I don't disagree with your comments about PIPE's and Rule 504 exemption offerings. I also agree in general with the idea that these deals are basically ways to screw retail investors, "the last to know."
However, I think your comments need some clarity.
I too don't understand the "pending SEC approval" issue. SSTY is not a clear precedent. There are serious issues involving ownership of SSTY core assets. At about the same time as trading was halted, there was news of a dispute (and I believe litigation) among the principals re ownership of the assets. I have stopped following it but I don't think that this has been resolved. I don't believe the reasons for the halt have been detailed and, of course, we have nothing that says why no market maker has stepped up after the halt. In all likelihood, they have no confidence in any information upon which to file with the NASD under 2-11. So, I believe we have just assumptions, ones that may or may not be material with respect to PLNI.
Rule 504 exemption is an exemption from registration so I don't understand your comment that you need registration to sell the shares. You file REGDEX but that's not registration and I don't believe there is any "SEC approval," at least nothing that would take a great deal of time to approve.
Further PIPE deals refer more often to discount deals and have their own issues with respect to manipulative shorting (term I prefer to use rather than getting into semantics over whether or not it is naked shorting.)
This is not intended to express an opinion one way or another on PLNI, and I hold no position. Just prefer to see some clarity in the arguments and not just personal attacks and assumptions on blogs, made to look like "facts." |
