August 29, 2008 Login | Register

About our Blogs

Blogs found on this website represent the opinion of the author. For more information please visit our terms of use.

Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?

Location: Blogs Bud Burrell - Front and Center
Posted by: bburrell	12/9/2006 11:26 AM
I was informed by a Canadian I have had prior business contact with that Canadian brokers are no longer accepting any US Pink Sheet or Grey Market stock certificates of any kind, whether unrestricted or restricted. This is a potential catastrophe for the Pinks, and augurs the beginning of an obvious attempt by the parties who have profited enormously from manipulating and counterfeiting these securities to create distance between themselves and these stocks, and their related counterfeiting. I think that the CEO of the Pink Sheets has labored mightily to make this a real market, and this action is a betrayal of him, tantamount to vote of no confidence, not in him personally, but in the regulators and brokers involved with these securities that are double dealing him every day. The burgeoning new set of Class Actions against brokers dealers for Anti-Trust has to be part of this decision, if verified. I am hard-pressed to imagine any responsible Canadian counsel to their broker-dealers not seeing the contingent liability these new class actions have for their client brokers. The limited immunity protection afforded the NASD by the Securities Act of 1934 is strictly limited to conduct IN WHICH THEY HAVE NO, REPEAT, NO, PECUNIARY INTEREST. Neither the NASD nor the SEC is protected from conduct involving violations of the rights of shareholders under the Bill of Rights, the Constitution including its amendments, etc. In simple language, that means they do NOT have sovereign immunity for their conduct, irrespective of their claims to absolute immunity.
Copyright ©2006 Bud Burrell
Permalink \| Trackback


Comments (5)

Re: Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?

By tim on 12/9/2006 6:36 PM

The OTC does it too.

I had a broker scream at me that I was a stupid idiot for asking for my certificate because I was too stupid to realize that turned it into toilet paper. He said there was no way I could ever deposit it back into the system. His exact words were "Sir, don't you think it is stupid to take an asset you paid for and turn it into toilet paper that has no value?"

A month later, I deposited it and it went in no problem in one day.

As big as we think the criminal conduct is, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. These thieves have stolen so much money that they are going to get their own article in the history of 2007 when honest citizens f_d the counterfeiters.

Re: Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?

By tim on 12/9/2006 6:37 PM

It's ironic, but Canada has the best trading system. No market makers and it is all controlled by a computer so the first bid gets filled. Canada is one of the best locales to list in if you don't want a short problem with your company.

That said, crooked people from all over the world open accounts at Canadian brokerages to take advantage of Canada's ability to trade in the US. Canadian brokerages are not members of NASD, so if an American routes their trades through Canada, they aren't subject to SEC or NASD rules.

Re: Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?

By anthony kalantzis on 12/11/2006 7:23 AM

E- TRADE canada is my broker .
i ordered my certificates 1 month ago . i asked them "how does this work ,lets say 1 year from now i want to sell some stock i just send you the certs along with a from and wait for a bit ? " he told me "sorry sir we dont accept otcbb or pink sheets certificates due to fraud "
let me get this straight .you charged me 50 $ for it.and are not willing to accpet it back ...where do i go ?
its been 1 month and i just received this letter from Continental stock and transfer company in new york .
dear shareholder
as the transfer agent for the subject corpoation shown on the w-8/w-9 from enclosed,this is to advise that a recent transaction for your account did not include a certified social security number or Tin for you
complete the w-8 form in order for us to earnmark our records as to your citezenship status .

did etrade scew up and not send them the proper info ??
or are they trying to find an exscuse to stall ?

Re: Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?

By ginger on 12/11/2006 7:23 AM

Hedge funds' secrecy probed
WALL STREET
David Nason
December 11, 2006

HEDGE funds have long been known for their secretive ways but now that they control about a third of Wall Street's trading action, these vast pools of largely unregulated money are starting to get the kind of media attention they deserve.

The past week has seen the spotlight shine on everything from the alleged kid-glove treatment given to Morgan Stanley boss John Mack in the long-running Securities and Exchange Commission probe of insider trading at Pequot Capital Management, to Citadel's issue of $US500 million ($637 million) in five-year bonds at nearly 2 per cent above the US Treasury rates, to a Wall Street Journal expose on how hedge funds use lobbyists to gather market-sensitive information in Washington.

