Monday, August 08, 2016 9:33:33 PM
Thanks for that, but it's not quite clear to me.
I know that there was a 10% common dividend issued at the end of 2011. That was issued about a month after the 1:14 split. As far as I can tell they weren't "directly related" to each other...maybe you can tell me how they were.
Six months after that issuance the company was current with the SEC, so the restriction should have been readily lifted at that point.
OTCMarkets also shows this:
Security Notes
Stk Div.=8%. Ex-date=10-13-03. Rec date=7-21-03. Pay date=10-15-03
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 80 split Pay date=02/03/2006.
Those don't appear "directly related" either, occurring 3 years apart...and a decade ago to boot. Does anyone other than Berman himself go back that far?
Were you issued shares for both the 2003 and 2011 dividends?
It's hard for me to understand how they could just sit in your account for 5 or 10 years only to have their restrictions lifted without you taking any action.
I'm not clear on the basis for the restriction and I don't know where the concept of a fee comes into play.
"There was some type of cost associated with "unlocking them"."
There shouldn't have been any cost to remove the restriction other than a legal fee for an opinion letter. It's not unusual for some shareholders to have received such a small number of shares that selling them wouldn't generate enough cash to pay for an attorney letter, so they just sit there. In the case of a share dividend it's not unusual for the company to provide that service at no cost.
I don't know what happened here.
I know that there was a 10% common dividend issued at the end of 2011. That was issued about a month after the 1:14 split. As far as I can tell they weren't "directly related" to each other...maybe you can tell me how they were.
Six months after that issuance the company was current with the SEC, so the restriction should have been readily lifted at that point.
OTCMarkets also shows this:
Security Notes
Stk Div.=8%. Ex-date=10-13-03. Rec date=7-21-03. Pay date=10-15-03
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 80 split Pay date=02/03/2006.
Those don't appear "directly related" either, occurring 3 years apart...and a decade ago to boot. Does anyone other than Berman himself go back that far?
Were you issued shares for both the 2003 and 2011 dividends?
It's hard for me to understand how they could just sit in your account for 5 or 10 years only to have their restrictions lifted without you taking any action.
I'm not clear on the basis for the restriction and I don't know where the concept of a fee comes into play.
"There was some type of cost associated with "unlocking them"."
There shouldn't have been any cost to remove the restriction other than a legal fee for an opinion letter. It's not unusual for some shareholders to have received such a small number of shares that selling them wouldn't generate enough cash to pay for an attorney letter, so they just sit there. In the case of a share dividend it's not unusual for the company to provide that service at no cost.
I don't know what happened here.
Ralph Wiggum: I cheated wrong. I copied the Lisa name and used the Ralph answers.
