RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[funmaxus]

The last time I checked, RCC Holdings Corp, with stock symbol RCCH.PK has a sole subsidiary IWS http://www.rccholdings.com/
IWS has a website as well, http://www.rcciws.com/ with a seperate link for "News Releases." http://www.rcciws.com/index-4.html
IWS has been updating this section frequently, in fact on February 17, 2010, IWS announced, "IWS Water Solutions, Inc. Pursues Legal Action." http://www.rcciws.com/Press%20Releases/MIR%202010%2002%2017.pdf I personally don't consider this to be some type of "obscure/general lawsuit" as RCC Holdings Corp, also announced on the same day, "RCC Aggresively Seeks Damages." http://rccholdings.com/images/M_images/pdf_button.png I personally am pleased that action(s) are being taken against those that have alledgely acted in the manner described in the aforementioned links. To me, it shows that management is taking serious steps to defend the shareholders and the company from activities perceived to be damaging. As far as "business operations, the TSX, share structure, etc?" I'm guessing you are asking me to comment on these issues as others have weighed in. A summary of the items of question can be perhaps best described as full disclosure and that is something that has not been made available since I first invested in the stock, which is my personal risk that I chose to take. At some point the cards will have to be laid on the table, so that all can determine if their investment will pay off. The ongoing discussion until recently has been one of timing, and I've commented on that previously. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46553871 Personally, it is beyond me that the lawsuit isn't being applauded. If you are a shareholder of any company, you would want the management of the company to defend itself from perceived attacks. Thus if there are any complaints, the complaints appear to be solely based on timing and the amount of time required to pursue legal action(s) against the party(s) involved.

Now, some additonal thoughts on the stimulus plan: The reality is that the stimulus plan has actually delivered about a third of the total $787 billion budget during its first year (see below for WSJ article, "Bulk of Stimulus Spending Yet to Come"). The "shovel ready" projects in which private industry are expected to receive money doesn't actually really begin until 2010. In addition, Congress is attempting to implement a jobs bill and implement additional water projects. There are a number of bills being discussed in Congress at the moment, including but not limited to:
H.R. 537 Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act of 2009
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46666915
S. 2996: A bill to extend the chemical facility security program of the Department of Homeland Security
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46814375

Then there is the 2011 budget, which is currently being discussed and highlights of this budget can be seen below following the article written by the WSJ, "Bulk of Stimulus Spending Yet to Come."
President Obama's Fiscal 2011 budget.
Environmental Protection Agency
Funding Highlights:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/environmental.pdf

At the same time these bills are being discussed, an overhaul of the financial industry is also being discussed:
H.R. 4173: Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46079841

The reason is to prevent another systemic crisis within the financial industry. The Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland wrote a detailed paper on this very topic in August 2009, which followed on the July 2009 announcement by the SEC, "SEC Takes Steps to Curtail Abusive Short Sales and Increase Market Transparency." My post on this matter is found here: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45045267

I've personally read the summary version and a large chunk of the full text version of HR 4173 and noticed that the word "systemic" appears numerous times in the full text version. Essentially, the government wants to eliminate the systemic risk associated with banks that are involved with activities that are outside of traditional banking. After the last financial bailout, Congress is under intense pressure to stabilize the financial industry so another bailout won't be required. In order to do this, (in simple terms) it would mean that banking activities will be seperated entirely from trading desk activities. Once the bill passes, a report will be generated which is expected to take upwards of six months (doing this by memory) detailing the best manner to tear the trading desk operations away from the banking activites, so that if the inherent systemic risk involved with trading activies erupts, it will not impact the banking institutions. Afterwards, the implementation phase of changing the financial industry will begin.

Getting back now to RCC Holdings Corp and the recent announcements made. These announcements appear to be consistent with actions taken by other publicly traded companies facing similiar situations. I'm not going to list the long list of actions taken, but if you want to find those actions, a simple Google search will yield significant information. Not too long ago there was some discussion about eliminating the SEC entirely due to its perceived recent failures. During this timeframe, other agencies started to investigate activities and enforce regulations that the SEC was charged to do. I believe we have yet to see the full impact of these other agencies, however this speech may have provided some clue. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100108.html

In summary, the frustration by shareholders can be best described as frustration regarding the long delay with full disclosure and the perceived delays with expected announcements. Only through continued follow up will these frustrations be eased.

funmaxus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. NEWS
FEBRUARY 17, 2010.Bulk of Stimulus Spending Yet to Come
Most Cash So Far Has Gone to Services, Government Jobs; Infrastructure Surge Unlikely to Put Big Dent in Unemployment
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069772167897834.html#mod=todays_us_page_one

By LOUISE RADNOFSKY
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's economic-stimulus program has delivered about a third of its total $787 billion budget during its first year, much of that to maintain social services and government jobs and to provide tax cuts for workers. Now, the pace and direction of stimulus spending are about to change.

Infrastructure spending is set to step up in the second year of the stimulus program, which should mean more money flowing to private-sector employers. Still, economists say that won't likely have a big effect on the unemployment rate, which most say is likely to continue a slow decline as the broader economy recovers.

The shift could be significant politically, though, because Republicans have criticized the relative lack of private business hiring directly attributed to the stimulus.

The approach this week of the stimulus program's one-year anniversary sparked a fresh round of dueling partisan statements, as Democrats sought to credit the effort with averting a deeper recession and Republicans said the program deserved a failing grade. But in terms of spending, the stimulus is largely incomplete.

