First Trust Dow Jones Global Select Dividend Ix Fd V.FGD

RE:Andre the victim?

[Caliaccel]

The idiots that post on this forum continue to amaze me.

Teflon disagrees with Topgun that there is a conspiracy by the banks and the OSC to hinder FGD.

I agree, there is no conspiracy.

But, Teflon then goes on to make up his own conspiracy, as he states, “I believe certain person(s)”…….. are involved regarding the…….. “successful completion of their well planned out financial butt-raping .”

O.K. Teflon, who are these “certain person(s)?”

Why don’t you provide us all with details of the “certain person(s)” and their “well planned” activities, instead of providing cheap inuendo.

Better yet, as the “self-proclaimed” internet “scam buster,” why don’t you run off to the RCMP and let them know of your beliefs because you are surreptitiously accusing these people of fraud.

Have you got any proof?

The OSC is in a much better position than you, Teflon, in determining whether “certain persons” conducted “well planned” activities.

Fact: There is nothing from the OSC “Before the Commission” or “Before the Court.”  

And of the 1,236 CTO’s listed, the OSC has not indicated any such accusations against FGD at all, just a “failure to file.”

And there is no indication that any shareholder nor the very large current-shareholders, which I listed previously, have taken your advice or from the obvious shorters, as they have not launched individual lawsuit(s) or a class-action against the company.   

Nothing.

Only the “Series G” claim of which they have no direct collateral or security from FGD. Note: This may well be part of any debt restructuring negotiations the new directors may be engaged in.

Teflon, when it comes to FGD, where you see a conspiracy, I see failure to file.

I guess you would say that FGD fooled their major partners.

I guess you would say that FGD fooled FINTRAC.

I guess that you would say that FGD fooled FINCEN and the banks.

I guess you would say that FGD fooled each of the 43 U.S. state licensors - and the required regulatory and FBI background checks.

Instead of a general CTO, FGD actually requested that the OSC issue an MCTO – Management Cease Trade Order.

None of this sounds like conspiracy to me, Teflon.

To me it is relatively straight forward;

Despite the revenue contracts that FGD had, a CTO was issued because the company failed to properly provide financial statements under the new IFRS accounting rules. They have since been revised. The relatively small reinstatement fee must be paid.

NO ONE has ever suggested that the revenues FGD reported were not real, except of course for you, Teflon.

Revenues were accounted for using GAAP instead of IFRS.

Again, Teflon, unless you have inside information, besides your conspiracy theories, all you have is opinion. Stop describing what you post as self-assured  "facts" and "reality." They are not. 

Note: The risk of rushing to a class-action, as the shorters would like, is stronger than the reward of waiting to see how this pans out. If there is fraudulent conveyance, the courts can reverse that. Directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. 

We now have new directors with particular skill sets on the board of FGD. They are putting their reputations at stake.

It may also be announced shortly that a new CFO may be coming on board and if so, that will probably end speculation on the direction of FGD.

Regardless, my opinion is that we will soon hear of a new partnership, restructuring, financing, take-over or a resumption of trading and that shareholders large and small will prosper.

Re: the transition to IFRS:

https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/Companies_info-ifrs_index.htm