Pedro feels that the first slide is the most important. Very simply, it is an aerial photo of the actual site where development has already commenced on the Ecopark.



Apparently, the developer is the same guy who developed the Los Suenos resort (which I mentioned in my Costa Rica trip report): http://www.lsrm.com/

Exactly. To the Foundation.

Not the company, the Foundation... two different entities.

Big money investors invest in stocks that they can short... not everyone can short subpenny stocks.

Real investors generally like the ability to play it both ways, and liquidity is an absolute necessity.

Of course (sarcasm, for the purpose of clarity).

How many times share value? From what I heard, whenever they offered to help out anyone that wanted to take part in the exchange (before the cutoff), they offered investors PDR's, which were backed by shares at the current PPS.

"60xx" would be an interesting sell to the normal folks.

It's a problem for all... don't assume.

That's between you and them. At this point, I'm surprised that you expect anything from them.

I told you a long time ago that your approach was "not effective", and that a more proper recourse would be to either play by the rules of the system, or to hire an attorney and litigate your dispute. However, you insisted on doing it the 'superhero' way, and it got you nowhere... maybe you would rather take espa's advice?: #msg-26977257

If you think about it, if you were to utilize OA as your attorney (if he really is one), then you might even afford him his long-threatened opportunity at discovery. :)

But, in any case, if you really want to know why/if they changed their minds on returning your assets, then you need to ask them. And, in general: the more formal the request; the more formal the response (i.e. individual vs. attorney, insults vs. courtesy, et cetera).

You previously mentioned having actually hired an attorney... maybe you could have your attorney contact them and determine why they have taken the actions that they have taken, and then have him explain to you the legality of such actions. Or, if anything, you could have your attorney advise you of a more efficacious approach.

Regardless, I am semi-interested to hear the outcome.

Best of luck.

Not only not acceptable, but he wants to see them in jail... a great way to get folks to work with you.

He did not, and still does not, understand the rules of the game.

Please explain, logically, what you find ridiculous. I do not follow your argument.

OA,

I've been too busy for distractions over the last few months or so, in addition to traveling a lot... kinda hard to fit into my superhero uniform under those parameters: notice the name.

As of last Friday, I should have a little more time for a while.

Never get involved with people you don't trust: trust is #1. If you don't think that they will honor their guarantee, then don't transfer certificates to them (or request those that have already been transferred back). Very basic, and on the house.

There is nothing keeping you waiting on a guarantee that you don't think is legit.

You are the one provoking the subject. And, you are the one who is "worried as heck" about your certificates being in the hands of a protector who has offered to return your assets, upon request. That is your horse.

Never get involved with people you don't trust: trust is #1. If you don't think that they will honor their guarantee, then don't transfer certificates to them (or request those that have already been transferred back). Very basic, and on the house.

They will honor them: I need no legal recourse. But, I don't think that they will ever need to do so, if they can get their act together.

Exactly. There are many kinds of contracts and guarantees, both written and oral. A guarantee is merely a promise, and does not have to be written, signed by a legal entity, registered with a public registry, backed by insurance, or any of the other jazz that people keep coming up with. In this case, the guarantees have not only been written, but they have been PR'd around the world. And, they are printed on the PDR certificates to boot.

According to the PDR Exchange website: FPA.

http://tinyurl.com/2wu8yg

And, who says that a guarantee has to be signed by a legal entity, written in a contract, or anything else you guys come up with?

Do you happen to know the rules of guarantees? Sources? I am curious.

I see a lot of talk with no support, and cannot seem to verify any of the rules that you guys come up with.

I'm just having fun with you. It is people like you that actually make it interesting for me to post. :)

And, PDR recipients = a majority of the posters on this board (who are, or once were, shareholders). Thus, according to you, we are mostly sheeple on this board! LOL.

In general, matters pertaining to the Foundation are private... something to do with the whole PPIF thing. And, it would be his choice as to whether or not to discuss such matters with folks who are not beneficiaries.

In any case: keep trying. Law 25 states that the charter must be registered at the Public Registry, and the Foundation itself is clearly registered.

BTW, Spanish would be a useful language to learn.

Read the financials. Any aquisition using money from within the Foundation would have to have been made by the Foundation on behalf of PNMS.

Sort of. But, that doesn't answer my questions.

