siginficant is that move? Remember the "move up" meant OTC "approved" of BGMO? Does this mean that OTC disapproves of BGMO?
I'm guessing that BGMO's financials are outdated at this point and all they need to do to get "current" again is issue new financials and then have a lawyer issue another letter that all info is current. Why hasn't that been done? Could it be that Bradford won't issue even COMPILED financials at this point? Of course HH could go back to issuing his homegrown "subject to SEC approval" concocted in his basement financials, but even he doesn't have the guts to do that now, after all, how could he defend that after hiring Bradford and after the company made $88 million in September 2012 alone, by now they should have made another $400 million. That should be more than enough to pay for an AUDIT.
Can't wait to read the spin that BGMO puts on this one. I'm sure HH will say "it's all just a mistake and will be corrected in a day or two". LOL. Keep those lies coming HH, they're so entertaining
tic-toc, tic-toc, BGMO is a garbage stock
Great suggestion, but a waste of time. Called a number of times, they haven't returned any calls yet, don't know why they would start now.
Believe what you want. I will believe what Bradford ACTUALLY put in writing as opposed to what HH claims says that Bradford put in writing.
I don't get it. You continue to quote BGMO's press releases in order to prove that Bradford reviewed originals. A BGMO press release contains nothing more than HH's spin on what Bradford actually said. On the other hand, I am quoting directly from Bradford's letter which says they reviewed COPIES, NOT ORIGINALS. Which one should the public believe? HH telling the world what Bradford said, or the actual document written by Bradford? Duh!
No contest - Bradford. BGMO prs prove nothing, they have never been true. Generally speaking I think it's better to rely on the source documents rather than what HH claims the source documents say.
I didn't miss anything, that sentence you quoted is from HH NOT Bradford. Bradford never claimed to have "verified" anything. The use of the verify in the first sentence of Lewis's letter has been twisted by some to mean that he was verifying the substance of the information, when all it says is that he has been requested to verify certain information; which he did - he verified that HH sent him a bunch of documents. THAT'S IT!!
I AM NOT STATING AN OPINION - I AM STATING A FACT:
Dustin Lewis's letter states explicitly "I have received COPIES of certain documents supporting the transaction and have reviewed these documents". He says COPIES, NOT ORIGINALS. HH put out a pr saying that Bradford reviewed ORIGINALS, but that doesn't make it true. Bradford, through Lewis says COPIES, nowhere in his letter does Lewis say ORIGINALS - AND THAT'S A FACT, NOT AN OPINION!!
NOWHERE IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS DOES IT SAY THAT BGMO OWNS THE $1 BILLION ACCOUNT - FACT
Funny, I could swear that Dustin Lewis said specifically in his letter that he looked at copies!
Please let me know which BGMO bank account has $1 billion, because the bank statement (real or not) that was posted doesn't belong to BGMO - AND THAT'S A FACT!!
Can't argue with you that you are posting "facts" insofar as all of the documents on your list have been posted to the web - that is a fact. Beyond that, you have no facts. The plain language of the documents makes it crystal clear that BGMO doesn't own the account at HSBC and neither does NWI. The documents are also crystal clear that NWI can't withdraw a nickel of the billion dollars. The bank statement is meaningless if there is no cash available.
How about a bank statement showing the $88 million?
With all due respect, you haven't pointed to anything that disproves what I've said. The mere existence of a bank statement proves nothing unless BGMO has access to the funds in that account. I have provided the sentences from the plain language of the documents filed by BGMO that prove definitively that neither BGMO nor NWI has access to the funds in the account represented by the bank statement. The statement itself shows that the account is owned by two individuals, one from Singapore and one from Taiwan. The principles of NWI have Chinese and UK/EU passports. The POwer of Attorney explicitly prohibits the withdrawal of cash from the account. I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
The documents say what the documents say, I am simply quoting the plain language of the documents. I am not the company's auditor, it is not my job to verify anything or call anyone at HSBC to confirm anything, that's Bradford's job. Nowhere in his letter does Mr. Dustin Lewis say that he did any of those things. It doesn't even say that he reviewed original documents, he said he looked at copies. The plain language of the letter says that all he was verifying was that HH provided him with information, that's it.
If you are aware of any sentences in any of the documents that support the company's claims as HH would like the world believe, please point them out.
These are not my opinions - THEY ARE FACTS!!
I've read and re-read that letter. It doesn't really say anything other than confirm that HH showed Bradford documents. Please point to the sentence that says BGMO owns the account, or the passage that says Bradford confirmed the deposit with HSBC, or that they authenticated any document or that they viewed unsanitized versions of the documents. I don't see sentences like that anywhere. In fact, Mr. Dustin Lewis says specifically that his letter should not be relied upon as an explanation for the documents since the documents had more detail than he wanted to discuss.
The FACT is that the Bradford letter doesn't say anything other than Bradford can verify that HH gave them documents. End of story.
The bank statement proves nothing. Please just provide straight answers to the questions in my earlier post, like I did, with quotes from the documents, like I did, that prove your point.
The link I can provide is a link to the documents that BGMO filed on OTC, they prove everything that I said. I have pointed out the specific passages that PROVE my point.
I didn't post an opinion - I posted FACTS. All I did was quote directly from the documents that BGMO filed. The Power of Attorney specifically states that the Grantee, NWI IS NOT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW CASH. It's written in plain simple English. That's not an opinion or a twisted interpretation, it's plain simple English.
The account documents also show, very clearly, that the account is owned by individuals from Singapore and Taiwan - FACT NOT OPINION.