posted
Yeah, there's a lot of volume today for some reason, but I don't think the price is really indicative of anything. As I found out, my order was filled at .0050, putting it up almost 5000% for the day, but is essentially meaningless, because the next sell could put it right back at .0001.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stockcop: Can you actually buy this *.001 and sell *.004 or something? Or is this for pure amusement purposes?
sure you can buy it . but your not buying REAL shares..they took your $$ and gave you something that doesnt exist.... they will not be honered by the company ....GL dealing with your broker when all this hits the fan ....lol
IP: Logged |
posted
You're unreal. Do you have tunnel vision or something? Read his question again and try to post an answer that somehow relate to his question, instead of parroting this "air shares" BS, would ya?
quote:Originally posted by LT:
quote:Originally posted by stockcop: Can you actually buy this *.001 and sell *.004 or something? Or is this for pure amusement purposes?
sure you can buy it . but your not buying REAL shares..they took your $$ and gave you something that doesnt exist.... they will not be honered by the company ....GL dealing with your broker when all this hits the fan ....lol
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: You're unreal. Do you have tunnel vision or something? Read his question again and try to post an answer that somehow relate to his question, instead of parroting this "air shares" BS, would ya?
quote:Originally posted by LT:
quote:Originally posted by stockcop: Can you actually buy this *.001 and sell *.004 or something? Or is this for pure amusement purposes?
sure you can buy it . but your not buying REAL shares..they took your $$ and gave you something that doesnt exist.... they will not be honered by the company ....GL dealing with your broker when all this hits the fan ....lol
Air shares are BS i agree with yaa on that ..... ..and it will be dealt with ...
IP: Logged |
NASD Rule 11810(i) sets, forth the procedures that must be followed when a party is owed securities that have become the subject of a voluntary corporate action, such as a tender or exchange offer is seeking delivery of those securities. Under Rule 11810(i), the owed party delivers a liability notice to the owing or failing party. The liability notice sets a cut off date for the delivery of the securities by the owing party and provides notice to the owing party that it will be held liable for any damages caused by its failure to deliver the securities in time for the owed party to participate in the voluntary corporate action. If the owing party delivers the securities in response to the liability notice, it has met its delivery obligation. If the owing party fails to deliver the securities in sufficient time for the owed party to participate in the voluntary corporate action, it will be liable for any damages that may accrue thereby (i.e., the owing party must deliver proceeds equivalent to the proceeds that the owed party would have received if it had been able to participate in the offer). The owed party has the responsibility to communicate its intentions to the owing party and to prove, if necessary, that the owing party received the liability notice.
posted
Have no idea who "filed" that garbled passage--or where you think you're going with this--but somebody overlooked a lil sumpin' sumpin...notice the bold, my emphasis, following:
quote:With respect to transactions executed on Nasdaq, failure to deliver the securities sold, or failure to pay for securities as delivered, on or after the settlement date, does not effect a cancellation of the contract. The remedy for the buyer or seller is provided for by Rules 11810 and 11820 respectively unless the parties mutually consent to cancel the trade. In every such case of nondelivery of securities, the party in default shall be liable for any damages which may accrue thereby. All claims for such damages shall be made promptly.
posted
Tex, how are we supposed to know when we have been "damaged"?
most state laws concerning fraud have a clause in the statute of limitations that basically says the clock doesn't start ticking until you discover the fraud, or should reasonably been able to..
in other words? if it isn't filed in a filing (my best choice for reliable information) or posted on a conspicuous news wire? you can't "really" discover it..
i heard an interesting interview on the radio while i was going over the river and thru the woods last week...
it was about contract law and how the States have no right to abrogate contracts. only the Feds can... so Federal Law would have to be applied? i dunno yet... gotta do some more searching
this article is a year plus old now, but it's just more evidence that the MM's are not the true problem... November 1, 2006, 8:40 am SEC Examining Naked Shorting at NYC Hedge Fund Posted by Peter Lattman
dfadAnother hedge fund in hot water: The SEC is poised to bring charges against a New York hedge fund for violating short-selling rules, reports today’s New York Post.