Most of the money allocated to specific projects hasn't been paid out yet, and there are still an additional $195 billion in tax cuts on the way.

Proponents of the stimulus program focused attention on infrastructure projects during the fight to win approval for it last year. But the bulk of the money proposed for projects like new rail lines and water projects—about $180 billion in all—is likely to be spent this year at the earliest. During year one of the stimulus, only about $20 billion of money was handed out for infrastructure projects.

"I think we'll see a lot more stimulus money get into actual contracts and actual hiring in 2010 than we did in 2009," said Kenneth Simonson, chief economist of the Associated General Contractors of America.

The ramped-up stimulus spending in 2010 will contribute 1.4 percentage points to gross domestic product growth this year, said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist for IHS Global Insight.

But Mr. Bethune says that may not translate into significant improvement in the unemployment rate, a growing political threat for the administration and congressional Democrats.

Infrastructure spending "doesn't really have a big impact on net employment, simply because a lot of the activity is mechanized," he said. "We should be careful of how many jobs we expect to be created from that."

The "shovel ready" projects administration officials pointed to as a source of new jobs have taken months to get organized. Agencies have been holding competitions to decide which projects should get stimulus grants, vetting applications for grants for initiatives such as high-speed rail construction or electric-vehicle projects. In some cases, federal agencies have had to set up entirely new programs.

Many signature projects—including $20 billion for doctors to create electronic medical records, $4.5 billion for an energy Smart Grid and $7.2 billion for broadband networks—are still in their very early stages.

Vice President Joe Biden will announce his own projections of the stimulus plan's progress in a meeting with the president Wednesday. A senior administration official said ahead of the release of Mr. Biden's report that the increase in the pace of infrastructure projects was expected to cause stimulus spending to "shift more towards private sector job growth."

Spending by state and local governments has about the same effect as spending in the private sector, and not cutting a job has a similar macroeconomic impact to creating a new one, said Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs. "Most economists, if they're being economists rather than trying to make some sort of normative point about which way they'd like to see the money spent, would tend to recognize" that, he said.

The number of jobs linked to stimulus spending has been the subject of partisan dispute for much of the past year.

Recipients of stimulus money say they are currently funding the jobs of about 595,000 people. But the White House has also said that as many as two million jobs have been supported directly or indirectly by stimulus money.

Republicans have questioned those numbers and pointed to the rise in the unemployment rate since Mr. Obama took office to bolster their case that the stimulus has failed to deliver on the administration's promises.

Government data indicate that most of the jobs supported by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the state and local level, including about 325,000 teachers and school staff.

Subsidizing those jobs avoided layoffs, or state and local tax increases that could have further undermined the economy. But they didn't result in substantial hiring of people who had lost private-sector jobs.

State officials already are warning that job cuts could be in the offing in 2011 once the stimulus money runs out.

Of the $179 billion in stimulus funds paid out last year, $112 billion has gone out in the form of large checks to state governments to plug holes in school, Medicaid and unemployment-benefits budgets, or to increase funding for established programs, such as food stamps, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

An additional $700 million was spent on administration, and about $47 billion has left Washington in transfer payments, such as $250 checks for Social Security recipients. Social spending totaling $70 billion is also in the pipeline already.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama's Fiscal 2011 budget.
Environmental Protection Agency
Funding Highlights:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/environmental.pdf

• Provides $3.3 billion total for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This will allow States and Tribes to initiate approximately 800 clean water and 500 drinking
water projects nationally, continuing a major Federal commitment to water infrastructure
investment.

• Provides new funding to support the Administration’s commitment to mitigate climate change.

• Continues support for collaborative, interagency ecosystem restoration efforts in the Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin.

• Provides grants for States and Tribes to administer delegated environmental programs at $1.3
billion, the highest level ever.

• Funds the Agency’s operating budget at $3.8 billion to support regulatory, research, and
enforcement activities.

• Supports economic growth and job creation in hard hit regions by bolstering Brownfields
cleanup.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is committed to protecting human health and the environment. To achieve this mission, EPA collaborates with States and Tribes to implement air,water, waste, and chemical programs. The Budget requests $10 billion for EPA, a substantially higher annual amount than requested under any previous Administration. This total expands the Administration’s 2010 increase to the Agency’s core operating budget, which provides funds for program implementation, priority research, enhanced regulation, and comprehensive enforcement activities. EPA’s budget also provides more funding for State and tribal program implementation grants than any previous budget. Invests in Clean Water Infrastructure. The Budget requests $3.3 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Federal SRF funding provides grants to States for low-interest loans to communities through a combination of Federal capitalization, State matches, State leveraging, interest, and loan repayments. Since loan interest and principal payments are eturned
to the program, the SRFs continue to generate funding for new loans even without continued Federal funding. The Federal contribution to water and waste water infrastructure has been substantially incorporated into SRFs. These Funds, combined, now produce approximately $5 billion in repayments each year. As the Funds have grown, the need for Federal capitalization will decline over the next decade. Some ongoing contribution will be maintained so the neediest communities are adequately served. For 2011, EPA proposes a new approach to helping small drinking water systems, as well as reforms to improve the long-term financial, managerial,and environmental sustainability of the SRFs. As part of that strategy, Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in technical, financial and managerial capacity, and the design, construction and on-going management of sustainable water infrastructure.

Read more by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/environmental.pdf

Commentary:
"The proposed budget levels for the SRF programs are $100 million less than each program is receiving for FY 2010, but near its historical highs."
http://waternewsupdate.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------