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.
PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED THAT FINRA WILL NOT BE APPROVING THIS 1:1
EXCHANGE AS THE COMPANY'S STOCK WAS DELISTED IN 2006 WHEN THEY PROCESSED THE EXCHANGE ON THEIR OWN RECORDS WITHOUT FINRA'S APPROVAL. THE DELISTING WAS DUE TO SEC 12J REVOCATION ON 11/9/09. AS A RESULT, DTCC WILL NOT BE PROCESSING THIS 1:1 EXCHANGE. NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN. THIS ENVELOPE IS NOW CLOSED.
First you have the Oklahoma Court Order clearing out the 106;s and installing the 205's at the DTC
Along with this is the name change to Energy Source
Go figure on the clerical error
Setting the stage for SEC 12J and this is the good part - the judge revoked a company that did not
exist ( Energy Source) along with a cusp # (106) which has been retired!
and then this:
AWARD: The undersigned arbitrator has decided and determined in full and final resolution of the issues submitted for determination as follows: 1) Claimant's claims are denied in their entirety with prejudice. 2) All requests for punitive damages are denied. 3) All other relief requests are denied. 4) FINRA Dispute Resolution shall retain the $75.00 filing fee that the Claimant deposited previously.
OTHER FEES: Respondent has paid to FINRA Dispute Resolution the $150.00 Member Surcharge previously invoiced.
OTHER ISSUES: The Arbitrator acknowledges that he has read the pleadings and other materials filed by the parties.
On March 18, 2013, the Arbitrator ordered Claimant to purchase 25,000 shares of BCIT, including the Private Treaty Certificates, and also ordered Respondent to reimburse Claimant the entire purchase price and expenses related to the purchase.
It sounds like the Claimant did not win and the Respondent has been exonerated of all - wait
- what is this in the middle of the muck? The Claimant received what?
and FINRA is still not approving of the Oklahoma Lawsuit!!! HOW CONTEMPTUOUS IS THAT!!!
of course this is my opinion
all those claims are moot:
Moot: having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision:
true that on the uncertain, yet the claimant (Grabowski) received what he asked for - a certificate. who cares how he got it - the point is the arbitrator understood the dtcc lock does not apply to the post lock shares
and he upheld customer protection rules - right to what the claimant paid for. IMO
Why are you not asking why TDA has to reimburse Mr. Grabowski?
the full Award is now up on the finraawardsonline website
http://finraawardsonline.finra.org
CASE #: 12-01838
Chrtetopher Grabowski (Claimant) vs. TO Ameritrade, Inc. (Respondent) REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES:
Claimant Chrntopher Grat)owski appeared pro se.
For Respondent TD Anrwritrade, Inc.: Hdlie M. Mason, Esq.. TO Ameritrade, Inc.. Omaha, Nebraska.
NATURE OF DISPUTE: Customer vs. Member StatementofClaimfiledonorabout May12,2012.
CASE SUMMARY: Claimant asserted the fblkywing causes of actbn: fraud, wrongful or criminal deceptton.
The causes of action relate to the purchase of shares of Bancorp Intemattonal Group. Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED: In the Statement of Claim. Claimant requested:
O)mpensatory Damages: Punitive Damages:
Other
$1,000.00 $1,000.00
return of stock
AWARD: The undersigned arbitrator has dedded and detemilned in full and final resolution of the Issues submittedfordetermination asfoltows:1) Claimant's daims are deniedIntheirentiretywittiprejudice.2)Allrequestsforpunitivedamagesaredenied. 3) All other relief requests are denied. 4) FINRA Dispute Resolution shall retain the $75.00filingfeettiatthe Claimant deposited previously.
OTHER FEES: Respondent has pakJ to FINRA Dispute Resolution the $150.00 Member Surcharge previously invoiced.
OTHER ISSUES: The Arbitrator adtnowledgestiiathe has readttiepleadings and other materialsfiledby the parties.
