But they knew the company was on the verge of winding down, prior to the change in beneficial ownership. There would be no pressure at all to overstate results. Everybody already knew how bad things were. The only legitimate concern they could have, from what I see, is that the new owner(s) may have used ill-gotten gain to purchase their shares, and that their client's ownership was not legitimate.

It could be said that they simply didn't want their firm to be associated with clients of suspect intentions. But if so, they should not have taken the account in the first place.

I don't have any sympathy for retail longs at this point. They had their chance for extraordinary profit, which is more than some of us had, in the same situation.

My interest is in the abuse of regulatory power at this point.

I don't understand why Marcum bailed so quickly as the company's new auditor. I didn't see anything from the PCAOB that would have required their resignation.

However, assuming that there is nothing that would cause an auditor to refuse to prepare financial filings, I think the company could win an appeal of the Nasdaq delisting decision, based on the ownership statements and 8K's filed since the NT 10Q. They only have four days left to appeal, though, and I would be surprised if they did. Regardless, I think the delisting decision should be appealed. Maybe it's a "sins of the father" kind of thing, but I don't see why KBIO has to pay the price.

It's just the type of language I'm sure we've all seen in previous SEC filings. Did the money Shkreli used to purchase KBIO shares come from ill-gotten gain obtained from his past associations with his hedge funds or some type of illegal activity?

I hope not. I hope the halt is lifted and shareholders prevail. After all, another reason for such a quick halt could be because the questions being examined are in regards to market manipulation, and the problem with shares being cleared and settled.

There's no mystery as to who these Relief Defendants ought to be. Their names are in the TA journals, which were part of the SEC's Complaint documentation. They should be disgorged their ill-gotten gain, if the shares were unregistered.

You know, like the SEC is seeking disgorgement from Diane Dalmy, for her sales of unregistered shares, which you thought was "Good!"

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119363851

The Nasdaq halt came very quickly after Shkreli's group obtained their shares. What kind of questions could there possibly be so soon?

I'm thinking regulators may be looking at whether or not the shares were purchased from the fruit of a poisonous tree. If so, this could go the forfeiture route, and take all the heat off of any participants that are still short. I also suspect that, IF the the stock resumes trading, the FTD's may instantaneously reappear, and KBIO would immediately be right back on RegSHO.

The issues are more in the SEC's field, which is why I would not be surprised to see them issue a suspension, whether KBIO is on Nasdaq, or moved to the greys (which could be either by the end of this week, or next week).

Oh, please.

Suspensions are not the sole domain of the exchanges, in regards to listed stocks.

"The SEC suspended trading in Spongetech stock on Oct. 5, 2009..."

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-70.htm

It happens all the time.

She was stating facts as far as she knew them. I merely provided clarification of the facts, as she routinely does herself.

It would not surprise me to see the SEC issue a suspension in this stock. They are quick to respond when "experts" discuss corporate malfeasance publicly, in such esteemed newspapers as the NY Post.

The SEC's role in issuing trading suspensions, as well as information regarding Form 211 filings, are contained in the link provided.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/tradingsuspensions.pdf

This case remains open for further proceedings, according to the criminal court judge. If the SEC's charges are correct, and if the law is upheld (neither assumption in which I am confident), I would expect these cases to involve naked shorting; the sale of unregistered shares by the recipients; and, at a minimum, negligence on the part of the brokerages who cannot verify the authencity of the shares they sold to us.

Meanwhile, a number of other cases have already been brought, as a result of this investigation. I would hope that we won't see too many more of those, as they just diminish the recovery available to us, and also result in sentences that intentionally fail to reflect the amount of harm caused by the defendants in those cases.

I appreciate the links to my SPNGQ posts being provided on the DD board, shajandr. Although I'm not sure why you think this is somehow a Millenial vs Baby Boomer issue. I don't. In fact, part of what I would like to accomplish is the enhanced and effective protection of the Millenials, including my own.

