Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[mretgnol]

That whole SOL thingy was debunked long ago....by Attaway, no less

Attaway never debunked the issue. Nor did his boss and partner in the firm. I usually talk to the head horse, and not the horse's butt. Ironically, I'm not the only person to call Attaway's boss and hear a total different story than what is posted on this board.

Their answer was if you try the case as a claim for breach of contract, you have a six-year statute of limitation. The "breach" being not actually physically delivering the stock.

If you try the case as "fraudulent concealment", you try to show the brokerages knew and failed to tell you. However, this kind of case is always thrown out because the brokerages have NO FIDUCIARY duty to tell you what there share position is.

Attaway would try to extend the SOL on a tort claim by stating the brokerages never came clean and that simple monthly statements do not cover a "relationship" between you and your brokerage.

If you want to go a step further, Attaway would try to show the brokerages were direct sellers and therefore also had to notify their clients (buyers) of the issues surrounding the stock.

This approach means the statute of limitations starts upon "inquiry notice" and the brokerage was a seller. However, this angle will most likely be thrown out because brokerages only act as agents and process trades for clients.

That's why their firm is not taking this case on contingency and will charge just for the chance to challenge this case. Either way, federal SOL starts when you had first knowledge of fraud, and that started when Megas first PR'd the fraud.

If you really want to get technical, the first true notice that your investment might be a loss was when everyone received a letter stating they were fake shareholders and were being sued by the company. That was the first direct notice that your investment could be long gone.