On March 18.2013.ttie Arbitrator ordered Claimant to purchase 25,000 shares of BCIT. including the Private Treaty Certificates, and also ordered Respondent to reimburse Claimant the entire purchase price and expenses related to the purchase.
?
Upon receiving notice tttat the parties had complied with the March 18. 2013 Order, the Arbitrator denied Claimant's daims witti prejudice since the cteims are now moot
Claimant requested additional reliefforadditional expenses by letter dated April 14.2012. After due consideration the Arbitrator denied Claimant's requ
you are entitled to what your broker purchased for your benefit. how many shares TDA has is their problem.
what does class action have to do with this?
Finra Dispute Resolution Award
finraawardsonline.finra.org
from FINRA Awards look up 12-01838
FINRA DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE#: 12-01838
Christopher Grabowski (Claimant) vs. TD Ameritrade, Inc. (Respondent) REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES:
Claimant Christopher Grabowski appeared pro se.
For Respondent TD Ameritrade, Inc.: Hollie M. Mason, Esq., TD Ameritrade, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
NATURE OF DISPUTE: Customer vs. Member Statement of Claim filed on or about: May 12, 2012.
CASE SUMMARY: Claimant asserted the following causes of action: fraud, wrongful or criminal deception.
The causes of action relate to the purchase of shares of Bancorp International Group, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED: In the Statement of Claim, Claimant requested:
Compensatory Damages: Punitive Damages: Other:
$1,000.00 $1,000.00
return of stock
AWARD: The undersigned arbitrator has decided and determined in full and final resolution of the issues submitted for determination as follows: 1) Claimant's claims are denied in their entirety with prejudice. 2) All requests for punitive damages are denied. 3) All other relief requests are denied. 4) FINRA Dispute Resolution shall retain the $75.00 filing fee that the Claimant deposited previously.
OTHER FEES: Respondent has paid to FINRA Dispute Resolution the $150.00 Member Surcharge previously invoiced.
OTHER ISSUES: The Arbitrator acknowledges that he has read the pleadings and other materials filed by the parties.
On March 18, 2013, the Arbitrator ordered Claimant to purchase 25,000 shares of BCIT, including the Private Treaty Certificates, and also ordered Respondent to reimburse Claimant the entire purchase price and expenses related to the purchase.
you are half right
the cusip change was in 2006 along with the name change
the name change never went through so Bancorp was never Energy Source
the revoke was in when 09 so what was revoked
a company that never existed on a retired cusip number
YOU JUST CAN NOT SCRIPT THESE THINGS
Arbitration is not what is important
and instead of fixing the mistakes it was first
covered up
kicked to the curb
buried
then revoked
This is the problem were are dealing with
Here ya go:
Ex-Clearing Comparison
"Ex-Clearing" simply means that the trade comparison process is performed without the services of an electronic clearing house. Ex-Clearing is a manual comparison process that is performed by the brokerage firmís Purchase and Sales Department when the traded security does not meet the eligibility standards of the designated clearing corp.
The Ex-Clearing clerk in the P&S Department sends or faxes a standard comparison form ñ a "Comp" ñ to the P&S Department of the contra broker. The standardization of the trade Comp is provided for under New York Stock Exchange Rule 101. Rule 101 requires firms to include the following trade details on all manual comparison forms:
Trade Date
Settlement Date
Security Traded
Quantity Traded
Transaction Price
Accrued Interest (Fixed Income Only)
Net or Settlement Dollar Amount
Due to standardization set forth under rule 101, the term "101" is used synonymously with Comp to refer to the manual comparison form. The result is a compared Ex-Clearing trade.
If the contra broker agrees with the specific trade details on the Comp, the Comp is signed and returned to the originating brokerage firm.
On settlement date, the firmís Settlement area will create a Fail Record on the firmís accounting books and records to represent the open receivable or deliverable. The Settlements department will ëset-upí a Fail-to-Deliver for securities sold to another firm, and a Fail-to-Receive for securities purchased from another firm.
