No question my statements are IMO, but they are, indeed:
<<they have shown no substantive proof,>>
The SEC should require that the burden of proof be born by the attacker before taking action, such as a shutdown of trading. Too many people give this agency of the state far too much credit for acting in the interests of investors. Investors' collective acceptance or silence will certainly not bring about any sort of reform.
<<I don't think that anyone "demanded" anything from the SEC>>
I have a lot of trouble believing that our mystery caller was ignorant of the SEC's possible actions. Forcing the MM's to comply with ANY regulatory requirement before quoting LEAH on the BB does not make LEAH whole, and constitutes punishment without due process.
<<The silence has been deafening from the company since the suspension.>>
Once again, it's the only intelligent way to defend this. Statements will only be made now with proper advice of counsel.
<<They have jumped around considerably in different industries, from clothes to
windows to oil to internet.(their internet site is nothing to write home about).>>
LEAH's business is and always has been the former Soviet Union, and the long term value that can be found there.
<<The President of Leah stated that Price Waterhouse Coopers was working on their
audit in August, and then out of nowhere D&T CIS comes into the picture without
any statement regarding the change.>>
As explained before on our thread, P.W./Coopers couldn't handle the work after Sib Mach. They may have even recommended D & T (CIS), if I recall those posts correctly. You are welcome to go back and take a look.
<<I believe that there are concerns that needs to be addressed>>
With any stock, there will always be concerns, and they will always require addressing. But NOT by letting some yahoo long or some slimy short (or maybe just someone uninvolved, but with an attitude), forever hidden from public view, attack the company, using an arm of the government as an unwitting weapon. |
