Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PatP who wrote (42563)	1/20/2000 8:38:00 AM
From: ColleenB	Respond to of 43774

I think he fully comprehends the seriousness of John A. Schmitz' NASD discipline. I have said all along that the action taken by the NASD against John A. Schmitz was stern and severe. To impose such a fine, and to strip one of their livelyhood (disbarrment) surely was not a flippant decision made by the members of the NASD board/displinary action committee as PCM would like investors to believe. His suggestion that only one side of the story is being presented is absurd, the man was found guilty, fined, sanctioned and stripped of his brokers license. These were serious consequences and I'm sure the members on the committee that came to such a decision did so after a lot of deliberation and a preponderance of evidence. For PCM to look for an excuse for such behavior, "we haven't heard John Schmitz' side" is suspect in itself and casts a shadow on one trying to minimize such actions. In addition to such excuses PCM would love to hypothesize he cannot over look the fact that a part of the sanctions imposed against John Schmitz was that he was to have nothing to do with ANY NASD member in ANY capacity and here he was heading up a day-trading firm and the appointed President of the subsidiary had a suspect employment history. Was this John's way of giving the finger to the NASD?

To: PatP who wrote (42563)	1/20/2000 1:33:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

*Arbitration and Mediation* Although most business in the securities industry is completed without a problem, disputes and controversies occasionally arise. To assist in the resolution of monetary and business disputes between investors and their securities firms (as well as between member firms), NASD Regulation operates the largest arbitration forum in the securities industry and now features a full-scope mediation program. Arbitration is not an extension of NASD Regulation's disciplinary procedures, which result in sanctions being imposed for violations of rules. Rather, arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism designed to help aggrieved parties recover damages. The principal benefit of arbitration is that it provides a prompt, inexpensive alternative to litigation in the courts. The rules are based on a Uniform Code of Arbitration developed by the Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration. Arbitration is final and binding, subject to review by a court only on a very limited basis. In an arbitration proceeding, impartial persons knowledgeable in the areas of controversy hold a hearing, listen to oral arguments, review evidence submitted, and render a decision. For small claims (less than $10,000), the customer can opt to forego a hearing and have the case based on the submissions presented. The goal of mediation is to provide public customers, member firms, and associated persons with another effective way to resolve their disputes. Mediation is a voluntary settlement conference that is facilitated by a third party neutral. The resulting settlement is likely to save the parties substantial time and expense. nasd.com looking for this....NASD Regulation's disciplinary procedures