Dwiz5, about your comment...
Thanks for your email/post. It is greatly appreciated. Please understand though, my intentions are not to add more confusion or throw a twist into this although I have had my moments in other stocks (unintentionally). Believe me, I want this trading just as much as you!
Please understand...
BCIT most recently had done “only” a CUSIP# change and not a name change. Because of this, a new inventory of shares was not needed to be created to give to the DTC. This is what forced the DTC to use what was already electronically accounted for in their database of records. This is where I think the disparity exists between the DTC and the company.
So, to the DTC, they see that there is not a naked short position in shares as suggested by the company. The DTC sees instead a position with no errors needing correction because of the already existing electronic position of shares from the system they trust to be in tact. It never reached the step where the verification of shares by the DTC to put a new inventory of shares into our brokerage accounts had taken place because a new inventory was never created.
The new inventory of shares should have been created to mirror a new name, a new CUSIP#, and a new ticker. Just doing a CUSIP# change doesn’t create a new inventory of shares for dissemination to shareholder’s brokerages accounts. I am not sure if BCIT is aware of this. This is what I gathered from the CUSIP Service Bureau. Please call them at 212-438-6565 to please correct me if I wrong.
This is why the name change must take place too so that the new inventory of shares would be generated by the TA and sent through the CUSIP Service Bureau to the DTC. I think if this would have happened the DTC would not have ever stalled the process. These are my opinions that I have derived from talking to the CUSIP Service Bureau. This might only be a slight oversight by the company (or me), but maybe not. If there legal team call the CUSIP Service Bureau and asks some of the same questions as I did, I am confident they will get the same thing told to them as I.
Because of how it was originally done, still it could be considered that any change now would be interpreted as deceiving intentions by the company because of the time allowed to elapse for mentioning, but it be might worth a try for the company to at least look into this. I was also told that some of these things can happen in a matter of hours as opposed to days depending upon certain variables.
v/r
Sterling
