Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Excellent info, I see where all of the responses are listed.
It's good to learn something new everyday.
D_DOG
Cool, thanks....
I get bored and go through a lot of links on the SEC site,
I didn't see this one.
It's amazing what one can find there.
Thanks Again
D_DOG
That would be nice but I think that info won't be accessible to the
public, I hope I'm wrong but I haven't seen any of this type of info
listed. I think it may be private, between the company and the SEC.
Do you know the process?
I'm not sure so I guess I'll just sit back and wait.
D_DOG
I don't think this falls under that rule, the timeline is listed in the
ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
D_DOG
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule
220(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement and Respondent shall
conduct a prehearing conference pursuant to Rule 221 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17
C.F.R. § 201.221, within fourteen (14) days of service of the Answer.
With weekend dates it goes to the next business day and Federal Holiday
"Juneteenth" the Division of Enforcement should have their answer by
June 20th, based on their filing that I attached.
D_DOG
Yep and being those shares were acquired illegally this opens
the door to to a RICO type Class Action case for those
ill-gotten gains.
I think many lenders are aware of this and may have been
notified by the SEC to maintain all of their records from that
time frame.
The winds of change are upon us regarding toxic lenders.
D_DOG
My bad, we were discussing a case from
2019 of which the lender involved (Auctus)
just hit the SEC Litigation page today
D_DOG
Yep, I believe that was dismissed:
STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice, with a Certificate of Service by Auctus Fund, LLC. (Giordano, Philip)
D_DOG
The SEC is knocking at the doors of a lotz of lenders that made tons of
money off of small company's and here is yet another.
By the way they were also involved with Redhawk around 2018 ish
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUCTUS FUND MANAGEMENT,
LLC
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp25741.pdf
D_DOG
You may be right but I've taken a lot of time to look at everything that's
available and I choose to be optimistic with what is transpiring.
I guarantee that I've dug into just about every aspect of the company
and read extensively all of the available information online.
You seem to have the general knowledge and base your decisions on
the PPS at the moment and the fact that they haven't filed their reports.
With only that knowledge I would deff agree with you but I think
there is more to this than meets the eye.
Only time will tell what transpires,
I'll just sit back and wait.
TIC TOC.
I may be wrong but hey that happens sometimes
D_DOG
I would say that the company is and has been working to protect the
shareholders for a long time. Their interest and ours are commingled
and that is a rare phenomenon for a stock that was traded on the OTC.
"Now, if the SEC wants to focus on ways to help the small borrowers like RedHawk, it should not focus on the lending practices of these “Toxic” lenders, instead, in my opinion, the SEC Enforcement should focus stronger on the egregious exit strategies employed by some of these “Toxic” lenders which simply crush the stock price of these small companies while lenders reap outrageous profits at the expense of stockholders. In fact, we can now provide you with an example wherein a lender altered loan documents in order to increase the number of shares issued upon conversion."
There is a lot going on behind the scenes is what my DD tells me.
More than meets the eye.
IMHO
D_DOG
Gotcha
D_DOG
If the below happens then SNDD stock will be revoked.
That's a given.
Failed to file an answer in response to an order instituting proceedings
(the “OIP”) alleging that it did not file required periodic reports.
1 Respondent again failed to respond to an order to show cause why it
should not be found in default.
2 We now find Respondent to be in default, deem the allegations
of the OIP to be true, and revoke the registrations of its securities.
It's a crap shoot for sure....
D_DOG
I had that listed below and understand the situation, revocation
is on the line if the allegations are not satisfied to the
Division of Enforcement liking.
I'm not leaving things out, just highlighting what I was referring to.
You most likely have more experience in this than I, I'm just a
nobody trying to understand the process.
D_DOG
YEP
Suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months is what I got out of it.
And to afford the Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations
24 days from the 25th
(10 days for the Respondent and 14 days for the Division of Enforcement)
Listed below: ? ? ?
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule
220(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement and Respondent shall
conduct a prehearing conference pursuant to Rule 221 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17
C.F.R. § 201.221, within fourteen (14) days of service of the Answer. The parties may meet in
person or participate by telephone or other remote means; following the conference, they shall
file a statement with the Office of the Secretary advising the Commission of any agreements
In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems
it necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors that public administrative proceedings
be instituted to determine:
A. Whether the allegations contained in Section II hereof are true and, in connection
therewith, to afford the Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations;
and,
B. Whether it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors to suspend
for a period not exceeding twelve months, or revoke the registration of each class of securities
registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act of the Respondent
D_DOG
Sure, he just stopped by the house for a cup of sugar....
D_DOG
You'd also have to add on the 14 days for the SEC's response so
that takes us until around June 19th ish.
D_DOG
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
D_DOG
Understood, I was referring to another post about NASDAQ requirements.
"If a company has submitted a confidential draft registration statement to the SEC in connection with its proposed
IPO, please also attach the most recent copy of this draft registration statement and all related SEC correspondence."
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/APLCN_Reqrd_Docs_List.pdf
Remote possibility but just an outside the box thought process to get to
the NASDAQ.