Few people conveyed money, so few people can technically get money back. And, Pedro has a standing offer to return the conveyed assets (and close the account) of any beneficiary who no longer wants to be a member of the Foundation, doesn't really understand the concept of the Foundation, or isn't willing to wait for the PDR Exchange to work out its issues.

People can receive transactional proceeds from the Foundation when the Exchange is finally running and MT implements his monycard/loan system (for which the current predicted date is somewhere near the beginning of December).

This matters because it regards the ownership of assets in Trusts and PPIF's, and the difference between Trusts and PPIF's... which appear to be central issues for most Canadians, and directly relates to the topic of the thread. I am also trying to teach some folks to fish (metaphorically speaking of course).

I agree: pretty misleading. Although, I don't think that it was their intention to mislead. And, some things, such as uplisting, were never ruled out: they only said that it wouldn't be right for the time being (instead deciding that they would establish the PDR Exchange and remain an operating company of the Foundation, while addressing the putative issues surrounding US market manipulation).

It is just how it is.

Note: PPIF = Panamanian Private Interest Foundation.

You are correct. Legally, it owns everything; beneficially, it owns nothing. That is a context issue from the time of posting, when it was implicitly referring to beneficial ownership.

I agree, given the obvious transparency issues surrounding a US publicly traded company being associated with a PPIF.

And, by sheeple you mean PNMS investors, including a large percentage of posters on this board. A personal attack on everyone: way to go. Yet, the offer still stands for folks who are not willing to wait, want out, or are simply unhappy with the fact that wire transfers were quashed.

I don't know... can't even get the guy to respond to emails. Maybe he is a mime? The funniest comment that I have heard thus far was that he was expected to hit the ground running, but instead fell down and couldn't get back up. LOL.

I'm glad the post was funny, although there wasn't much to it other than saying that I had to leave the lab (which I have to do now... will read your other posts later (probably not tonight)).

"All that hot air is elementary and meaningless" really means that you had nothing to say, but wanted to post just to post.

And, it appears that you still have not requested the Foundation Charter. We have covered that before: take some initiative.

For example:

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: doubledip who wrote msg# 89380
Date:9/18/2007 3:32:26 AM
Post #89381 of 94320

Agreed on all points.

"Only time will tell.": I have said the same before.

"Patience is running short on liquidity.": It appears to run the shortest with those for whom it does not affect.

And, "FPA charter will show up sooner or later I am sure.": It will show up sooner if you request it (and it can be made public).

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22945389 ]


Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: doubledip who wrote msg# 92243
Date:10/21/2007 12:25:43 AM
Post #92251 of 94320

Pedro is pretty transparent... all you have to do is contact the man (which you know).

Email: pborges@panamersa.com

What is the iron curtain that you speak of? The login page for your email account?

Take some initiative.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=23868854 ]

And, the questions:

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: overachiever who wrote msg# 92014
Date:10/19/2007 6:46:11 PM
Post #of 94204

There are major differences between a Trust and a Panamanian Private Interest Foundation (PPIF). The primary difference regards ownership.

To help simplify things for you, I have two questions:

1. Who owns the assets of a Trust?, and

2. Who owns the assets of a PPIF?

If you can find the answers to these two questions, then you will find the primary difference between a Trust and a PPIF.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=23852018 ]

BTW, I explicitly answered one of these questions in two of the previous posts.

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: overachiever who wrote msg# 92375
Date:10/21/2007 9:56:32 PM
Post #92379 of 94204

That is part of the diligent design... the Foundation itself retains complete legal ownership and power over all assets within the Foundation. And, like any other foundation (or entity), Fundacion Pan America can do with its assets as it pleases. However, in this case, it holds onto whatever assets you give it, it invests the assets as you direct it, and then it gives them back to you one day (not via wire transfer, as of now); whereupon you would be responsible to pay any and all taxes.

Trading PDR's on the PDR Exchange is not exactly trading assets. The underlying assets that are represented by the PDR's are always held in the Foundation, and never change hands, unless they are physically removed from the Foundation. Therefore, trading PDR's is just that, trading receipts that represent assets that are entirely owned by the Foundation.

