|
|
Post by golden1101 on May 31, 2006 18:58:08 GMT -6
By: jay_adobe 31 May 2006, 08:08 PM EDT Msg. 279280 of 279323 Jump to msg. # Something to ponder: Now it is public official knowledge that there have been more shares sold to the public than there are physical certificates. Would it not be a prudent next move to publicly announce a valuation so the entities that received the letter would know to what extent the intermediaries are in debt, thus how quickly and forcefully they must act prior to the potential for formal litigation proceedings?- - - - -By: jay_adobe 31 May 2006, 08:09 PM EDT Msg. 279284 of 279329 Jump to msg. # Something to ponder: Forced communication. I was just thinking about that...how does one get some one to pony up the $$ without saying buy your certs. That might be illegal but valuation sets a nice perfectly clear price tag. Especially when Frizz stated the O/S count in the letter to the NASD & SEC just so they would have that info nice and handy when it comes time Frankly . . . I Think almost everything "real" was in the trust . . . The TF numbers ARE the short . . . The borkers didn't know that until AFTER they delivered the certs (when the 14c lockup agreement opened up) . . . We got em right where we want em. They already "delivered" the cert, so they had to/have to pay, like it or not. JMHO |
|
|
|
Post by gtajim on May 31, 2006 18:59:37 GMT -6
Wonder if any o our chirping friends knew there were boxes of certs a commin....
|
|
|
|
Post by hermannmaier0 on May 31, 2006 19:01:19 GMT -6
I believe this further distinguishes between the bona fide and non bona fide shareholders so that the bona fide can move on and the non bona fide can take up the fight with Friz and the task force. I see the focus of the task force changing direction to combat the brokers while the company moves on putting even more pressure on the brokers. Every dividend, asset, royalty, etc tightens the noose. In the meantime, the company merges, buys, sells, distributes, or even IPO's. I see some delay but not much. We still need a PR from the company to add to the leverage. I like what you wrote. New Roll for the task force/Friz perhaps. If Big money is behind the future of CIMglomerate, then they shouldnt want to wait longer than they have to, to release public investor information. Company should roll forward asap for the sake of big whales. This notice could serve to demonstrate the TF's best efforts to make as many shareholders bonafide as possible,.......holdout intermediaries are the ones blocking any further progress. Now it is post deadline, and hopefully the company moves forward, able to prove its best intentions to bring everyone along. (ie initial cert pull requests, deadline postponements, postcards, major newspaper article, and now a complaint to the NASD.) And with a litigation team to pound the holdout intermediaries with. If big PR comes out, surely many non-bonafides will scream murder. |
|
|
|
Post by golden1101 on May 31, 2006 19:03:31 GMT -6
I believe this further distinguishes between the bona fide and non bona fide shareholders so that the bona fide can move on and the non bona fide can take up the fight with Friz and the task force. I see the focus of the task force changing direction to combat the brokers while the company moves on putting even more pressure on the brokers. Every dividend, asset, royalty, etc tightens the noose. In the meantime, the company merges, buys, sells, distributes, or even IPO's. I see some delay but not much. We still need a PR from the company to add to the leverage. I like what you wrote. New Roll for the task force/Friz perhaps. If Big money is behind the future of CIMglomerate, then they shouldnt want to wait longer than they have to, to release public investor information. Company should roll forward asap for the sake of big whales. This notice could serve to demonstrate the TF's best efforts to make as many shareholders bonafide as possible,.......holdout intermediaries are the ones blocking any further progress. Now it is post deadline, and hopefully the company moves forward, able to prove its best intentions to bring everyone along. (ie initial cert pull requests, deadline postponements, postcards, major newspaper article, and now a complaint to the NASD.)  |
|
|
|
Post by firefighter1118 on May 31, 2006 19:03:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bbildman on May 31, 2006 19:03:44 GMT -6
I think tramp hit the nail on the head,
"another pondering..
frizz would only write this if things were all done"
Frizzell is accomplishing 2 things with this,
I think he THREATENED the offending brokerage houses already behind closed doors. They chose to call him on this, and he has now displayed his trump card(s)
-- Making it public
-- Officially forwarding it to the appropriate officials and government bodies, placing the brokerages houses viability in jeopardy.
