Replies to post #75980 on Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[bob41]

and you? how do you feel? being placed in this position makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

worrying about the (poor) Plank seems absurd at this point.

[camper9]

coins, that seems to be the recurring theme among the bashers nowadays: let the brokers off the hook, i.e., don't make them deliver the shares that they sold to us.

It certainly makes one wonder why, all of a sudden, this line of bashing has appeared.


      ¶ As long as the brokers keep getting off the hook for their criminal behavior, the more they are going to continue that behavior. It must stop!

[Texbanker]

"Holy fake certs Batman! Of course, the perfect crime. Counterfeit shares in your own company with a known shady character. Distribute them and let it trade for awhile and then BAM send out a PR saying they are fakes out there, everyone stop trading. Trading goes on for a while before Commissioner Gordon gets wind of it, while you rake in the loot. Cry croc tears and say you were hijacked. Sue the shady character, to get everyone off the trail, but then in the end,let him off the hook. Setting up the big one. Sue your company's own shareholders for having the fake certs and get the stock voided. Reduces the shares outstanding, issue more for sale. Lather. Rinse. Repeat."
"Quick mind, Robin. To the Batcave!"

[Joda]

Agree 100%

"Compromise? How many times does he need to compromise? Is it his responsibility to compromise every time someone commits a criminal act and forges BCIT's shares? How many times would this "compromise" make, three?

As long as the brokers keep getting off the hook for their criminal behavior, the more they are going to continue that behavior. It must stop! Those that commit the crime must be held responsible and pay the price for that crime. Requiring the brokers to purchase shares on the open market is the only fair resolution to the problem as not only will they be required to make good those shares, they will incur a significant penalty as well.

Why would any logical, ethical person disagree with that? None would! Therefore I can only conclude that anyone advocating such a "compromise" is either not logical or is unethical. Which is it in your case?"