One of your buddies previously likened it to trading Pokémon cards, and it is similar, only the Pokémon cards would be worth more. However, when a beneficiary "cashes in" their PDR's, the Foundation would grant them legal ownership of the underlying assets, whereupon monetary value would be obtained... the value is in the assets, not the PDR's, although the PDR's do represent the assets.

The PDR Exchange is essentially an online interface that allows "beneficiaries" to direct the Foundation as to how they would like it to invest whatever assets they retain "beneficial control" over. There are no owners in a Panamanian Private Interest Foundation.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=23878166 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: Distracted Scientist who wrote msg# 89354
Date:9/17/2007 10:28:53 PM
Post #89369 of 94204

The definitions are very specific.

Financial Interest in both cases requires the person, or the person serving as a representative, to be the Legal Owner or the Owner of Record. In this case, the Foundation is both the Legal Owner and the Owner of Record, where Owner of Record is defined as: "the person(s) who, according to the public records, is/are the owner(s) of a particular property."

Signature Authority is the ability to control the disposition of money or other assets in the account by directly contacting the bank, which in this case lies solely with the protector.

"Other authority exists in a person who can exercise comparable power over an account by direct communication to the bank or other person with whom the account is maintained, either orally or by some other means." In this case, no one can directly contact HSBC (the bank with whom the account is maintained), and control the disposition of any of the Foundation's assets. It is possible to contact the Foundation to withdraw assets, but it is entirely up to the protector's discretion as to whether or not to relinquish such assets... not quite the same as a bank account. Thus, it is a privilege, not authority.

If you have 'Signature or Other Authority' over the Foundation's account, then I am sure that there are some folks here who would like to talk with you about authorizing wire transfers.

PDR's represent the beneficial ownership of assets that are legally owned by Fundacion Pan America. They are essentially virtual receipts that represent underlying value, without having intrinsic value. And, there are no physical sub-accounts within the Foundation; there is only one main account wherein all of the Foundation's assets are pooled. The PDR Exchange functions as an interface to keep track of the beneficial ownership of such assets, but even the money is legally owned by the Foundation. Financial Interest does not return to the beneficiary until such time that they receive assets from the Foundation, whereupon the beneficiary would be responsible to pay any and all taxes.

However, prepaid debit cards would be considered a physical account, and would have to be declared if the value exceeded $10,000.

Fundacion Pan America was established for the express purpose of protecting and conserving beneficiaries' wealth, while maintaining their privacy. Everything that they have done is in full compliance with all relevant regulatory agencies, and they have never promoted a tax evasion scheme.

Consult your own tax attorney.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22942418 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: Qone0 who wrote msg# 88758
Date:9/5/2007 3:31:48 PM
Post #88766 of 94204

The PDR Exchange and the Foundation do not sell securities: securities that are held by the Foundation remain on deposit, and second-party beneficiaries trade the depository receipts.

Pan America Depository Receipts (PDR's) are not securities.

A security is essentially a contract for any underlying financial asset that can be assigned a value and traded. And, financial assets derive value from contractual claims, which generally do not have physical value.

By definition, real property, such as real estate and precious metals, cannot be financial assets, and therefore depository receipts representing such assets cannot be securities. On the other hand, equity stocks are considered securities, and depository receipts representing such securities can be considered securities.

But, now you get to semantics.

Depository receipts representing underlying equity securities are generally considered securities themselves because they essentially transmute the form of the security to trade on another stock exchange. However, PDR's only represent the beneficial ownership of assets that are legally owned by the Foundation, for the duration that they are held by the Foundation. And, PDR's do not trade on public stock exchanges; they trade on the private PDR Exchange (Panama), which only allows for the ownership of PDR's to be transfered between second-party members of the Foundation. Essentially, the Foundation is a private investment club, focused on wealth management, and the PDR Exchange allows members of the Foundation to privately transfer receipts for assets between each other.

Furthermore, there are currently no requirements for PNMS to register with the SEC, so depository receipts representing PNMS shares would not have registration requirements by any stretch of the imagination.

