There are a number of questions that could spark the interest of officials into the affairs of US Capital Funding.
USCF call themselves a financial institution yet no where are there registered as a bank, a trust company, a deposit taking institution or a brokerage firm. Regulators get nervous when people or firms say or imply that they are something bigger than what they are especially if they take money from the public as deposits or investment schemes.
Using multiple companies and jurisdictions is a common ploy to cheat unsuspecting investors. By Bergamo reporting a Georgia based company providing the SBLC, it raises a common sense understanding that the company is regulated by that state. Unfortunately using a rating for a company of the same name but in a different jurisdiction and not disclosing it does not raise the comfort level for an informed investor.
Further they state or imply that they have great wealth yet it defines common sense at it is larger than the world's largest bank (French) or the largest US bank. If called upon to prove it, could they. Nearly 100 times the personal wealth of Bill Gates?
The people on this board have significant differences of opinion as to the credibility of the USCF website and these people are more likely to have access to some due diligence level of information more readily than an everyday investor. If people rely on the word of BGMO on its face value including what they said in its latest press release as being truthful and valid and the USCF is story is proven materially different than reported by Mr. Herzog, does an investor have cause to claim damages.
Bergamo can claim safe harbour to a point after which I suspect the SEC or other body may say this is misleading and an abuse of the intent of the regulations. There is a difference between misadventure versus misleading. The historical record for BGMO shows a number of events not coming to fruition. A couple hiccups may be okay but nearly everything but the Indian solar developments (which I personally like) would point more to misleading than misadventure. I am not saying that it is misleading by design but rather a potential view by a third party regulator. A success on the Indian projects would quickly redeem the perception of the company in the eyes of the public and perhaps more so with the SEC (if they are looking into BGMO at all).
