ZincFinger Monday, 07/22/13 10:34:57 PM Re: buccaneer1961 post# 444 Post # of 528 Your links are useless The first only returns information for the last 6 months and OPL.V's trading halt and OPELF's inability to trade were both long before that. The second returns only a "404 - File or directory not found." RE:OPELF not TECHNICALLY being a "trading halt" OK so it was merely an "inability to trade" the difference to an OPELF shareholder was ZERO. Technically it was not a "trading halt" since it was not the Canadian exchange that did it. But the effect was exactly the same: OPELF shareholders (AKA "bagholders as the SP went from 70 to 40 while they were unable to trade) were unable to trade OPELF at all for over two months. Most stockholders would call that a "trading halt" no mater what the cause was, there was a halt in their ability to trade. That's a trivial and utterly insignificant error in terminology and the meaning was absolutely unambiguous from the accompanying text and there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone drew the wrong conclusion due to that insignificant misapplication of "trading halt". I very explicitly stated that the issue was related to the DTC and their requirements and on one could possibly have misapprehended it to be talking about a problem with the Canadian exchange. The discussion made crystal clear what the exact reason for the inability to trade OPELF. And that reason was Opel not supplying required information in the original application and then not correcting that error for over two months despite being informed by shareholders from the very beginning of the problem. That was careless slipshod work at the beginning and wanton disregard for OPELF shareholder interest from then on. Several sources (including a broker) stated that Opel NEVER corrected the problem and ultimately OPELF resumed trading only because the brokers took matters into their own hands and used an expensive and complicate manual processing including physical delivery (not thru the mails). ======================================== RE: "The issue was related to the DTC & temporarily being ineligible for trading" ---------------------------- which is exactly what I said and you could not possibly have missed that (assuming you actually read my post rather than blindly parroting sevenodoubles false claims. I made it explicitly clear that the exact reason for the inability to trade (which a layperson would call a "halt" in trading whether the exchange or the DTC did it) was due to the DTC refusing to process the shares. The end result for OPELF bagholders was exactly the same: their OPELF shares could not be traded. ================================== RE: "OPELF started trading on the OTCQX on May 16 2012 & the previous name change was in Aug of 2011, that was a different situation to start with, in 2011 there was no American market for those shares." -------------------------- Completely irrelevant. OPELF was trading on the American market before it moved to the OTCOX, so that's just a red herring. The volume then was about the same as it is currently. And there is a huge different between low liquidity (which people knew when they bought) and inability to trade at all for two months! OPL.V shares also had a period of inability to trade for an entirely different reason (it was officially a 'halt') but it only lasted three weeks. What is interesting about the OPL.V halt is that it was also done for entirely predictable reasons and had Opel bothered to check the rules adequately in advance it could have been readily prevented: all that they had to do, apparently was to submit the application outside of trading hours and the halt would not have occurred (which raises a very serious and disturbing question about the Canadian exchange itself which I'll go into in a later post. TSX.V stocks may have deep inherent problems due to the exchange policies and ADRs are an obvious death trap.) So Opel made TWO separate errors at the same time, both should have been predictable and easily preventable but for Opel's incorrect procedures and both had the effect of making old shares unable to be traded for a significant period while new ones could be traded with no problem A coincidence which raises the question; DID OPEL DO THIS DELIBERATELY? Was there some advantage it gained by having shares unable to trade for three weeks? Actually there is a very obvious one! The OLD shares were unable to trade. The NEW shares (under the new name) could trade as usual. So what Opels "coincidental" double error did was prevent any shareholders holding at the time of the name change from selling while shares could be readily bought. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out how this benefited Opel by leading to a higher share price. They got away with it with no repercussions at all. What better way to boost the SP than by "locking up" current shares by "mistakes" accompanying the name change? ========================== RE:Your sources are either badly informed because brokers don't take matters into their own hands, they act upon instructions of the Transfer Agent, FINRA, the DTC etc! ------------------------------ your assumptions are incorrect and unfounded although inappropriately stated as facts.] I've been told by two separate, unrelated and credible sources that the brokers DID take matters into their own hands (i.e.: circumvent the normal channels thru the DTC) Brokers must keep their customers satisfied. Many like myself were taking their complaints many steps up the corporate ladder. They were not "acting upon the instructions of the ..DTC" as you misrepresent it. In fact they CIRCUMVENTED the regulations of the DTC by using other means! Note tha(whatever happened to OPL.V trading was totally irrelevant to the discussion The brokers in the end had no option but to do the tranfers thru unconventional means to circumvent the DTC process as a direct result of Opel's refusal to supply the infomration required. KNOWING that this is what happened last time Opel management stated that 1) they have not updated on the rules to ensure that they know CURRENT requirements for data AND stated that they will not do so "until the time comes" (i.e. time of application AND 2) they very clearly stated that if at that time they discover that if information is required that they do not have they will NOT delay the application but will proceed regardless. It is difficult to see how that could be construed as anything other than wanton disregard with full knowledge of OPELF shareholders' interests. NOTE: this is a repost for compliance with TOS The stock code for OPELF changed today to POETF but the name is still listed as "Opel Technologies" And there's been no announcement of a name change so presumably it hasn't been done yet and the stock code change was premature.