The transaction is concluded when the selling firm delivers the sold securities to the buying firm, and the buying firm pays the selling firm for the delivered securities. At such time, the open fail record is removed from the firmís books and records. The ultimate removal of the open receivable or deliverable is referred to as a "Clean-Up".
http://brokerage101.com/comparison.html
as simple as that
This case - It is of public record just send everyone a link!
timeline and events http://www.let-bcit-trade.com
March 2013 March 7, 2013 - Bancorp International Group, Inc. (BCIT) initiates legal action against FINRA, DTCC, et al.
What will he call the story?
THE LEGEND OF THE TRUE THREE STOOGES
page 11 paragraph C
Congratulations again to Carlton Huxley
carrot_on_stick
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:36:34 PM
Re: CarltonH post# 137440
Post # of 154341
so let me see if i get this, beneath the cheaply thrown together facade that seems to have appeared from thin air, you are some sort of "troubleshooting" organization that has far reaching capabilities and resources. you can stand toe to toe with a federally backed, multi-trillion dollar behemoth that wields more power and influence than most countries. you have decided to focus all of this unique ability on bcit with no monetary requirements directed at s/h's? tm really did strike a goldmine
New PR just out
But maybe they will
From my understanding the DTC has had 205 certificates in their stores since the 2006 court order.
Janice
The DTC will convey to their participants the 205 cusip.
How will the brokers continue to tout the 106 as an excuse not to deliver certificates?
Accrude value- - You said that and where is this letter of indemnity. Link please
Under revoked status should not all certificate be returned to the transfer agent? All discrepancies of share totals were taken care I believe in 2006. There fore the dtcc should have taken appropriate steps following the revoke. Worthless is the wrong word!
Not recognized as a tradable stock by this market is not worthless.
Again Choice of words to disenfranchise a client to obtain a cert in order to place in a favorable haven to trade is obstruction!
CHOOSE to rely is what you should have stated.
Several press releases have given instruction on how FINRA members are to fulfill clients requests for certificate! Also I believe a value was stated in one press release.
Upfront you are - and I can appreciate that
if a fool and his money is soon parted
is a fool a fool if his confidence in his trade and money is intercepted by thieves?
last post
Thank you and true true behind the eight ball I would say
brokers would have taken anyones money til the end of time
it was the SEC that halted the trading --------- looking for link
Desperate people do desperate things.
What will the brokers have to say when the dtcc no longer has 106 certs
I bet they pull a broadridge
There should be NO need to fuss if you got on the bus!!!
I am requesting a certificate for xxxxxx shares Bancorp International Group, Inc. Cusip #05968x205 Transaction xxxxxxxxx
How Ameritrade has continued to ignore the facts is no longer frustrating. This is out right disturbing.
Please stop using outdated information and get up to speed with current events.
Attached is the recent press release from the the President & CEO of Bancorp International Group Inc.
along with a copy of YOUR certificate for 500 share in Bancorp. The press release is self explanatory and the proper path for you to obtain my request.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9340152.htm
Thank you for your cooperation
The next FU answer along with the other cataloged and collated pound sand answers along with the timeline of events will be given a visit to the local FBI office and asked to have a review!
From the FBI website:
Corporate Fraud
General Overview
As the lead agency investigating corporate fraud, the FBI has focused its efforts on cases which involve accounting schemes, self-dealing by corporate executives, and obstruction of justice. The majority of corporate fraud cases pursued by the FBI involve accounting schemes designed to deceive investors, auditors, and analysts about the true financial condition of a corporation or business entity. Through the manipulation of financial data, the share price, or other valuation measurements of a corporation, financial performance may remain artificially inflated based on fictitious performance indicators provided to the investing public. In addition to significant financial losses to investors, corporate fraud has the potential to cause immeasurable damage to the U.S. economy and investor confidence.
While the number of cases involving the falsification of financial information remains relatively stable, the FBI has observed an increase in the number of insider trading cases. Insider trading has been a continuous threat to the fair and orderly operation of the U.S. financial markets and has robbed the investing public of some degree of trust that markets operate fairly. The dissemination of material, non-public information, commonly referred to as insider information, has also caused irreparable harm to victim institutions whose employees illegally pass privileged corporate information. The FBI has worked extensively with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to target the widespread problem of insider trading which has plagued the fair and orderly operation of the securities markets.
