This website began as a reference - a collection of information - to try to understand how and why the State of Delaware took Our Properties.
Our Properties are
- an investment of $30,000 made in 1978 (now 256 shares in FCX - BLOOMBERG - ICAHN - YAHOO) and
- dividends - 13 checks for small amounts ($9,22 to $57.60) - totaling $750.94 - dated from February 2013 to November 2015 (Payment Dates).
When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of the profit as a dividend to shareholders.
Having these dividends mailed to our European address, it is not feasible to deposit these checks for $9.22 or $57.60 - as the banks charge a huge fee for foreign currency deposits and international checks - (example - 1/8 of 1% + $35.00 minimum - $50.00 maximum - for each check)
Due to medical reasons - including severe eye problems - (and heavy medication for "other" - since 2006) - we were not able to send the checks to our US Bank / deposit the 13 checks until June 2016.
The last time we had deposited checks from this investment was December 24th 2012.
The thirteen checks do not have a deposit limit printed on them (example: "void after 180 days")
On June 21, 2016, we contacted FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC (“The Holder”) – through the company - Transfer Agent - Computershare, Inc.* - to make sure the 13 checks were valid to deposit - before mailing to our US bank.
* Computershare, Inc. address PO Box 30170 College Station TX – http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=39334782 –
a subsidiary of Computershare Ltd. an Australian company who issues the checks -http://www.advfn.com/nyse/StockNews.asp?stocknews=BK&article=49824160
We recorded all phone calls.
Computerware, Inc. / The Holder informed us that all the checks and all the shares were “escheated to the State of Delaware”.
We asked Computerware, Inc. / The Holder - how to re-instate the shares. The recorded call states:
“…you need to get in touch with the State … it depends on the State of Delaware if they can re-instate the stock – or the cash value … the information is provided to them … call them to get back your property …”.
"... the escheatment date of your holdings ... it was transferred over 27th of January 2016 ..."
We then phoned the State of Delaware - the same afternoon.
The State of Delaware - refused to send us a claim - defining Our Properties - just 19 numbers - as extracted and partially seen below (personal information is removed).
".... we can give you a cash value ... after you provide ID ......"
" .... once we get the ID information it will take 3 to 4 months before you see any kind of payment on this particular claim ..." " ... we will send you an email ... and see what authorization is needed to be able to process the claim ..." etc.
Uniform Commercial Code delaware negotiable instruments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument#In_the_United_States
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c003/index.shtml
The 13 checks are THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON - Pittsburgh Pennsylvania who has
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) - READ US LEGAL -
Pennsylvania has adopted the following Articles of the UCC:
Article 3: Negotiable instruments: UCC Article 3 applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8. If there is conflict between this Article and Article 4 or 9, Articles 4 and 9 govern. Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to the extent of the inconsistency.
[ARTICLE] 7 7 SALE OF PROPERTY BY ADMINISTRATOR 8 SECTION 701. PUBLIC SALE OF PROPERTY. (13(a)-(e))
SAME - OFFICIAL search
The form emailed immediately upon hanging up - June 21, 2016 - omitted descriptions of the properties - as well as a very strange release clause (D. Affidavit). We were quite shocked.
If we had just put the $30,000 invested in 1978 - 38 years ago - into a CD or small interest account - we would not have to fight the STATE OF DELAWARE to return our shares to FREEPORT-MCMORAN - which - after time investigating - we now consider as theft.
Frankly - being treated as criminals in this process of finding out what was happening - and the "run-around" emails and phone calls ... we have written a draft to the State of Delaware:
Pursuant to multiple efforts to clarify that we want 256 shares (“Our Properties”) reinstated to FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC (“The Holder”), we understand to date, that the State of Delaware received the 256 shares from “The Holder” on January 27, 2016, within their Escheat Process/Laws for Unclaimed Property.
Furthermore, we understand that the State of Delaware may have sold these 256 shares at an undisclosed date, for an undisclosed amount, to an undisclosed entity, refusing repeatedly to clarify any detailed information about “Our Properties” to us the Owners.
We understand that the State of Delaware has refused to re-instate “Our Properties” to “The Holder”, as requested by us in multiple recorded telephone calls and electronically delivered mails:
We understand that the claim form - finally sent to us on August 24 2016 - does not specify the number of shares (L) Claimed Securities 0.0000.
We understand that the dividends/checks sent by The Holder are not dated “void after xxx days”
We understand the State of Delaware has requested us to sign a release form based on the above – somewhat of an illegal coercion – which states:
We understand that the State of Delaware has no proof of delivery of any notices sent to us by “The Holder” or the State of Delaware.
We understand that “The Holder” has not received any notifications that we did not receive dividends sent to us by ordinary mail.
We understand that we received, as shareholders, correspondence at our registered address that has not been returned undeliverable.
We understand that we have not changed address since 1976.