Shitz n Giggles kind of thing I guess.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171998827
D_DOG
A favorable unmodified audit opinion is whats required to
get listed from what I gathered.
That's what BEAN COUNTERS do:
https://greengrowthcpas.com/
D_DOG
Item 4.01. Changes in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant.
On May 9, 2023, the Audit Committee approved the engagement of California-based GreenGrowth CPA’s (“GreenGrowth”), to serve as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s financial statements for its fiscal years ended June 30, 2021, June 30, 2022 and the nine months ended March 31, 2023.
The Company’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2020, were audited by Postlethwaite& Netterville, APAC (“P&N”). P&N resigned as the Company’s auditors on December 31, 2020. P&N’s resignation was previously reported in a Form 8-K filed on January 7, 2021.
During the two most recent fiscal years, and in the subsequent interim periods through March 31, 2023, the Company did not consult with GreenGrowth regarding (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to the Company that GreenGrowth concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a disagreement, as contemplated by Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions to Item 304 of Regulation S-K, or a reportable event, as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1353406/000175392623000631/g083536_8k.htm
https://greengrowthcpas.com/
They seem to have a grasp on dealing with the cannabis industry,
another thing mentioned in the 8K.
D_DOG
It's a stretch but not impossible:
If If the company has submitted a confidential draft registration statement to the SEC in connection with its proposed
IPO, please also attach the most recent copy of this draft registration statement and all related SEC correspondence.
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/APLCN_Reqrd_Docs_List.pdf
I've read through the Initial Listing Guide a few times and tried
to see if it was possible.
It's a Hail Mary play for sure but the mention of the new auditors
made me think : WHY WOULD THEY BRING ON A NEW
GROUP OF BEAN COUNTERS
D_DOG
Suspension and the Expert Market are two different
things totally.
D_DOG
True that, like I stated they need to act accordingly
D_DOG
Well this puts us at the fork in the road, It sure looks like we've
come to a defining moment for Redhawk shareholders.
Which destination we arrive at is controlled by the actions that
the company takes to remedy this situation.
Hopefully this is addressed in a timely fashion and we see if
our trust in Mr. Darcy was worth it.
Best of Luck to All
D_DOG
I was referring to: revenue under contract
D_DOG
I'm pretty sure that releasing an 8K with the info about the
contract wouldn't/couildn't be considered PUMPING.
Pumping is multiple announcements from multiple sources,
not a singular notification.
D_DOG
By the way, it was a valid contract until it wasn't....
D_DOG
That OK, the average person never heard this term before. It's not
a common talking point unless you're dealing with business/finance
on a regular basis.
I've only heard it due to my association with the stock market and
reading filings.
D_DOG
Yes and no, from the filing they tried to work it out but that
didn't happen. Next phase it ended up in the court with a
favorable award so I'm fine with the timeline, at least there
is a path to move forward from that deal.
D_DOG
From my understanding that was an actual contract that was in
place and it didn't play out as it was agreed upon.
The court sure thought it had validity to it being it was their
opinion that the contract was binding and on paper right now
the defendant owes a sizable award.
When it hits the company's account is another thing altogether.
I'd say it is in Redhawks favor at this point.
D_DOG
Well the company's fiscal end of the year is coming up on June 30th....
There's no rhyme or reason of how the company puts out their filings
lately, so it's as good of a guess as any I'd say. Redhawk sure doesn't
pump anything and their info to the shareholders has been limited as
you very well already know.
D_DOG
I guess the limited info from the company has numbed everyone at this point.
That must cause CRICKETITIS........
D_DOG
I didn't know that, I remember hearing a
comment about Louisiana law but never
understood what they were referring to.
Thanks
D_DOG
That makes sense, you can't force anyone to pay but the system
does levy interest, fees, costs all added to the total.
These added cost can be extensive and it would also have to be
held in Louisiana by their guidelines.
If this were to go to court it could be 6 to 9 months just to get to the
court room and another 6 months plus barring any motions all
of which still incur interest plus.
That could easily put the total to over $52,000,000 plus cost along
with lawyers fees.
D_DOG
That's always possible but with the size of the order I'm thinking
their ability to pay was vetted beforehand.
That's a lotz of $$$ SCHMECKLES $$$
Like everything in life
nothing is guaranteed!
D_DOG
I don't know the particulars of the judgment but it can't be
appealed, plus there's interest added until it's paid so it would
be in their best interest to pay up.
Sounds like the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service
desision is final and binding.
At the arbitration hearing they most likely just read the contract
back to the defendant and ordered them to pay as per the verbiage
written within.
That would be my guess.
D_DOG
Totally agree, @ roughly .0105% daily letting it roll is easy.
On the initial dollar value it's over $4700 per day but being
the there is interest already due it's closer to $5,100 per day
and climbing.
D_DOG
With the judgment in the amount of $44,950,000 as of May 1st the accrued interest
totaled approximately $3,400,000. That's roughly .318% per month, .318% doesn't
sound like a lot until it involves multi-million dollar figures.
One would think that being this is non-negotiable they would be paying it out ASAP.
Just thinking out loud...
D_DOG