The Journal yarn may explain why outgoing Tennessee senator Bill Frist won't be contesting the 2008 presidential race.

On top of this was some fiery testimony on hedge fund regulation before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and news that Goldman Sachs has picked up 17 traders from the collapsed Amaranth hedge fund.

The Pequot story was given fresh oxygen by SEC official Eric Ribelin, who came forward to support claims that SEC's top brass wanted Mack "insulated" in the inquiry.

The claims of a cover-up were first made by lawyer Gary Aguirre, who headed the SEC's probe of Pequot until he was sacked in September last year. The dismissal came immediately after his bid to have Mack issued with a subpoena was overruled by SEC top brass.

Aguirre suspected Mack of tipping his friend, Pequot founder Art Semburg, about a $US5.3 billion merger between General Electric Capital and Heller Financial in 2001. He wanted to test Mack on oath about the big trades Pequot made just before the merger was announced. The SEC's top managers say Mack co-operated with the inquiry and that not enough evidence existed to justify a subpoena. It also claims Aguirre, a hard-nosed former trial lawyer, was dumped for being a difficult employee who was prone to office tantrums.

But it hasn't washed with the outgoing judiciary committee chairman Arlin "Snarlin" Spector, who said the SEC had "manufactured" a re-evaluation of Aguirre's work to get rid of him.
Front and centre in this saga are Mack's political connections. In 2004 he was a major fundraiser for George W. Bush. It means the rigour of the SEC probe will be subject to more examination once the Democrats take control of the judiciary committee next year.

"More" is also the operative word now that Chicago-based Citadel has broken new hedge fund ground with the issuing of $US500,000 in bonds, an area previously the exclusive province of the public sector and major banks.

Significantly, Fitch and Standard & Poor's gave the bonds an investment-grade rating - Fitch at BBB-plus, S&P one notch lower at BBB-minus - and Citadel is now expected to capitalise by selling as much as $US2 billion of debt.

But it is unlikely to be the only hedge fund seeking such action. Many hedge funds are making huge money and are looking for places to put it. Citadel may just have started a whole new industry.

That will certainly be the concern of the investment banks who earn huge fees from raising bonds. Several now have internal task forces looking at strategies to deal with hedge funds.

Among the questions being asked are whether the banks should be investing client money in hedge funds; whether they should invest some of their own money in hedge funds; and whether they should start hedge funds of their own, as some already have.

All this, of course, only increases the case for greater regulation of hedge funds, a road the Bush administration has been remarkably reluctant to travel in its six years of office.

At senate hearings last week, the case was put forcefully by several witnesses, including Connecticut Attorney-General Richard Blumenthal, who wants the minimum hedge fund investment raised from $200,000 to $500,000 to prevent ordinary American mums and dads from gambling away their life savings.

The bigger concern is that hedge funds, because they are exempt from much of the regulatory monitoring applied to other players in the market, can routinely break securities laws and distort the market to the detriment of ordinary investors.

The head of the SEC's enforcement unit, Linda Thomsen, told the Senate last week that insider trading by hedge funds remained a significant focus of its enforcement program.

That program has now expanded to include the extent to which hedge funds are using Washington-based lobbyists to discover market-sensitive information - for example, what new drugs the FDA might be about to approve.

The legal issue is whether trafficking in such political information by lobbyists constitutes insider trading on Wall Street. While employees of publicly traded companies are bound by insider trading laws, the situation regarding politicians and their staffers is much less clear.

Indeed, any attempt to criminalise the exchange of information in the political arena could open up a Pandora's box.

One of the test cases may turn out to be Senator Frist's decision last month to list a full senate vote on a proposal for a $US140 billion public trust fund for asbestos liability claims. Heavy trading in companies that use asbestos took place in the days leading up to the announcement, a period in which the market was otherwise flat.

http://tinyurl.com/y88x7w

Re: Canadian Brokers STOP Taking Any Pink Sheet Company Certificates, Restricted or Non-Restricted?	By bbhindyou on 12/13/2006 10:51 AM
I think the people who own certificates in canadian pink sheet companys ,who now can't 'redeposit them need to read Tommytoyz plan. What do they have to lose at this point? Toilet paper?