Sitting here watching Sunday afternoon football with laptop and scanning the stock boards. I don't how the new BOD plans on stopping or contradicting the constant bashing from Ihub or any truth's that might or might not be part of that bashing. The new BOD needs to provide a fresh start that includes revenue creating milestones right out of the gate or the PPS will slowly erode from a lack of new buyers. Coming off the greys in parallel with the RS will start trading at a proportional PPS but like most OTC reverse splits, the PPS will probably drift south if the reorg is without any "proven" and 8K'D milestones in parallel that include immediate revenues. IMO a new share structure via the RS and a new ticker symbol, new company name and new CUSIP wont' move the PPS northward once off the greys. All these reorganization actions need to include 100% up to date filings, proven revenues regardless of the amounts and a total contradiction of everything the bashers post about the current BOD and Chris T. If FINRA and the DTCC plan on holding TECO'S share structure accountable by justifying every share traded against every certificate issued then it should be made public and proven. Any FTD'S should be accounted for and if not then long drawn out lawsuits might be required but probably won't happen.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/201...rt-selling
Five years ago, Overstock filed a naked-shorting case in California against a bunch of Wall Street firms. The gist of the accusation was that they had conspired with clients to manipulate short sales of the company's shares in order to allow more shorting (and thus generate bigger brokerage fees) than would otherwise have been possible. The effect, Overstock alleges, was to depress its share price.
Most of the defendants settled for undisclosed sums, leaving just Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America) in the cross-hairs. Four years of discovery produced vast piles of documentation, much of it still sealed at the request of the defendants, despite efforts by several media outlets (including The Economist) to have them made public. The case was due to go to trial in March, but this week the defendants persuaded Judge John Munter to throw out the complaint. This is a blow for Mr Byrne, but he has vowed to fight on.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/201...rt-selling
Five years ago, Overstock filed a naked-shorting case in California against a bunch of Wall Street firms. The gist of the accusation was that they had conspired with clients to manipulate short sales of the company's shares in order to allow more shorting (and thus generate bigger brokerage fees) than would otherwise have been possible. The effect, Overstock alleges, was to depress its share price.
Most of the defendants settled for undisclosed sums, leaving just Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America) in the cross-hairs. Four years of discovery produced vast piles of documentation, much of it still sealed at the request of the defendants, despite efforts by several media outlets (including The Economist) to have them made public. The case was due to go to trial in March, but this week the defendants persuaded Judge John Munter to throw out the complaint. This is a blow for Mr Byrne, but he has vowed to fight on.
