Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[glaszman]

from the Plaintiff's OBJECTION TO MOTION TO ASSESS ATTORNEY FEES AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THROUGH COUNSELS CLEVE W. POWELL AND THOMAS J. MORRIS


i have to use OCR to copy this and post it so the mistakes are the OCR program not mine, or the plaintiff's legal team

9. In December of 2006, the DTCC, NASDAQ, NASD and other parties (together, the “Regulatory Parties”) held a conference call with the principals of Bancorp to discuss the unauthorized shares of Bancorp stock and the possibility of Bancorp being allowed to trade again. See Exhibits “A” and “B.”

10. Bancorp’s representatives requested assistance from the Regulatory Parties to resolve the matter without litigation; however, Bancorp was directed that a lawsuit against the shareholders believed to be holding unauthorized shares of stock was necessary and required in order for Bancorp to determine its legitimate shareholder base. See Exhibits “A” and “B.”
11. The Bancorp representatives were told by the participants on the conference call that a Court order determining which shares of Plaintiff’s stock are valid would be required before Plaintiff could commence trading its stock again. See Exhibits “A” and “B.”
12. The Bancorp representatives personally reviewed the list provided by the Plaintiff’s transfer agent showing the shareholders of record to the NOBO list (list of non-objecting beneficial owners whose shares are held of record in the name of nominee) provided by ADP Investor Communication Services with other representatives of Plaintiff to determine who potentially held fraudulently issued shares of stock. See Exhibits “A” and “B.” The shareholders who appeared on the NOBO list but who did not appear on the transfer agent’s list were named in the lawsuit. See Exhibits “A” and “B.” Bancorp’s representatives, being aware of the identity of the eighty (80) legitimate shareholders, also had personal knowledge of persons who likely had counterfeited shares. See Exhibits “A” and “B.”
13. Based on the following known facts, Bancorp filed this lawsuit with the belief that numerous Defendants had obtained their fraudulently issued shares of stock from unauthorized third-party wrongdoers:
• Defendants were not one of the known 80 legitimate shareholders;
• Bancorp’s transfer agent did not list the Defendants as a verified shareholder of Bancorp;
• Defendants purchased their stock in 2005 when the counterfeited shares were produced;
• Bancorp did not receive any monies for the stock purchased by the Defendants;
• Pino and the wrongdoers are known to have distributed the False Certificates in an attempt to “take over” the Bancorp entity, so it is logical that numerous persons would be involved;
• Pino told Mr. Sytnar that he gave shares to persons who did not pay for their shares of Baneorp stock.
See Exhibits “A” and “B.”
14. Bancorp specifically denies that the “sole basis” for the allegations of fraud made against the Carte Defendants was that their names appeared upon a list of stockholders and Bancorp could not verify their stock was valid. This was only one of the numerous reasons the Carte Defendants were named, as outlined herein.
15. Bancorp anticipated that any legitimate shareholders would be able to request stock certificates from their brokers and provide Bancorp with legitimate stock certificate numbers verifying their purchase of Plaintiffs stock. See Exhibits “A” and “B.” To the best of Bancorp’s knowledge, almost all of the responses (the Carte Defendants did not file a response) filed in the lawsuit failed to show a legitimate stock certificate with CUSIP number on the Defendant’s stock. See Exhibits “A” and “B.” When given the opportunity to provide Bancorp with a copy of their stock certificates and prove their position in this lawsuit, the Carte Defendants failed to do so,
16. Upon receiving responses from Defendants (except the Carte Defendants did not file responses) evidencing that the False Certificates were being traded on the open market, Plaintiff immediately dismissed claims #2 - #5 (allegations of fraudulent conduct). See Exhibits “A “and “B.”


EXHIBIT” A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

6. On August 11, 2005, Plaintiff made a public announcement verifying the existence of counterfeited shares.
7. On August 16, 2005, the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (the “DTCC”) sent out the alert attached hereto as Attachment “1,” which advises that the DTCC suspendcd all services for Plaintiff’s stock based on the alleged counterfeited shares.

13. Plaintiff was informed and directed by the participating parties, that a lawsuit against the shareholders believed to be holding unauthorized shares of stock was necessary and required in order for Plaintiff to determine its legitimate shareholder base.
14. The conference call participants informed Plaintiff that a Court order determining which shares of Plaintiffs stock are valid would be required before Plaintiff could commence trading its stock again.
15. I personally reviewed the list provided by the Plaintiffs transfer agent showing the shareholders of record to the NOBO list (list of non-objecting beneficial owners whose shares are held of record in the name of nominee) provided by ADP kvestor Communication Services with other representatives of Plaintiff to determine who potentially held fraudulently issued shares of stock. The shareholders who appeared on the NOBO list but who did not appear on the transfer agent’s list and were not part of the legitimate shareholdçrs known to me, were named in the lawsuit.
16. Based on the following known facts, Bancorp filed this lawsuit with the belief that numerous Defendants had obtained their unauthorized shares of stock from unauthorized third-party wrongdoers:
To the best of my knowledge, Defendants were not one of the known 80 legitimate
shareholders
Bancorp’s transfer agent did not list the Defendants as a verified shareholder of Bancorp
Defendants acquired their stock in Bancorp in 2005 when the counterfeited shares were produced
Bancorp did not receive any monies for the stock purchased by the Defendants
Pino and the wrongdoers are known to have distributed the False Certificates in an attempt to “take over” Bancorp


