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.
Meanwhile, Pearl Asian Mining has recently engaged the services of AGN Associates & Stock Transfer Services Co., LLC as transfer agent....It is located at 5431 Auburn Blvd, Suite #178, Sacramento, CA 95841. Phone#: 916/760-7712; Fax#: 916/313-8828 (EFax); e-mail: agnstockta@yahoo.com, ATTN: Mrs. Alice Navas, President/Owner.
Alice Navas ==> Alice Gamboa-Navas ==> appears to be Pearl's relative
5431 Auburn Blvd, Suite #178, Sacramento, CA 95841 ==> mailbox address ==> Express Mail Centers
http://yellowpages.superpages.com/profile~OO_0~R_A~refine_Services%3APassports%3B~CID_546603~LID_Voa...
Ms. Ryan commented that Alice Gamboa is now Alice Gamboa-Navas. She got married on December 29, 2002 to Jeffrey Navas.
http://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/pc2003/minutes/summary/02-10.htm
=====
AGN Associates incorporated 3/28/2007
Nevada Corp: https://esos.state.nv.us/SoSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=GkrY3FTjDNuJKCV01N8PSA%253d%253d
California Registration:
AGN ASSOCIATES & STOCK TRANSFER SERVICES, LLC
Number: 200710810136 Date Filed: 4/16/2007 Status: active
Jurisdiction: NEVADA
Address
2248 MERIDIAN BLVD STE. H
MINDEN, NV 89423
Agent for Service of Process
CORPORATE DIRECT OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (C2539617)
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200710810136
No TA-1 filed w/ SEC:
http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=AGN+Associates&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=...
=====
Looks like Alice is also associated w/ LLG Foundation:
From Dec 06 PAIM PR: The 3-day mission was done at the Whispering Hope Healing Center and then at Rogongon's LLG Foundation Health Center.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_Dec_18/ai_n16912410
Nevada Corp:
https://esos.state.nv.us/SoSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=hcWg1GjmL%252fu6rqNrgiSHmg%253d%253d
California Registration:
LLG FOUNDATION, INC.
Number: C2974918 Date Filed: 3/26/2007 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
2248 MERIDIAN BLVD-H
MINDEN, NV 89423
Agent for Service of Process
CORPORATE DIREC T OF CALIFORNIA , INC.
8203 SIERRA COLLEGE BLVD STE 200
GRANITE BAY, CA 95746
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2974918
55% in blue vs 45% in red **
RI has the highest percentage of listed investors compared to its population.
RI 0.00138%
DC 0.00095%
VI 0.00093%
NJ 0.00086%
DE 0.00075%
NY 0.00071%
NH 0.00070%
MD 0.00068%
AZ 0.00065%
TX 0.00065%
.
.
.
.
MT 0.00010%
LA 0.00007%
NE 0%
PR 0%
SD 0%
** using state breakout from 2004 prez election
06-04-2007 RESP - 51113310 Jun 4 2007 4:14:03:333PM - $ 0.00
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM JAMES JONAS (FILED UNDER SEAL)
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getcaseinformation.asp?submitted=true&number=CJ-2007-3181+...
tavy, my neighbors and I received the same snail mail spam on CAUI once in April and again last week. They're using mailing lists like bulk advertisers do.
Sterling, you skipped the second part of that sentence though: "or additional shares will be issued to compensate for any shortage." This creates a huge loophole allowing preferred to be converted and dumped at any price w/o penalty.
As for EPS, you've been focusing on Basic EPS and ignoring the overhang. Diluted EPS is a far more accurate estimation of total earnings per share. Per the 10K, the amount of diluted shares is over 33.7B. Who knows why they've been reporting basic and diluted EPS as the same. One has to question whether their independent accounting firm is incompetent or doesn't exist.
These guys have a very, very long track record of massive dilution. Can't erase it. Canceling stock is pretty meaningless in pennies. They can cancel a chunk one minute and start issuing another chunk the next minute or day. Plenty of examples where this has happened. A better sign they've changed ways is by lowering the a/s and getting rid of all or most of that overhang. Even then, an outside investor needs to keep a very close watch.
Sure, you did. :o)
101. jimmym4
Megas' PR announcing the mess was the first indication not the suspension.
Publication doesn't appear to be a valid option in Saskatchewan. Looks like it's either by personal service, process server, or registered signature mail. If those don't work, one can request an order for substitutional service.