We understand that federal laws dictate Rule 17Ad-17
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-39176.txt
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.17Ad-17
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6adf43e3e2743bcd3548f6a31f9242e5&mc=true&node=se17.4.240_117ad_617&rgn=div8
(2) Lost securityholder means a securityholder:
(i) To whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address contained in the transfer agent's master securityholder file or customer security account records of the broker or dealer has been returned as undeliverable; provided, however, that if such item is re-sent within one month to the lost securityholder, the transfer agent, broker, or dealer may deem the securityholder to be a lost securityholder as of the day the resent item is returned as undeliverable; and ...
1. Definition of Lost Securityholder
Rule 17Ad-17 generally defines a "lost securityholder" as a securityholder to whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address in the transfer agent's master securityholder file has been returned as undeliverable.<(10)>
However, if a transfer agent re-sends the returned item to the securityholder within one month, the transfer agent has the option to delay classifying the securityholder as lost for purposes of Rule 17Ad-17 until the item is again returned to the transfer agent as undeliverable. If and when a transfer agent receives a new address for a lost securityholder, either directly from the securityholder or through the transfer agent's own efforts, the securityholder will no longer be classified as lost.
We understand that the initial investment was made in 1978 for $30,000.00 - to a Company named Petro-Lewis xxxx.
For your additional information, we have published two websites about our experiences to date - and trust that our SEO abilities, to make our “confusions” about this entire chain of “processes” – will reach a World Wide Audience quickly.
To date, we believe a Class Action - will be convenient to protect others - and encourage them to protect themselves from the State of Delaware´s UPL - which appear to be in violation of the basic rights - as defined in the United States Constitution as well as Federal Laws dating back to 1911.
Due to the unknown future of the US leadership - Judicial Systems and Laws – we believe this to be the most feasible solution at this time – “the social media" – as well as “the media” – have proven to be quite effective and until another United States Amendment is challenged/abolished (“the Freedom of Speech”) – we will rely on this solution to inform - animate and unite other "victims" of these gross irregularites.
FEDERAL REGISTER 2013
17Ad-17(b)(2) undeliverable
5. Rule 17Ad-17(b)(2), as amended herein, defines a “lost securityholder” to mean “a securityholder: (i) To whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address contained in the transfer agent's master securityholder file or in the customer security account record of the broker or dealer has been returned as undeliverable; provided, however, that if such item is re-sent within one month to the lost securityholder, the transfer agent, broker, or dealer may deem the securityholder to be a lost securityholder as of the day the re-sent item is returned as undeliverable; and (ii) For whom the transfer agent, broker, or dealer has not received information regarding the securityholder's new address.”
240.17Ad-17 Lost securityholders and unresponsive payees
Lost securityholder
Dodd-Frank also proposed new rules that will change the way all paying agents handle uncashed checks
SECURITIES TRANSFER ASSOCIATION, INC. (STA) - March 2012 - ... Quotes from this letter to Delaware State ... (please read) :
Honorable Jack Markell
Governor of Delaware
Carvel State Office Building
820 North French Street, 12
th
Floor
Wilmington DE 19801
RE: Application and Interpretation of Delaware
Unclaimed Property Law
THE MORE WE READ ABOUT DELAWARE - AND THE SOON TO BE ENDED GOVERNOR - Jack Alan Markell - WELL - THE MORE WE FEEL THAT THERE IS MUCH TO EXPOSE HERE - WHICH WE WILL DO.
Former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner’s administration helped push through what commercial agents say is a “sweet deal” for a lease on land owned by the state. The deal was done for one of Minner’s friends in the state’s powerful liquor industry.
Christopher Tigani, who ran N.K.S. Distributors Inc., signed a 66-year lease on 10.3 acres of land on the east side of Milford for $1,500 a month in 2006, just two months after a state appraiser set the rent at $84,125 a month, public records show.
The form emailed immediately upon hanging up - June 21, 2016 - omitted descriptions of the properties - as well as a very strange release clause (D. Affidavit). We were quite shocked.
We requested the amounts (definition) for the property numbers sent - a multiple amount of times with no answer.
"Please remit to email: xxxxxx a copy of claim XXXXXX - describing the properties as listed in the form emailed to us – (14665339796201230_XXXXXX.pdf) - for signature."
We phoned July 29th 2016 - the call is recorded.
The man who answered tried to tell us the 19 properties - on the phone. He finally agreed to email a pdf with the 19 properties clearly defined.
The man who answered tried to tell us the 19 properties - on the phone. He finally agreed to email a pdf with the 19 properties clearly defined.
On August 24, 2016 - two months after requesting complete information before signing any "form/CLAIM" - we finally - after more phone calls (toll calls) and emails - received an email with a .pdf - no true way to see what happened to our shares.
Total amount they "promised" to send was $3,447.01 - six of which are defined as "Underlying Shares or Other Outstanding Certifi ".