And secondly, keeping the faith (and honoring the company's promise) with all those shareholders who put forth a decent effort to obtain their certs -- letting them know they will not have to stand alone in their quest to be a part of the distribution.
This was a master stroke, and though originally I thought this might portend a delay, this gambit is for the remaining cert holders and to FINALLY make sure the offending parties are certain they know they are playing with their own livelihoods when they decided to break the law with their counterfeits.
|
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on May 31, 2006 19:04:26 GMT -6
Bed time for me...Gonna be some NICE dreaming tonight, fer sure!
I do believe we done did it! ;D
Good night to all!
john
|
|
|
|
Post by kibert79 on May 31, 2006 19:04:30 GMT -6
One thing to remember, Frizzell only mentioned 2 broker/dealers.....and how many are there? I would guess that these are either the last 2 that are holding-out.....OR these are the 2 that were chosen to "take the fall" for the rest. IMO, this will not cause things to be drawn out longer than they already have been. This is just the next PLANNED step. Just had a thought. Might this be the beginning of the process for those that will NEVER be "bonafide"? IMO, there will never be more "bonafide" shareholders than the O/S, but it's quite obvious (and public information now) that there are more shareholders than the O/S. I think this moves forward in 2 separate groups of shareholders. Those that are "bonafide" (companies responsibility) and those that are holding "naked short shares" (brokers responsibility). This seems to be a good sign for the "bonafide" shareholders. I think we are about to move forward with distributions of Entourage and "other assets". |
|
|
|
Post by bullit on May 31, 2006 19:05:30 GMT -6
I thought we had "won" already and "it" was over.....  no worries....  |
|
|
|
Post by tramp on May 31, 2006 19:07:10 GMT -6
remember, june 1 is a very big day, said by many...for the last 2 weeks quietly, deli has been saying june1.
|
|
|
|
Post by micash on May 31, 2006 19:07:29 GMT -6
If you're holding a royal flush in poker, and you KNOW the other guy has the "dead man's hand", HE might think aces n eights are good enough to win, until you call. Well, the money's on the table, all the raising is done, IBM has the royal flush, and two yet-to-be-named brokerage houses have the dead man's hand. When they realize they're going to be investigated, and if they lose (which they will), they'll probably lose their SEC license, lots and lots of money, including punitive damages, and MAYBE even their freedom (jail time including a pretty perp walk), they might just roll over and give up and make the deal everyone else apparently has. Long litigation? I sort of have my doubts. They have more to lose than gain...and if what Frizz's letter says is just HALF true, they've already lost! I say official PR from the company as my WAG tomorrow...and finish my wag with cash on the 9th. REMEMBER, just my wag. john And after seeing what went down with there cousins at Enron last week the timing could not have been better |
|
|
|
Post by samadams on May 31, 2006 19:07:47 GMT -6
Frankly . . . I Think almost everything "real" was in the trust . . . The TF numbers ARE the short . . . The borkers didn't know that until AFTER they delivered the certs (when the 14c lockup agreement opened up) . . . We got em right where we want em. They already "delivered" the cert, so they had to/have to pay, like it or not. JMHO I have that feeling too... |
|
|
|
Post by bullit on May 31, 2006 19:11:36 GMT -6
remember, june 1 is a very big day, said by many...for the last 2 weeks quietly, deli has been saying june1.  , you're right.... I have to give Jay_A the benefit of the doubt eventhough I used to think he was "out there"... he obviously knows "things", and he said first week of June also.... |
|
|
|
Post by eshille on May 31, 2006 19:11:54 GMT -6
It's been done before. BCIT. The company had to legitimize the shares. After they were paid for
I remember the BCIT debacle..but this one appears to be a case of turning in counterfeit stock certs, since these certs represent billions of NSS and THAT tells me the company has no intention whatsoever to legitimize those shares.
The boys just made a big mistake and I don't think they can get out of it...IF my interpertation is correct.