Additionally, corporate fraud matters involving self-dealing by corporate executives, particularly utilizing companies to perpetrate large-scale, high-yield fraud schemes, continue to be an issue of concern. Traditionally, Ponzi schemes were perpetrated by individuals or small groups within a community environment. However, the current financial crisis resulted in the exposure of several large Ponzi schemes (e.g. Petters Worldwide investigation) perpetrated not on an individual community level, but on a corporate national level by executives of what were once considered legitimate companies.
The FBI continues to address corporate fraud cases—specifically involving subprime lending institutions, brokerage houses, home-building firms, hedge funds, and financial institutions—as a result of the financial crisis partly caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the fall of 2007. As a result of the current financial crisis, trillions of dollars in shareholder value were lost, several prominent companies went out of business, several prominent banks failed, and the federal government provided over a trillion dollars in relief to keep other companies from failing.
A subprime mortgage lender is a business that lends to borrowers who do not qualify for loans from mainstream lenders. Once the subprime loans have been issued, they are bundled and sold as securities—a process known as securitization. Fraud has been identified throughout the loan process, which commences with the borrower providing false information to the mortgage broker and/or lender. The next layer of potential fraud— the corporate fraud—occurs with the banks, brokerage houses, and other financial institutions that package loans through the securitization process. As the housing market declined, subprime lenders have been forced to buy back a number of nonperforming loans. Many of these subprime lenders have relied on a continuous increase in real estate values to allow the borrowers to refinance or sell their properties before going into default. However, based on the sales slowdown in the housing market, loan defaults increased, the secondary market for subprime securities dwindled, and the securities lost value. As a result, publicly traded stocks dramatically decreased in value as financial institutions realized large losses due to the subprime securities they held or insured, resulting in financial difficulties and bankruptcies. After experiencing a dramatic rise in cases during FY 2009, the number of investigations pertaining to the subprime industry has remained relatively stable during the last two years.
As publicly traded companies suffered financial difficulties due to subprime market losses, analyses of company financials have identified instances of false accounting entries and fraudulently inflated assets and revenues. Investigations have determined that several of these companies manipulated their reported loan portfolio risks and used various accounting schemes to inflate their financial reports. Additionally, before these companies’ stocks rapidly declined in value, executives with insider information sold their equity positions and profited illegally. The FBI continues to coordinate with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the SEC, and other U.S. law enforcement and regulatory agencies to identify and address possible corporate fraud.
Corporate fraud remains one of the highest priorities in CID. At the end of FY 2011, 726 corporate fraud cases were being pursued by FBI field offices throughout the United States, several of which involved losses to public investors that individually exceed $1 billion.
Corporate fraud investigations involve the following activities:
Falsification of financial information of public and private corporations, including:
False accounting entries and/or misrepresentations of financial condition;
Fraudulent trades designed to inflate profit or hide losses; and
Illicit transactions designed to evade regulatory oversight.
Self-dealing by corporate insiders, including:
Insider trading—trading based on material, non-public information—including, but not limited to:
Corporate insiders leaking proprietary information;
Attorneys involved in merger and acquisition negotiations leaking info;
Matchmaking firms facilitating information leaks;
Traders profiting or avoiding losses through trading; and
Payoffs or bribes in exchange for leaked information.
Kickbacks;
Misuse of corporate property for personal gain; and
Individual tax violations related to self-dealing.
Obstruction of justice designed to conceal any of the above-noted types of criminal conduct, particularly when the obstruction impedes the inquiries of the SEC, other regulatory agencies, and/or law enforcement agencies.