Judgment is enforceable as long as certain criteria is met. Here's the respective statute for Saskatchewan.
The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/E9-121.pdf
I would think if he doesen't file it soon he will lose the 15c-2-11 / Legacy status. I can't figure why he would want to do that.
It doesn't have an impact on that. Not filing required reports impacts listing and registration. The former is not a problem because BCIT currently sits in the grey market and is not listed on the OTCBB or an exchange. The latter isn't a problem either since the feds don't move for revocation of registration until a company has been delinquent for a year or more.
One danger though is the stock may spend an extra year on the pinks under the three-strike rule if trading ever resumes.
Why would hedge funds pay that kind of money if they could simply naked short? I guess those hedge fund guys aren't too bright.
Probably because they're too lazy. To avoid being caught, they would have to hide the activity by either colluding w/ others (which may end up costing them the same amount) or creating a big distraction. The latter can be done very cheaply by attracting a bunch of NSS diehards. Regulators will think these folks are more wackos and do nothing.
It would take a lot of energy though to keep such a group on message and move them to each desired target on a timely basis. One has to watch out other hedgies don't steal them.
Wouldn't the statute of limitations start the day Megas notified the public vs the first day of suspension?
Did you ask the attorney his opinion about chances of recovery for those who purchased after the company's notification? People can put on the old innocent act, but the fact is most purchased after finding out there was a problem and wanted to be part of a MOASS. Prior to being sealed, initial answers to the lawsuit showed purchase dates after Megas' announcement.
Sterling, the S-8 POS amended a registration statement for non-employee directors and consultants. Per the last 10Q: "As of March 31, 2007, the total remaining unissued shares under the RSP plans are 2,047,450,000." It appears they merely canceled the registration on stock which had not been issued yet.
Last week, they claimed 2 billion common held by management will be retired. Per the 10K, Ternes held a little over 2B common w/ 9.5M preferred. So, his common will probably be retired or more likely exchanged for preferred.
Unless these guys filed fraudulent documents, the S-8 POS has nothing to do w/ the 2 billion retired by management since the respective S-8 covered non-employees. IMO what they're doing here is just a gimmick. The 10K shows there's 33.7 billion common waiting to be exercised. Tons of dilution still in the wings.
---
Refs:
S-8: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062760/000114036106010731/forms-8.txt
10Q: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062760/000114036107010506/form10qsb.txt
10K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062760/000114036107007794/form10ksb.txt
You're incorrect. The S-8 POS does NOT retire or cancel stock from the outstanding. It merely amends the previous S-8 which was filed on 27 July 06. This type of registration (unless modified like they just did) is effective for ~3 years. Whenever the company issues shares against it during this time frame, recipients can immediately sell into the float.
It is NOT the method to retire or cancel stock from the outstanding.
If the outcome isn't listed, the inquirer could pull up the case at the courthouse. Lots of folks though dig up lawsuits and never check the outcome. They automatically assume the defendant lost or was found guilty. Some annoying acquaintance could always drop the info to embarrass one in social or professional circles.
This may not be an issue for some folks, but it very well could be for others.
Um, the issue was whether the lawsuit would show up on a background check for security clearances. It will.
"grow up..." -- Take your own advice dude!! I didn't say the lawsuit itself would impact one's clearance. It could however give investigators a push to go check out another aspect such as the person's behavior in playing pennies.
You probably have a better chance though of being embarrassed by some annoying acquaintance dropping this info in social circles. Look how many folks automatically assume Janice was found guilty on lawsuits because they wouldn't check the outcome. Same can happen to you on this one.
For what clearance level?
Background checks take several months to years depending on the clearance level, how much one has moved around, and number of foreign contacts. If yours was just done, the investigation was probably at or very near completion. Investigators don't do daily or weekly record checks. Alternatively, your clearance level is very low.
Once the security manager/SSO/etc is notified, the info becomes part of your record.
Come on, background checks for security clearances aren't done that fast. This lawsuit WILL show up when a check is done on any of the listed parties.
Looks like National Westminster Bank didn't exist in 1960.
"In 1968 National Provincial Bank (est.1833) and Westminster Bank (est.1836), merged as National Westminster Bank."
http://www.natwest.com/global_options.asp?id=GLOBAL/ABOUT_US
Credit card transactions and banking payments are governed by Federal Reserve regulations which impose a strict limit on customer losses when theft occurs. There isn't the same in place today protecting brokerage accounts from hackers.