For instance, I think that when Executive Branch employees intentionally withhold relevant information from judges, ommissions that hurt the investing public and ignore the law, then there should be severe repurcussions for their reckless indifference.

Ouch? Not here. Not on KBIO.

What was Sykes right about? My first post on this subject was in response to a rumor that "...Sykes and his troup got nailed..."

I replied by saying that "I see several KBIO messages on Sykes' webpage. Looks like some of his followers were able to make some money."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118621702

If you're asking if Sykes was right about what he said in the NY Post, yes he pretty much was. I am not surprised. I said on the KBIO board that this "...could have downward pressure on the price of KBIO shares."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118820448

If governmental agencies would react as quickly to RegSHO violations, as they do to charging company executives, the investing public would be better protected.

How many more days before KBIO gets demoted to the grey market? Is it after 5 days of no trading activity? And what evidence of wrong-doing is there in regards to KBIO? Does KBIO face this risk without evidence of wrong-doing?

There is upper class, lower class, and, no class.

Thank you so much, Dan.

The case remains open for further proceedings, so we'll see what becomes public as those cases are rolled out.

Over the last couple of weeks, though, I have found discussion of Bad Actors, FINRA and the proposed reverse split, and the OTC's reasons for discontinuing quotation of SpongeTech, all to be very interesting. Very.

No worries, k9.

We have been talking about the sale of Original Issue Shares (OIS), offered by the company. They were treated as long sales by the gatekeepers.

We know this, because the vast majority of those shares were re-sold by the beneficiaries who received them. Understandable, since those shares were purchased at significant discounts to the market price. For instance, we know some of those shares were purchased for 10% of the market price.

There were no failures to deliver OIS shares to the members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. The TA journals reflect the subsequent re-sell of those shares.

Did the gatekeepers fail in their duty to protect the investing public, by allowing the sale of unregistered shares? Did the beneficiaries of those shares profit from ill-gotten gains? If so, where are the charges (other than north of the border)? As I have said repeatedly, I am waiting to see dozens of Relief Defendants named, if the SEC's charges are correct.

That does not "directly conflict," as shajandr said in another post, with my claims regarding naked shorting. Those claims are VERIFIED by the Blue Sheet trading records I have reviewed and reported to Judge Bernstein.

You keep saying that you've read everything that I submitted to the judges, but you may have missed a couple.

"Please note also that I referenced a temporary lift of a global trading lock that had been placed on SpongeTech's stock. This, too, was a DTC action, as was their announcement of the conversion of accounts from Ridge Clearing to Penson.

The temporary lift of the global trading lock was to allow broker/dealers to clean up "Aged Fails." It was announced on August 5, 2011, in Release #B0846-l l."

Case 1:10-cr-00600-DLI Document 377 Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 2241

From the DTC's Notice

#: B0846-11
Date: August 5, 2011
To: All Participants
Category: Settlement
From: Settlement Department
Attention: Settlement Manager/Managing Director/Cashier

Subject: Clean up of Aged Fails in Select Globally Locked CUSIPs

DTC will support a program to facilitate the industry's clean up of aged fails in select globally locked securities. This notice details the information necessary for firms to participate in this program, which is scheduled to occur during the period August 15, 2011 through August 19, 2011.

(SpongeTech was number 50 on their list).

And who better to fulfill a fictitious need for opinion letters, than a fictitious lawyer? Bomart may have been the right man for the job.

"Do you also remember that 5 days after SPNG was suspended, they dropped off that list? How exactly did those fails disappear, when the stock was not trading?"

My focus on the RegSHO list was on the fact that we were on it, when the SEC suspended trading. I never even looked at how long we stayed on the list after that.