Deducting the 13 checks for a total of $750.94 - we were able to guess - that the State of Delaware was "giving" us $2,696.27 for our 256 shares.
Dividing $2,696.27 by 256 - we were able to guess $10.53 per share.
We had been holding these shares - waiting for the Copper market to - maybe - someday - rebound.
Now - when did the State of Delaware sell the shares - if they did - to who and for how much - is a mystery.
They said (recorded) - that the shares were sold by the Holder - which is not what The Holder said - and - which does not make sense - seen below.
They said (recorded) - that the shares were sold by the Holder - which is not what The Holder said - and - which does not make sense - seen below.
See the value when "Escheated" on January 27, 2016 - was $4.20.
June 27th 2016 - the shares were $10.13
Today November 27th 2016 - after the Presidential elections - now $16.00 a share
$16.00 x 256 shares = $4,096.00
$16.00 x 256 shares = $4,096.00
In 2012 the shares were at $46.48. 256 x $46.48 = $11,898.88
If we had just put the $30,000 invested in 1978 - 38 years ago - into a CD or small interest account - we would not have to fight the STATE OF DELAWARE to return our shares to FREEPORT-MCMORAN - which - after time investigating - we now consider as theft.
Frankly - being treated as criminals in this process of finding out what was happening - and the "run-around" emails and phone calls ... we have written a draft to the State of Delaware:
Pursuant to multiple efforts to clarify that we want 256 shares (“Our Properties”) reinstated to FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC (“The Holder”), we understand to date, that the State of Delaware received the 256 shares from “The Holder” on January 27, 2016, within their Escheat Process/Laws for Unclaimed Property.
Furthermore, we understand that the State of Delaware may have sold these 256 shares at an undisclosed date, for an undisclosed amount, to an undisclosed entity, refusing repeatedly to clarify any detailed information about “Our Properties” to us the Owners.
We understand that the State of Delaware has refused to re-instate “Our Properties” to “The Holder”, as requested by us in multiple recorded telephone calls and electronically delivered mails:
“WE WANT THE STATE OF DELAWARE TO RETURN THE 256 SHARES TO THE COMPANY AND REINSTATED IMMEDIATELY.”
We understand that the claim form - finally sent to us on August 24 2016 - does not specify the number of shares (L) Claimed Securities 0.0000.
We understand that the dividends/checks sent by The Holder are not dated “void after xxx days”
We understand the State of Delaware has requested us to sign a release form based on the above – somewhat of an illegal coercion – which states:
“Upon payment of this claim, said claimant will indemnify and hold harmless the State of Delaware, its Officers and Employees from any damages, claims or losses of any kind resulting in payment to the claimant under the provisions of Delaware Revised Statutes.”We understand that we cannot deposit any funds received from the State of Delaware – as we would be agreeing to the release statement and we do not agree with the possible sale / liquidation of our shares / Our Properties.
Definition of Lost Securityholder
We understand that “The Holder” has not received any notifications that we did not receive dividends sent to us by ordinary mail.
We understand that we received, as shareholders, correspondence at our registered address that has not been returned undeliverable.
We understand that we have not changed address since 1976.
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-39176.txt
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.17Ad-17
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6adf43e3e2743bcd3548f6a31f9242e5&mc=true&node=se17.4.240_117ad_617&rgn=div8
(2) Lost securityholder means a securityholder:
(i) To whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address contained in the transfer agent's master securityholder file or customer security account records of the broker or dealer has been returned as undeliverable; provided, however, that if such item is re-sent within one month to the lost securityholder, the transfer agent, broker, or dealer may deem the securityholder to be a lost securityholder as of the day the resent item is returned as undeliverable; and ...
1. Definition of Lost Securityholder
Rule 17Ad-17 generally defines a "lost securityholder" as a securityholder to whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address in the transfer agent's master securityholder file has been returned as undeliverable.<(10)>
Please confirm the above to be correct – for us to be able to decide how to proceed.
To date, we believe a Class Action - will be convenient to protect others - and encourage them to protect themselves from the State of Delaware´s UPL - which appear to be in violation of the basic rights - as defined in the United States Constitution as well as Federal Laws dating back to 1911.
Due to the unknown future of the US leadership - Judicial Systems and Laws – we believe this to be the most feasible solution at this time – “the social media" – as well as “the media” – have proven to be quite effective and until another United States Amendment is challenged/abolished (“the Freedom of Speech”) – we will rely on this solution to inform - animate and unite other "victims" of these gross irregularites.
We await your prompt clarification of information.