Take Care
|
|
|
|
Post by bullit on May 31, 2006 19:12:42 GMT -6
so who are the two brokers? Ameritrade and Etrade? Ameritrade has been delivering certs, so can it still be them?
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter3 on May 31, 2006 19:14:01 GMT -6
i do not want anyone to left behind--doesn't the nobo/obo list tell who the shareholders are???can't we, bonafied, just get our assetts started and then save the other money for them when it gets settled for the non-bonafided?? why didn't this letter go out earlier--say in march when the extension came up??? still learning as we go-maybe i misunderstood something, somewhere--tia
hunter3
|
|
|
|
Post by tramp on May 31, 2006 19:15:12 GMT -6
no clue bullit.. no idea..where is our psychic..LOL..
|
|
|
|
Post by teetime2 on May 31, 2006 19:25:04 GMT -6
Tramp tomorrow will be interesting!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tramp on May 31, 2006 19:27:32 GMT -6
By: jay_adobe
31 May 2006, 09:18 PM EDT
Msg. 279561 of 279579
Jump to msg. #
Another point to ponder and discuss:
For those entities that refuse to hand over certs to their clients, electronic markers most suredly are still in place, even if they do not appear in portfolios. What is the very worst thing for those entities to encounter in relation to the electronic fails to deliver?
Consider the final piece of atomic-magnitude leverage that may never need to be played: filing. Filing which would result in market cover, a very expensive option for those that refuse to issue certs to clients.
Good night.
- - - - -
|
|
|
|
Post by tramp on May 31, 2006 19:28:23 GMT -6
oh crap, i bet they are sweating bullets now.. and out of depends..   |
|
|
|
Post by dare2dream on May 31, 2006 19:29:14 GMT -6
My best friend is a broker with Piper Jaffrey/US Bank now UBS. His words were if a short is proven, this will be settled. This is the last thing the industry wants public.
I will wait for justice to occur. This was a ggood update. I will wait as long as it takes, I just want consistant updates. Maybe this is the start.
D2D
|
|
|
|
Post by samadams on May 31, 2006 19:31:24 GMT -6
How about the possibility that the cert count is actually complete... It hasn't moved since early afternoon... This letter comes out tonite, CC'd to a bunch of heavy hitters... With the last paragraph rephrased as "Do Your Job And Get This Cleaned Up The Way It Should Be."
I'm so glad we have the Task Force Team on our side
It's Over, and we have Won.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjannetto on May 31, 2006 19:32:53 GMT -6
I think tramp hit the nail on the head, "another pondering.. frizz would only write this if things were all done" Frizzell is accomplishing 2 things with this, I think he THREATENED the offending brokerage houses already behind closed doors. They chose to call him on this, and he has now displayed his trump card(s) -- Making it public -- Officially forwarding it to the appropriate officials and government bodies, placing the brokerages houses viability in jeopardy. And secondly, keeping the faith (and honoring the company's promise) with all those shareholders who put forth a decent effort to obtain their certs -- letting them know they will not have to stand alone in their quest to be a part of the distribution. This was a master stroke, and though originally I thought this might portend a delay, this gambit is for the remaining cert holders and to FINALLY make sure the offending parties are certain they know they are playing with their own livelihoods when they decided to break the law with their counterfeits. If one of the points was to go public, why didn't he mention the brokerage houses by name. If he's going to drop the bomb, why not load it up and make it a dirty bomb? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2006 19:34:41 GMT -6
Very Good Point, Cobra.
Still left a back door for their smarmy butts to wiggle through. No doubt at great cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionstooo on May 31, 2006 19:35:11 GMT -6
Remember the "no suit unless it is part of the plan" comment? If it is publicly known (see all the cc's) would there be a suit or would an out of court 'settlement' be given a little more force without the need to go further? Think: If you headed a brokerage firm and was about to either be the receipent of legal action (and the public notice it brings) or possible 'privately' forced 'settlement' action - which would you take?
|
|
, you're right.... I have to give Jay_A the benefit of the doubt eventhough I used to think he was "out there"... he obviously knows "things", and he said first week of June also....
