SAM THE SHAM and the PHAROAHS, "Wooly Bully" -- Remember that 1960's hit group???
<<Answer was that NASD would stall and not re-list until SEC inquiry was concluded - again some invisible black hand - probably SEC saying "DONT".>>
<<When my Congressman inquired the first time (Aug 27th), he received from SEC a letter with some substance - how SLUP could file for re-listing after 10 days>>
SEC has to say this. Otherwise, it would be an admission of reality on their part that the very act of imposing the "drastic" sanction of a "temporary" suspension has known, inevitable, direct, severe, and long-term consequences, the direct effect of which is to impose a substantial financial penalty on the Company and its shareholders.
This unacknowledged penalty is the direct result of the SEC's own Rules. Note the standard "boiler-plate" in the SEC's standard notice of a trading suspension:
"The Commission cautions broker-dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by the company.
Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer has any questions as to whether or not it has complied with the rule, it should not enter any quotation but immediately contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by Rule 15c2-11, it should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of Digitcom until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action."
SEE ALSO, hAWKEYE (NOT HAWKEYE) V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 400 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 2000) where the Court stated:
"The Commission's argument is grounded on the acknowledged principle that what it refers to as "investigatory proceedings" are not required to comply with the same full extent of due process requirements as those required in adjudicatory (trial-type) proceedings. True. But this Court believes that principle is not applicable in this case. The Court agrees with the petitioner that the 10-day "temporary" suspension and the following investigation render an immediate, undeniable and substantial penalty. The failure of the Commission's rules and practices to afford the full panoply of due process protections in this circumstance must be seen for what it is: a denial of Solucorp's and its stockholders' constitutionally protected rights to a proceeding that is fundamentally fair. Justice is not so blind that it can not pierce the smoke of legalistic camouflage to see the real and practical impacts of an agency's practices. We will not allow the Commission's boll to pull th wool over our eyes. (See, e.g., Wooley Booly, Sam the SHAM and the Pharoas)
Specifically, in this case, the Court finds the "real-world" impacts of the Commission's actions taken against Solucorp have been: the price of Solucorp's stock has dropped from 5 15/16 to 25 cents; the Company's ability to raise capital has been restricted; earnings have been eroded by enormous legal bills; the attention of Solucorp's management has been diverted from the company's business at a critical stage of its development; the stock has been de-listed from the NASDQ Bulletin Board and relegated to the pink sheets; KBF (most likely trying to ride the coat-tails of the Commission's actions) has terminated Solucorp's exclusive license and has filed a lawsuit for non-payment of license fees (if true, most likely caused by the effects of the Commission's actions), trading in the stock is limited to a single market-maker , and the Company's reputation and credibility throughout the environmental services, financial, and investment communities has been questioned.
Under these circumstances the Court finds that the petitioner's being dumb-founded, pizzed-off, and deeply offended is totally justified."
Message 11841750
|
