SevenTenEleven: That ShareBuilder representative claimed that the reason he could not obtain the certs he requested was because EIGH was not "DRS eligible" does not make sense imho.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about being DRS eligible:
"August 8, 2006, the SEC approved a rule changed by NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX requiring all listed securities (except certain debt securities) to be eligible for a direct registration system ("DRS") as of March 31, 2008. DRS is an entirely electronic book-entry style system that does not involve physical stock certificates. The rule change does not eliminate physical certificates, but requires issuers to be eligible for entirely electronic recording of securities ownership." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_entry
Based on that, the owner should be able to request his shares in certificate form if he chooses to do so and the brokerage firm should have cert backed shares on deposit.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the large short the company has told shareholders exists does in fact exist. Obviously some of the brokerage firms ignored their responsibilty to insure good delivery and order buyins when FTD's occured.
First the Etrade email and now this one. As increasing amounts of evidence surface all EIGH shareholders need to ask their Congresscritters to investigate and represent their interests in order to insure that the rules and regulations are being enforced.
The rusty wheel gets the grease and those who have criminally naked shorted EIGH need to pay for their sins. Go EIGH!!! My one allowed post for the day!
Trying to figure out how ShareBuilder will "partially" transfer "all" EIGH shares to another broker, when the stock is not DRS eligible?
It's badly worded, but I think perhaps what they meant is that a transfer of ALL of the client's EIGH shares to another brokerage would be a "partial transfer" because the other stocks in the account would remain with the original broker (ShareBuilder).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