REFERENCES FOUND TO DATE
17Ad-17(b)(2) undeliverable
5. Rule 17Ad-17(b)(2), as amended herein, defines a “lost securityholder” to mean “a securityholder: (i) To whom an item of correspondence that was sent to the securityholder at the address contained in the transfer agent's master securityholder file or in the customer security account record of the broker or dealer has been returned as undeliverable; provided, however, that if such item is re-sent within one month to the lost securityholder, the transfer agent, broker, or dealer may deem the securityholder to be a lost securityholder as of the day the re-sent item is returned as undeliverable; and (ii) For whom the transfer agent, broker, or dealer has not received information regarding the securityholder's new address.”
240.17Ad-17 Lost securityholders and unresponsive payees
Lost securityholder
Dodd-Frank also proposed new rules that will change the way all paying agents handle uncashed checks
SECURITIES TRANSFER ASSOCIATION, INC. (STA) - March 2012 - ... Quotes from this letter to Delaware State ... (please read) :
Honorable Jack Markell
Governor of Delaware
Carvel State Office Building
820 North French Street, 12
th
Floor
Wilmington DE 19801
RE: Application and Interpretation of Delaware
Unclaimed Property Law
" ... Additionally, as the State Escheator has the authority to liquidate security property at his discretion, we believe that shareholders may be further disadvantaged when claiming escheated property from the state and they may not be returned their actual property (i.e. the securities) but rather, a cash equivalent equal to the amount received at the time of liquidation.
As you may be aware there are currently several cases pending where the state has liquidated shares at low prices, and the owners have been provided with far less than the value of their investments due to the state’s actions."
"Unclaimed property laws were implemented to protect the rights of the property owner, however this current interpretation appears to circumvent that protection and look to disenfranchise the owner.
The SEC regulation also defines a lost securityholder as someone who has been sent correspondence which is subsequently returned undeliverable by the postal service."
"However, as the State Escheator’s interpretation is that the Delaware code no longer requires that the location of the owner be unknown, the requirement for the federally regulated due diligence would in the majority of cases never be triggered before the property is deemed abandoned by the State of Delaware.
In effect, the State Escheator’s interpretation would result in the transfer agents needing to choose between complying with federal law or state law."
The fiscal years of all states but four end on June 30:
EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendments will become effective on March 25, 2013. The compliance date will be January 23, 2014.
One commenter asked whether the rule would apply retroactively, meaning that notifications might be required for checks already outstanding.84
The Commission notes that the changes to the rule will apply only prospectively.
The Commission notes that the changes to the rule will apply only prospectively.
Commission anticipates changing the title of the collection to “Obligation to Search for Lost Securityholders and Notify Unresponsive Payees” to reflect the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 and the change in the title of the rule.98
correspondence
undeliverable
unresponsive payee - missing securityholder
SEC Approves New Rules Regarding Lost Holders of Securities
FACT
In December 2013, following a lengthy investigation, special prosecutor E. Norman Veasey released a 101-page report - that found that some campaign donors contributed in excess of the legal limits to several state campaigns, including Markell's 2008 race.[43]
- Markell was first elected Governor in 2008 and was sworn in on January 20, 2009
"In 2008, the Delaware legislature amended the state’s unclaimed propertylaw to reduce the dormancy period on certain property types from 5 years to 3 years.
At the same time, the need for the location of the owner to be unknown as a trigger to escheatment was also removed from the legislation. According to the State Escheator’s website, the reduction of the dormancy period was supported by the following justification; ..."
While growing up, she left high school at age 16 to help support her family. Subsequently ....
Christopher Tigani, who ran N.K.S. Distributors Inc., signed a 66-year lease on 10.3 acres of land on the east side of Milford for $1,500 a month in 2006, just two months after a state appraiser set the rent at $84,125 a month, public records show.
Although the land needed to be rezoned from residential to commercial when Tigani signed the lease, his company made only one payment until the property was annexed by Milford as commercial two years later. So far, N.K.S. has paid $79,200 in rent — $3.96 million less than it would have paid at the rate the state land appraiser originally proposed
https://johncarney.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Carney_Gov_Annc_FINAL_Website.mp4?_=1
WE WILL BE ADDING MORE SOON. IN THE MEANTIME - PLEASE GET ANY PROPERTIES OUT OF DELAWARE.
http://gpde.us/2013/12/really-corrupt-politics-charges/
THEN THE SOON TO BE ENDED GOVERNOR - Jack Alan Markell
In December 2013, following a lengthy investigation, special prosecutor E. Norman Veasey released a 101-page report - that found that some campaign donors contributed in excess of the legal limits to several state campaigns, including Markell's 2008 race.[43]
THE NEW GOVERNOR - WILL SUCEED MARKELL ON
January 17, 2017
https://johncarney.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Carney_Gov_Annc_FINAL_Website.mp4?_=1
WE WILL BE ADDING MORE SOON. IN THE MEANTIME - PLEASE GET ANY PROPERTIES OUT OF DELAWARE.
http://gpde.us/2013/12/really-corrupt-politics-charges/
No comments:
Post a Comment