The FBI has formed partnerships with numerous agencies to capitalize on its expertise in specific areas such as securities, tax, pensions, energy, and commodities. The FBI has placed greater emphasis on investigating allegations of these frauds by working closely with the SEC, Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Labor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), among others. In September 2010, the FBI executed a memorandum of understanding with the SEC and placed a supervisory special agent within the SEC’s Office of Market Intelligence in order to facilitate cooperation in a variety of financial investigations. This assignment has facilitated case referrals between both agencies. In addition, the FBI is an active member of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) created by Presidential Executive Order in November 2009. As reflected in the statistical accomplishments of the FBI, the cooperative and multiagency investigative approach has resulted in highly successful prosecutions.
WV
Thanks
specific performance
Specific performance is an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to award/ for awarding damages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
WV
Your link this info
2008? I am not familiar with Scorchedyourtrade!
The dates are important.
You need to go back and get each trade transaction thru account statements or tax files - somehow.
The shares in your account that are pre lock (before the 16th or 11th) were subject to all the short margin players and T-3 rules the DTC could bless. there fore the SEC 204 rule should apply.
this is a good explanation:
http://www.itg.com/compliance/sec-rules-regulations/sec-rule-204/
Post lock is on the brokers and now we have proven in a court of law the brokers ripped us off.
Any one who purchased shares after the 16th has the possibility to get a refund.
I am certain I am correct on this.
This only applies to the trades after the Aug. 16th lock. Everything before the lock is another story!
Carlton Huxley
CONGRATULATIONS
May your dominos keep on falling.
also my mail box is empty
i have my running shoes on
HIt them in the knee caps with the hammer of truth
Her foot is in it for sure.
wonder if it was a favor. think she will take this for the team? she might become the hero
I understand the looking out for each other thing and protecting your people stuff
Thinking some one inside there has to have a conscious and see the discrepancy andactually have the integrity to correct the issue is probably the dream.
yep email them both along with sending them a certified (cert. funny) letter.
Not really expecting them to reply.
I did send a complaint to the SEC also but with this honor among thieves thinking I see another dead end there.
I will have them “shoot down” "these accusations" to the Colorado bar association and the AG if they do not reply.
Arrogated behemoth indeed
Not all inside this monster can be all bad!
We will without a doubt know who the shills are as they no longer post.
And I still believe the arrogated attitude in their posts is a clear and accurate example of how and what the brokers actually think of the individual investor.
I am thinking Rule 204 will come into play?
FAILURE TO DELIVER
To address abusive “naked” short selling in equity securities, the SEC announced on October 14, 2008, that it was adopting a rule requiring that self-clearing broker dealers deliver securities by settlement date, or if the participants have not delivered shares by settlement date, immediately purchase or borrow securities to close out the fail to deliver position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the settlement day following the day the participant incurred the fail to deliver position.
A participant that does not comply with this close-out requirement will not be able to short sell the security either for itself or for the account of any customer, unless it has previously arranged to borrow or borrowed the security, until the fail to deliver position is closed out. This Rule has now been adopted permanently by the SEC and is known as SEC Rule 204.
SHORT SALES
With respect to short sales, any fail to deliver by regular settlement date (trade date plus three or “T+3”) must be bought in no later than the beginning of trading (9:30 a.m. ET) the next day (“T+4”). If the security that is failing is not bought in on the next settlement date at or before the opening of trading, then the broker dealer is penalized in that it must not effect short selling in that security for itself or by any of its clients unless it has obtained a guarantee from a lender known as a “pre-borrow”. The SEC has stated in industry conference calls that the manner of the buy-in must be with a Market on Open (“MOO”) order on T+4. We understand that a MOO price may be higher than a price that could be obtained throughout the trading day but the SEC mandates that we purchase not later than on the open.
LONG SALES
In addition, all fail to deliver positions resulting from long sale transactions on T+3 must be bought in no later than the open of trading on T+6. Just as with T+4 buy-ins, it must be made using a MOO instruction. If a broker-dealer has failed to buy in the Securities within the stated time periods, then the broker-dealer and its clients are penalized in that the broker dealer must not effect short selling in that security for its own account or for the account of any customer without first pre-borrowing the security.
What ever it is - you will have it in writing.
Who Is it that assigns the cusip number!!!
tia