Sandell Asset Management, a $7 billion hedge fund run by former Bear Stearns big wig Thomas Sandell, was told by the agency on Oct. 19 that it “intends to recommend the commencement of proceedings” against the fund. The charges related to allegations of “naked short-selling,”
Short sellers sell borrowed shares in hopes they can profit by replacing them later at a lower price. “Naked” short sellers do not borrow shares they sell short, which some liken to counterfeiting. The SEC has been urged by some lawmakers and executives to be more vigilant in policing naked shorting.
Sandell told its investors that the probe centers around trading in Hibernia Corp., which was acquired last year by Capital One. “We dispute several of the commission’s assertions,” Sandell wrote to investors. “But we are continuing to work with the staff to resolve this matter.” Permalink | Trackback URL: http://bl ogs.wsj.com/law/2006/11/01/sec-examining-naked-shorting-at-nyc-hedge-fund/trackb ack
posted
here's the article i mentioned earlier where the SEC attorney seems to be admitting that NS'ing is perfectly legal: October 26, 2007, 2:17 pm Federal Judge Tells SEC Lawyer “Sit Down, Shut Up” Posted by Peter Lattman
northcarolinaJudge Graham Mullen on Wednesday dismissed part of an SEC civil lawsuit alleging that a former executive at Friedman Billings Ramsey engaged in illegal conduct related to a securities offering. The claim alleged that John Mangan Jr. committed a so-called Section 5 violation involving a Pipe, or private investment in public equity. Representing Mangan: George Covington of King & Spalding in Charlotte and James Wyatt at Wyatt & Blake. Said Wyatt to the Observer: “We firmly believe (the case) will be resolved in his favor because we believe he has done absolutely nothing wrong.”
While the case is interesting — especially for those of you obsessed with the controversy surrounding Pipes and naked short selling — what’s interesting to us is this excerpt from the transcript of Wednesday’s oral argument on Mangan’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Mullen: Naked shorts are not legal, are they?
SEC lawyer Amy Greer: No. No, they’re just very risky, Your Honor.
SEC lawyer Catherine Pappas: And Your Honor –
Judge Mullen: They’re not illegal; they’re just risky.
Greer: Correct. Naked short sales are not illegal; they’re just risky, Your Honor.
Judge Mullen: Why in the world don’t you all make them illegal? Don’t you understand what happens in the market when you allow naked short selling to attack companies? I mean, do you understand that?
Greer: Your Honor, I think that that’s an issue for the United States Congress. I appreciate your concern –
Judge Mullen: Well –
Greer: — and I –
Judge Mullen: — the answer to my question is, yeah, I understand it or, no, I don’t.
Greer: I do understand your –
Judge Mullen: Do not try — okay.
Greer: I do understand, Your Honor.
Judge Mullen: Thank you for understanding it.
Covington: Your Honor, one thing –
Judge Mullen: Excuse the interruption.
Covington: No, sir.
Judge Mullen: Sit down, shut up, let the man talk. I’m not going to let him introduce (sic) you. Last warning.
Pappas: I’m sorry?
Judge Mullen: Sit down –
Pappas: Yeah, I got that.
Judge Mullen: — shut up, let the man talk. Last warning.
Pappas: Okay.
Judge Mullen: Understood?
Pappas: Okay.
Judge Mullen: Excellent.
Covington: With all due respect, Your Honor –
Judge: And you don’t interrupt her when she’s talking.
Covington: Yes, sir.
Judge: Proceed.
“Sit down, shut up, let the man talk”? Wow. Readers, what do you make of the exchange? Permalink | Trackback URL: http://b logs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/26/federal-judge-tells-sec-lawyer-sit-down-shut-up/trac kback/
posted
if i remember correclty? there was a PIPE in this deal before Rufus got involved...
the company deliberately broke the PIPE contract by buying shares on the open market, it put FHAL into immediate default, and i've never been able to figure out what exactly happened to the PIPE deal... maybe someone flipped that rock over and found out which snake slithered out and i missed it?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if i remember correclty? there was a PIPE in this deal before Rufus got involved...
the company deliberately broke the PIPE contract by buying shares on the open market, it put FHAL into immediate default, and i've never been able to figure out what exactly happened to the PIPE deal... maybe someone flipped that rock over and found out which snake slithered out and i missed it?
ya, we chopped it up, you and I. Can't remember now whether that was before or after our "famous" discussment about with prejudice re BBAN. But we both noticed the peculiar loan terms
At any rate, CSHD does not rate the level of argument that GLUV/GVRP/MAMG or BCIT have "earned." Buy-in provisions are way different--in reference to your question about "when we notice damages."
