RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[JohnWilliams]

Thank you for your reply.

So from what I gather form your response to

"....would the shorts have to cover?"

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76390582, in reply to my post of

"IF RCCH had shorts (I know SHO doesn't reflect it) and RCCH went out of business, would the shorts have to cover?"

and from what others have replied to you http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=76390582, is that either way, whether it be the company filing bankruptcy or the company just going out of business (or "dormant", as someone had mentioned), it really doesn't matter. The shorts would NOT have to cover in either situation, right? Wouldn't that make a huge monetary incentive to try and keep the company down?

Rather, they just go dormant until the shell is sold or a new business plan emerges usually in conjunction with a reverse split.

RCCH has had NO RS (reverse split) even after this extended period of .0001-.0002 / no bid / cellar boxing stage. If there was going to be a reverse split, it would have happened years ago IMHO. (Probably around the time that it got to .0001. GJones can help us out with his FOOLish chart! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77077535 (only 3 1/2 months out of date :) )

It is worth noting that this point has been made several times in the past and yet the intentional misinformation continues. The question was specifically about going out of business, bankruptcy is exactly the opposite of going out of business. Pay attention to who is trying to mislead you.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76402609
In response to http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76390582. Agreed! Pay attention to whom is trying to mislead you!

What misinformation? In a bankruptcy situation his post is correct, right? The question "IF RCCH had shorts (I know SHO doesn't reflect it) and RCCH went out of business, would the shorts have to cover?"... "Would the shorts have to cover?" In either situation the answer is the same! No, they would not have to cover! At least that is what I get from the responses (IMHO).