| nwest, good question, but I don't agree in this case. Facts uncovered due to good DD should not be edited or hidden for the sake of keeping the company's good name. Companies and their principal officers are to run public companies in an ethical manner, in full compliance with all applicable laws, and in adherence with the fudiciary responsibilities entrusted. Informatin brought to light that reveals actions inconsistent with these laws and principals, need to be publicized for all to see, to allow for corrective action, to be addressed, and to allow investors to acurately assess the risks involved in their investment. That's the whole purpose for SEC rules and regulations. In the case of ACII, we apparently, or allegedly, have a slate of corporate officers with checkered backgrounds that purport to 'fall under penny stock scam" descriptions. When the PPS for ACII, the lack of transparency, and even almost direct disdain for shareholders by current management is factored with the "checkered backgrounds" of this company's principal officers, then you have a real means to assess the risk for your investment. It no longer matters about the LACC technology. What really matters is what and how management uses that promise to attract investment. And then to see how they use that investment. In this case, over 50 million shares went to interests held close by the prinicpals in just one 3 month period in 2004 and were not apparently used to really further the interests of ACII or to really promote LACC. |