In the GVRP play, we really notice damages when the reverse into MAMG is NEVER on the dailylist. (How long does that take to sink in?)
In BCIT, we really notice when WE GET SUED.
In CSHD, we pretty much know first rattle outta the box sumpin is up. By the time "buy the crap out of it" rolls around, we gotta be wary for sure when the 6-to-1 "not a divvy" pops up.
At the very latest, re CSHD, we gotta be alarmed when the CEO/company rolls over for the TRO.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if i remember correclty? there was a PIPE in this deal before Rufus got involved...
the company deliberately broke the PIPE contract by buying shares on the open market, it put FHAL into immediate default, and i've never been able to figure out what exactly happened to the PIPE deal... maybe someone flipped that rock over and found out which snake slithered out and i missed it?
ya, we chopped it up, you and I. Can't remember now whether that was before or after our "famous" discussment about with prejudice re BBAN. But we both noticed the peculiar loan terms
At any rate, CSHD does not rate the level of argument that GLUV/GVRP/MAMG or BCIT have "earned." Buy-in provisions are way different--in reference to your question about "when we notice damages."
In the GVRP play, we really notice damages when the reverse into MAMG is NEVER on the dailylist. (How long does that take to sink in?)
In BCIT, we really notice when WE GET SUED.
In CSHD, we pretty much know first rattle outta the box sumpin is up. By the time "buy the crap out of it" rolls around, we gotta be wary for sure when the 6-to-1 "not a divvy" pops up.
At the very latest, re CSHD, we gotta be alarmed when the CEO/company rolls over for the TRO.
Tex...did you know that I was the first person to post the news about the FHAL merger...I brought this news to allstocks.....before I was the Ace of spades....I was Batman and Penny Pimp..LoL...I changed my settings so much they restricted it...Since you are a mod..you could probably figure this out some how...
posted July 12, 2006 02:21 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by wallymac: TEX. Are you in this? What's your take --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, wally, I *wanna* believe, but the charts are holding me back, at least for the moment...see the sharp angles on ADX & Aroon?
Then, notice how little volume required to bring it down? I think given the potential, it's worth it to me to await confirmation and give up some points on entry... if it goes sky high? plenty of room left to enter...but, hey--that's just me...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
Didn't read further in that thread, but the next thing worth mentioning that I remember posting about was the gap to be filled.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unclerudy: So is anything happening with this stock?
Hey man hows the new job?
Great! I got a 20% raise when I came here, built a new house, got married in May, and it has been almost a year and have not yet programmed once when I was hired for a programming job.
-------------------- Muad'Dib knew that every experience carries its lesson.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unclerudy: So is anything happening with this stock?
Hey man hows the new job?
Great! I got a 20% raise when I came here, built a new house, got married in May, and it has been almost a year and have not yet programmed once when I was hired for a programming job.
Congrats on the raise! Im not so sure about building a new house, getting married and doing work that you werent hired to do however.
IP: Logged |
posted
"haha, I just got a PM from new2stocks over at Allstocks (aka Dirtdigger). Apparently she didnt appreciate my post here today stating that she was being nasty to Crash. She left the message and then added me to her ignore list so I cant respond. Thats kinda funny.
But anyway, its pretty obvious that posts from here are still being taken over there......but I expected that. I think ill put her real name in my little black book of people I want to see punished for their slander.
Hi Dirtdigger Sorry but things arent likely gonna get better for you no matter how much condescending crap you post. "
Grow up MrCat. I don't know what your problem is with me, but if anyone is guilty of slander it is you. It seems you like to start touble where it is not needed.
quote:Originally posted by unclerudy: So is anything happening with this stock?
Hey man hows the new job?
Great! I got a 20% raise when I came here, built a new house, got married in May, and it has been almost a year and have not yet programmed once when I was hired for a programming job.
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I would like to take this time to wish all the great people I have "met" on here
A Happy New Year!!!!
And A Happy new year to you. Isn't it nice that we have a board that we can send cheer to all of our "shareholders"? Boy, back in the day, oh never mind!
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
