Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[weebie]

BCIT valuation determined by settlement PPS.
This update tracks with the Scottrade settlement with Lusk.

From: Bancorp International <[e-mail]>
Date: December 8, 2014 at 4:24:36 AM EST
To: Bancorp Investor Support <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update Dec 8

We are still pushing on with the arbitration cases and you might be interested to know that BCIT is now starting to flag up in the Financial Arbitrators journal.
I did not know they had this publication until somebody sent me a reference to one of the cases which had been to court before being compelled to arbitration.
It was interesting, because it was ostensibly reporting the story of how and why courts are enforcing the arbitration clause in brokerage agreements, it did cover the underlying case of the claimant wanting a share certificate and TDA not giving him one.
The author was clearly puzzled as to why TDA would not or could not give a certificate.

The cases in arbitration continue on and the brokers are in a very tight position and if it was not for the double dealing of FINRA there would be more cases won.
You will recall that when we first made our involvement we told you that we had been in touch with DTC etc to try to find out how a Private company could interfere with what is a constitutionally protected property right to have a share certificate.
We had looked for the legislation which made the DTC Lock a law and where it was written down that the lock prevented people getting certs and could not find anything.
Nobody at DTC or the SEC answered us.

Then as you know we found that BCIT had only issued around 750,000 shares on the old 106 cusip of which DTC had 645,806 which meant that there was not enough to cover the millions we knew about from the people who contacted us.

I dont want to rehash the old thing of property rights and naked shorts, the thing is that for any kind of rule to affect substantive rights of investors it has to go though a set process and the DTC lock has not been through that process.
In actual fact we have not found anything from DTC which says that the lock prevents the issuance of a certificate to individual Beneficial holders or that it relieves brokers of the responsibilities under the UCC etc.

Somebody flagged up that the alleged revocation of BCIT is now shown on the Edgar filings.
So what?
If you look it is not shown as an actual filing just a link and it was not added until September 2013 I think it was just when all the arbitrations started kicking in.
Coincidence? I think not.

We have had a crop of emails in over the last couple of weeks and I have responded to the senders, but there is a recurring theme and I want to address this

In spite of your ongoing shouting from the rooftops that those of us who do not file with finra or have 205s will be left behind, it would be wrong that only certain shareholders, and not all, would benefit.

This really shows the confusion that some people still have.
Filing with FINRA and being a 205 holder have nothing to do with each other.

In 2005 you did NOT buy shares from BCIT, you bought them from your broker, so your beef is with your broker not BCIT.
Pre lock the shares being used to cover trades were counterfeit and post lock they were fictitious, but either way they were not registered securities that had been issued by BCIT.
This does not alter the fact that your broker owes you these shares.

The value in BCIT is in the naked short.
It is a bit like rare stamps or coins, the value is in the scarcity.
The DTC Stock position report shows that pre lock brokers need to cover 328 million shares yet as we know DTC only have 645,805 to cover.
Now you do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out that means the shares DTC have will not cover the shares being sought.
The law of supply and demand means that the price goes up.

Organizations outside of BCIT will, when the time is right, make a move to make money from the naked short position.
They will want to acquire shares in BCIT because that can then sell them back to the brokers who have large positions to cover at more than they paid for them.
These firms are not going to be interested in book entry shares, they will want the real McCoy, they will only want good old fashioned paper certificates & paper certificates are 205s.

If you have a certificate then you are quids in as we say over here, but if you dont have one then you are going to have to either get your brokers to give you a certificate or you will bomb out.
That is not me or BCIT leaving you behind, that is YOU choosing NOT TO file and being left behind
The choice is YOURS and YOURS ALONE.
The buck stops with YOU.

Your beef is with your broker, and it is and always will be up to you to seek redress from your broker not BCIT.
You have an agreement with your broker who owes you the BCIT shares, you have NO agreement with BCIT.
If you decide to seek redress as 100 or so of you have then because your brokerage agreement contains a pre dispute arbitration clause you MUST file with the FINRA dispute arbitration service.

Some people have decided that they want to be a real part of BCIT and to be shareholders of record in BCIT and so have bought and paid for 205 shares.
It was not obligatory you all had the choice and still do, although with the retail price now officially $0.75 not a few cents it would cost you more that it did. (This price is based on what one broker is paying to settle a case)
I have no doubt that if you can prove you are an accredited investor and have entitlements in BCIT in a securities account with a broker you would get a discount, but the price of BCIT is on the move upwards.

BCIT made it very clear that those shareholders who filed and tried to get their certificates and were denied would be looked after IF a bid for the shares was made.
As you know the first 30 people who made claims were denied and in about 26 cases there were anomalies in the procedure.
Since the Lusk case in August when ST were compelled to deliver a certificate for 120,000 there have been very few decisions made.

If you do not think it worth trying to get your share certificates from your broker and filing with FINRA then that is your choice, but, you must accept the consequences of this AND you are probably going to have to face the consequences of this VERY soon.
Why do you think there are broker dealers and merchant banks asking about getting shares?

It may be that something happens which makes the brokers buy in all the shares and deliver to you, but I think that highly unlikely.

Look at it from a commercial perspective, would you just buy in say 80 million shares @ $0.75 and pay $60 million to cover everyone?
Of course you wouldn’t, you would try to get away with just buying in the shares you need to cover the people asking for them which might be about 10 million shares which would only cost you $7.5 million.
If they dont ask they wont get.
If you have bought a few more than you need then you have something to fall back on.
That is how it will work.
There are about 300 of you reading this and only just over 100 have filed.

I know it takes more effort than bumping your gums on the Ihub with the likes of Shell and others, but, this is the the only way YOU will get a result.

As for the bashers claim that this only makes Megas money, well the fact is that the shares that are sold from Treasury, so it is BCIT who makes the money not Megas and BCIT has looked after those who have won their claims.
I can also tell you that some of the money the company has made has been used to hire an attorney to have the Magruder award that FINRA tried to conceal confirmed in District court and to vacate three awards that were denied with prejudice.

So, to go back to the original email, yes those of you who do not file with FINRA will probably lose out, but it will be through no fault of ours or BCIT, it will be entirely down to you
You have been warned so many times I have lost count.
Dont bitch and moan to me in the new year.
You have a choice, you have been told what we think you need to do, and it is up to you whether you take that advice or not.
It does not have to cost a fortune, it can be as cheap as $50

--
Carlton Huxley Ltd
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]