Some brokers though offer cc-style guarantees on their own. Who knows whether they'll continue if incidences keep rising. Hopefully, some day regulations will materialize in this area to protect everyone.
When hackers break into online accounts, brokers have been covering victims' monetary losses though they aren't required. Periodically, brokers impose trading restrictions when they detect hacking or other unusual activity. I've seen this happen a few times in the past year.
Again, he has to know where Pino went with the shares to get a judgement against him. How else could he have won against Pino?
Easy, Pino et al quickly settled w/ BCIT. The case never went into the discovery phase or to trial. Plaintiff also granted dismissal for two defendants over lack of jurisdiction.
How can it be a scam w/ Fat Franks as CEO and WillyWiz as IR? :o)
Not all investors responded w/ broker info. This case didn't go long enough for the plaintiff to either accept or question document validity. So, statements sent directly to him or filed w/ the court carry the same weight. Nice rationalization.
Apparently, there's still a number of FTDs. Per Art, Megas wouldn't give the DTCC certs to cover them. So, he went this route trying to cancel investors' stock. Per email posted here, he supposedly believes ~95% of what defendants hold is not valid.
IMO BCIT probably folded because of pressure from one or more of these players: his own attorneys, defendant attorneys including new broker (ie deep pockets) paid ones, the judge, and/or counterclaimants.
Megas wouldn't have gotten to his goal anyway going this route. Better to cut now and hope not too many file lawsuits for damages, attorney fees, and/or costs.
No need to sue for that reason. The NOBO list shows how much stock each holder has, and the DTCC also keeps records. If he wanted investors to provide any info, he could have just sent a letter requesting it.
Of all the guesses thrown out here, IMO that one makes the least sense.
Um, a large reputable law firm doesn't sue over 1,000 innocent people w/ false allegations. Any rookie securities attorney should know NOBOs don't hold certs.
Qualification of other attorneys at a firm doesn't matter. The two working this case were out of their element. Their practices are in other areas not securities. Come on, they didn't even know NOBOs don't hold certs.
If there's a phase II, he should think about hiring some securities attorneys.
Agree. The defendant does not prove innocence in civil (or criminal) cases.
OK's district court jurisdiction in this area is pretty narrow. Had the case not been dismissed, Megas wouldn't have achieved what he was trying to do.
Perhaps you didn’t follow the thread. Rex claimed there's a rule which says the PLAINTIFF (key word is PLAINTIFF) must pick up the cost and distribute other parties’ court documents (not just their own) to each party. I’ve read the rule you posted there, and it doesn't support his claim.
No, shareholders did not prove innocence. I've explained a few times why, but you refuse to learn. In court, a defendant is never found "innocent" but instead "not guilty." There is a big difference between the two.
Huh? I didn't say the judge waived it here, but that HE CAN.
Janice and a couple others reminded folks that they should be distributing copies of submissions to everyone, but they didn't listen. Not sure they even had everyone's address until after receiving counts 2-5 dismissal package.
If brought in, IMO brokers will probably request dismissal or move the case to federal court. OK district court's jurisdiction in this area is pretty narrow.
A person won't win against his broker for selling counterfeit stock w/o some proof. Megas hasn't provided any yet. Shoot, he has problems understanding NOBOs don't hold certs.
A number of defendants embraced a boilerplate answer which someone said was drafted by the plaintiff's attorneys. They included brokerage statements because they were so intent on proving innocence. No one ever proves innocence in a court case. The best one can ever do is counter allegations w/ why he should not be found guilty.
If you ask nicely, the plaintiff's attorney may provide copies of the documents. Per OK rules, the onus for distribution falls on the submitter. The judge though can waive this when there's a lot of parties.
IMO each defendant ought to review or at least have access to all docs because it may influence his strategy or require him to defend himself. Say five defendants decide to blame 10 others as being Pino's accomplices. Without reviewing docs, they may not have a clue that happened until after the judge rules against them while dismissing everyone else.
Hmmmm. That's the second time now where you failed to produce a rule you said exists. Come on admit it, you either don't have an attorney or yours is pretty dumb.
The link mAjOr dAmAgE posted here is a discovery request which is what I addressed:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19596828
Rules huh? Whose rules -- your own? LOLOL I don't see any OK court rule that says the plaintiff must absorb costs/manpower for distributing other parties' documents. By all means, go ahead and post the applicable one.
The issue was filing dismissal due to jurisdiction then demanding discovery material before the judge rules on your request.