19. Plaintiff anticipated that any legitimate shareholders will be able to request stock certificates from their brokers and provide Plaintiff with stock certificate numbers verifying their purchase of Plaintiffs stock. To the best of my knowledge, almost of the responses filed in the lawsuit failed to show a legitimate stock certificate with CUSIP number on the Defendants’
stock.

20. Plaintiff believed this lawsuit was the only means for determining the legitimate shareholder base for Plaintiffs stock and to have the ability to commence trading again.
21. Plaintiff believed that a Court order detennining that a shareholder held unauthorized stock would have provided a means for Defendants to seek recovery elsewhere.

EXHIBIT B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKL4IIOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
8. On August 31, 2005, the Securities Exchange Commission suspended all trading of Plaintiffs stock. See Attachment “2” hereto.
9. In September of 2005, the NASD issued a Special Notice to Members regarding the status of Plaintiffs stock. See Attachment “3” hereto.
10. On September 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the known wrong doers who created and initially distributed the counterfeit shares of Plaintiff’s stock (“Known Wrongdoers”). Plaintiff ultimately executed a Settlement Agreement with the Known Wrongdoers; however, the Known Wrongdoers failed to fully perform under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff obtained judgments against several of the Known Wrongdoers and is in the process of trying to collect on its judgments. This lawsuit did not convince the DTCC to clear Bancorp’s stock for trading again.
11. To the best of my memory and belief, in December of 2006, the DTCC, NASDAQ, NASD, and other parties (the “Regulatory Parties”) held a conference call with me and other representatives of Plaintiff to discuss the unauthorized shares of Bancorp stock.
12. Plaintiff requested assistance from the Regulatory Parties to resolve this matter without litigation.
13. Plaintiff was informed and directed by the participating parties, that a lawsuit against the shareholders believed to be holding unauthorized shares of stock was necessary and required in order for Plaintiff to determine its legitimate shareholder base,
14. The conference call participants informed Plaintiff that a Court order determining which shares of Plaintiff’s stock are valid would be required before Plaintiff could commence trading its stock again.
15, I personally reviewed the list provided by the Plaintiffs transfer agent showing the shareholders of record to the NOBO list (list of non-objecting beneficial owners whose shares are held of record in the name of a nominee) provided by ADP Investor Communication Services with other representatives of Plaintiff to determine who potentially held fraudulently issued shares of stock. The shareholders who appeared on the OBOINOBO list but who did not appear on the transfer agent’s list and were not part of the legitimate shareholders known to me, were named in the lawsuit.
16. Based on the following known facts, Bancorp filed this lawsuit with the belief that numerous Defendants had obtained their unauthorized shares of stock from unauthorized third-party wrongdoers:
To the best of my knowledge, Defendants were not one of the known 80 legitimate shareholders
Bancorp’s transfer agent did not list the Defendants as a verified shareholder of Bancorp
Defendants acquired their stock in Bancorp in 2005 when the counterfeited shares were produced
Bancorp did not receive any monies for the stock purchased by the Defendants
Pino and the wrongdoers are known to have distributed the False Certificates in an attempt to “take over” Bancorp
Pino told me that he gave shares to persons who did not pay for their shares of Bancorp stock
17. Upon receiving responses from Defendants confirming that the unauthorized issued shares of stock were being traded on the open market, Plaintiff immediately dismissed claims #2 - #5 (allegations of fraudulent conduct). Bancorp believed that because numerous defendants had bought their shares on the open market, they were not knowingly involved with Pino or the fraudulent activity; however, Bancorp still believes some of the Defendants were involved with Pino and the wrongdoers. It became clear to Bancorp that it would be too costly to try to sort through the Defendants to determine the “innocent purchasers” from the “knowing wrongdoers.”

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getcaseinformation.asp?submitted=true&number=CJ-2007-3181+&db=Oklahoma&viewtype=oscn

i tried to leave out as much redundancy and worthless mumbo jumbo as possible without cutting it into nonesense....

i am confident that the judge was able to verify all of this and made a proper common sense legal decision....


and?

i didn't see anyplace where Megas contested the expungement... it's no big deal IMO...