SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Solucorp Industries (SLUP - OTCBB)
SLUP 0.000010000.0%Mar 7 3:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: hawkeye who wrote (2758)10/20/1999 11:44:00 PM
From: hawkeye  Read Replies (3) of 3679
 
hAWKEYE OF THE SLUP THREAD WELCOMES THE SEC TO OUR COMMUNITY! HERE IS A GENERAL QUESTION FOR YOU:

In the case of SEC v. Samuel Sloan, (http://www.ishius.com/sec.htm ) a case in which the SEC's authority to temporarily suspend trading in a stock was challenged, Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated;

"It seems to us that Congress, in weighing the public interest against the burden imposed upon private parties, has concluded that 10 days is sufficient for gathering necessary evidence.
* * *
...Even assuming that it is proper to suspend trading simply in order to enhance the information in the marketplace, there is nothing to indicate that the Commission cannot simply reveal to the investing public at the end of 10 days the reasons which it thought justified the initial summary suspension and then let the investors make their own judgments."

HOW DOES THE COMMISSION RECONCILE THIS ADMONISHMENT BY THE NATION'S SUPREME INTERPRETER OF THE LAW WITH THE COMMISSION'S PRACTICE THAT HAS RESULTED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A TINY COMPANY LIKE SOLUCORP CONSUMING 18 MONTHS WITH NO REVELATION TO INVESTORS OF THE STAFF'S EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS?

(For the non-lawyers: In the Sloan Case, the SEC was challenged by an individual stockholder for having repeatedly suspended trading in a stock for successive ten-day periods. The Court decided that the SEC lacked authority to do this. And that is what is known as the Court's "Holding in the case". The case was decided at a time when the SEC did not even give the public any clue as to the concerns that the Commission believed justified the suspension. To a certain degree, that practice was changed as a result of the blistering concurring opinion of Mr Justice Brennan about the then current SEC's practices which Mr Justice Brennan believed barely met constitutional standards of due process, if at all. I would encourage you to read it. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand it. )

Respectfully Submitted in a Genuine Spirit of Open Communication

by

hawkey (not Hawkeye) of the SLUP Thread
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News