Shotsky you are wrong on all thee counts!
Your first sentence,
Quote:
"No, etrade is not affecting the stock price. They are simply a broker, and have stepped up a level of safety because of something Verus has said or done". ________________________________________________________________________
First off this one is both common sense and 4th grade math. Understanding ETRADE is only the broker but the ones who implemented the "Must call in to purchase screen". Example: you read some great news about this hot food distribution stock that looks like a real company. You put in a buy order and the call in screen comes up. You become a little uneasy about the purchase and move on to the next pick. That all by itself affects the PPS and don't even try on that one.
This is not to mention the VRUS holders who don't want to fool with calling in let alone the traders moving their account somewhere else.
_________________________________________________________________________
Your second sentence.
Quote:
_________________________________________________________________________
"They are simply a broker, and have stepped up a level of safety because of something Versus has said or done".
________________________________________________________________________
That is pure nonsense and speculation on your part. You have already said this prior and been rebutted. You have no way of knowing that. Only ETRADE knows what really started this, all other brokers have no issues with Versus. That one put you in the bash$rs category. Good job.
Your third sentence:
Quote:
______________________________________________________________________
That latest convertible note for BLF is backed by unregistered shares - which MIGHT be what etrade is using caution for...
Read the 8K and the note where it says:
“NEITHER THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE NOR THE SECURITIES INTO WHICH THESE SECURITIES ARE CONVERTIBLE HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS. THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF (A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE SECURITIES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL (WHICH COUNSEL SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE HOLDER), IN A GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FORM, THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SAID ACT OR (II) UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 OR RULE 144A UNDER SAID ACT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE SECURITIES MAY BE PLEDGED IN CONNECTION WITH A BONA FIDE MARGIN ACCOUNT OR OTHER LOAN OR FINANCING ARRANGEMENT SECURED BY THE SECURITIES.” _______________________________________________________________________
You say that the convertible note is backed by "unregistered Securities". That is patently false! You did your twisted interpretation on that one but I see you left the word MIGHT in caps as a way out.
Understanding that Versus is the seller and GS Capital, LLC is the buyer, the notes are backed up in the 8k by six million very registered Versus shares and how would you ever think any of Versus shares were unregistered from the 1933 securities act? That one was way out there.
Please feel free to show me anywhere in the 8k or any other Versus filing that any of their stock is unregistered. I'll wait.
Lastly and most comically, the bolded copy and paste of the Safe Harbor act filing disclaimer: (attached to all private placements by law)
The Note Versus sold, also being called a "Securities Purchase Agreement" is a private placement which it clearly states in the filing, yes filing with the SEC under section 4 (a)(2) of the 1933 securities act which covers all six private placements under Reg D of the Safe Harbor provision exempting it from registration and offered as a 501D.
If you read your own post in the Safe Harbor notice, (the one you copied and pasted) 3/4 down it uses the word "OR" (B) that registration is not required under the act.
In closing, nearly all OTC companies find funding at one point through Private Placements and back them with stock as one type of collateral. That would mean that ETRADE would have to "call in" for buys on most of the OTC stocks on the Pink sheets. My broker and many others have no problem with VRUS let alone all the others. If you held a securities license and made these type of unfounded claims your license would be immediately suspended or revoked.
After my Military career I obtained a Securities License (now expired) many years ago. I worked for a Venture Capital firm doing of all things, private placements for the secondary market.
VRUS LONG
SierraTrader
PS yes individual traders can short the pinks, it's just expensive.