An example of a depository receipt that would be considered a security, and would be required to register with the SEC, would be: a depository receipt representing securities, like Microsoft, issued to trade on a stock exchange, like Nasdaq. An example of a depository receipt that would not be considered a security, and would not be required to register with the SEC, would be: a depository receipt representing securities that are legally owned by the Foundation, which could also include Microsoft, issued to trade privately on the PDR Exchange, between second-party members of the Foundation.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22616286 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: HotStocks1 who wrote msg# 88045 Date:8/27/2007 8:13:59 PM
Post #88047 of 94204

PNMS receives 30% of PANAMERSA's income, but it is conveyed within the Foundation. The Foundation can make transactions on behalf of PNMS, but PNMS cannot directly access the money within the Foundation.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22407892 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: nyquist who wrote msg# 87569
Date:8/22/2007 12:02:18 AM
Post #87574 of 94204

The thread that I responded to was your discussion that Pan America S.A. could be audited. However, the discussion was pointless because PANAMERSA is not a publicly traded company, and has no obligation to provide anyone with financials.

PNMS did not provide audited financials earlier this year because their money is held within the Foundation, which will not allow their information to be made public. Therefore, they conducted an internal audit and provided their CPA-certified account balances.

Are you suggesting that the company should audit their quarterly financials? This is truly a strange board if that is your demand. Not to say that it isn't possible, but I have never seen a company audit quarterly financials.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22263713 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: nyquist who wrote msg# 87530
Date:8/21/2007 10:22:16 PM
Post #87559 of 94204

PNMS cannot audit their financials at the present time, because the income that they obtain from PANAMERSA MMVII is held within the Foundation, which will not allow third parties to access the information that would be required to conduct the audit.

Pan America Sociedad Anonima (MMVII) PANAMERSA is not a publicly traded company, and has no obligation to provide anyone with audited financials.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22261968 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: midas716 who wrote msg# 87556
Date:8/21/2007 10:09:07 PM
Post #87557 of 94204

The Foundation itself owns nothing. It simply holds and protects assets on behalf of its beneficiaries.

Pan America Sociedad Anonima (MMVII) PANAMERSA is the primary holding company.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=22261765 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: LH1 who wrote msg# 84713
Date:8/7/2007 4:01:39 PM
Post #84754 of 94204

PNMS itself can be audited. However, their assets are held within the Foundation, which will not allow a third party to access the information that would be required for the audit.

Therefore, several solutions have been recommended.

One option would be to have one auditor certify the Foundation account balances, and then another actually conduct the audit, using the certified account balances from the first auditor (which probably would not work).

A second option would be to restore PNMS as an associated company rather than an operating company, therefore removing it's assets from the Foundation.

And, a third option is currently being worked on that would allow PNMS to remain an operating company of the Foundation, yet take care of logistical concerns independently.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=21884004 ]

Posted by: Distracted Scientist
In reply to: mdavid40 who wrote msg# 81815
Date:7/25/2007 5:01:15 PM
Post #81951 of 94204

It should be clear by now that this is not a typical investment opportunity.

The purpose of Private Interest Foundation is to protect and manage wealth, in secrecy. They are usually for serious, well-endowed investors, who do not have to worry about consistently withdrawing money to pay for food and housing. Individuals, corporations and governments alike utilize Foundations because they allow their investments to grow in secrecy, without taxes and without outside intervention. And unlike banks, Foundations can even be moved to another country if political pressures begin to threaten the safety of the Foundation. However, the compliance issues that are associated with wiring money to any bank can compromise the integrity and secrecy of the Foundation for everyone involved.

Fundacion Pan America was set up for the purpose of providing asset protection to the beneficiaries of Pan America S.A and the investors of PNMS, in addition to giving common investors access to investment opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable to them (e.g. Crown corporations, infrastructure projects, etc.). Pedro understands that the purpose and concept of the Foundation was not made clear in advance, and will be allowing investors the opportunity to close their accounts and withdraw their investments from the Foundation. Otherwise, gains, dividends, and returns on investments can be either reinvested, collected in person, or accessed through the utilization of a MoneyCard.

[Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=21556458 ]

I'm in a hurry and need to get going... so I will repost some info about the Foundation, and then pose some questions for you that no one would answer before.

Cheers!

I think everyone here would agree with you. But, they (MT) are deadset on dealing with the situation in their own way, which doesn't involve benefitting potential short sellers or flippers, while leaving 'loyal shareholders' out in the cold (which is basically what they have done so far). The way that they have chosen to address the issue will just take more time, and no manner of bashing will change the final outcome (delay it a bit, maybe).

Doubtful.