So when you said that SPNGQ dropped off the list 5 days after the suspension, I was trying to recall why "5 days" rang a bell for me. I found it, just now:

"In late October 2008 the SEC updated Regulation SHO requiring that all short sellers must locate, borrow and deliver any shares they have shorted, no exceptions, by T+3 settlement date. If not, a buy-in must be forced by the broker dealer that the short seller transacted through by the opening of the market on T+4. Since a company first appears on the naked short list when short sellers have been failing to deliver for 5 consecutive trading days, SPNG should theoretically never be on the naked short list again."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS133411+31-Aug-2009+BW20090831#5me1vLWw4plOJTEx.97

There were no failures to deliver for 5 consecutive days.

But, I wasn't really satisfied with that, so I kept looking. I found that the OTC may have discontinued displaying SPNGQ data BECAUSE of the suspension. Another reason may have been because of a lack in adequate current information. Such as a list of shareholders?

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SPNGQ/quote

Again, SpongeTech still had failures to deliver two years after this.

Did the FTD's disappear in October 2009? If so, why was SpongeTech one of the 95 companies affected by a one week lift of their global trading locks, which was done to allow for the clean-up of "Aged Fails" in August 2011?

Also, as I reported to Judge Bernstein after reviewing the Blue Sheets, there were significant and sustained violations of RegSHO concerning short sales of the company's stock. These sales would also have skewed the RegSHO numbers, but in the opposite direction.

There was also the matter of a one billion share deposit into a DWAC account, which could have subsequently had a huge impact on the actual OS total, as I also detailed to the judge.

In addition, members of the stock distribution network sold their shares very quickly after receiving them, often within days of the purchase. Are you suggesting that those shares were sold before delivery?

If the share issue is so cut and dried, why wasn't a list of shareholders ever presented, as required by law, to the bankruptcy judge? Why have we had to wait so long for the company's lawyers, who authored the opinion letters, to be tried?

If you are correct in what you are saying, then doesn't that mean that there would be about 2.5 billion FTD shares, and the only shareholders would be the dozens of people who never received delivery of the shares they bought from the company?

You do know that our primary clearing firm was charged with naked shorting, don't you? As was the Exchange on which they are permit holders.

In any event, the FTD's you depicted would be failures to deliver from long sales, not short sales.

I'm talking about the dozens of beneficiaries who should be charged as Relief Defendants, who were part of the SpongeTech stock distribution network, all of whom, who have been charged, seem to have made substantially more money on the sale of alleged unregistered shares, than did the company.

In this case, Weiner sold his shares for four times the amount he paid for them.

The six beneficiaries who cleared the shares they received through Canaccord paid anywhere from 600 - 900% less than market price for their shares. The company sold eight certificates in these transactions, to a total of 22 beneficiaries. Did the other, uncharged beneficiaries receive similar discounts?

So...the SEC alleges that about 2.5 billion unregistered shares were sold by the company...and they're going to recover the proceeds obtained from the sale of 8 million of those shares.

Should we add that to the 198 million shares involved in the IIROC suit?

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 200, 230, and 239
Release No. 33-9414; File No. S7-21-11
RIN 3235-AK97


"“Bad actor” disqualification requirements, sometimes called “bad boy” provisions, disqualify securities offerings from reliance on exemptions if the issuer or other relevant persons (such as underwriters, placement agents and the directors, officers and significant shareholders of the issuer) have been convicted of, or are subject to court or administrative sanctions for, securities fraud or other violations of specified laws. Rule 506 in its current form does not impose any bad actor disqualification requirements."

We've had a significant number of "Bad Actor" participants in our market who could have caused FINRA to disallow the reverse split. None of these significant shareholders have been charged in relation to the manipulation of SpongeTech's market.

But we did change to a 34 Act reporting company shortly after the time period involved here. This is just something to consider further, in terms of what did government officials know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

How exactly does "the system" convert a long sale into a short sale?

It applies to selling shares that don't exist, at all.

"Mr. Pensley's attorney will move to withdraw..."

Last I knew, Pensley was being represented by Fidler. And as I recall, Fidler succeeded Pensley as in-house counsel of Proteonomix.

In yet another SpongeTech-related case, the SEC filed charges against Proteonomix, and it's CEO, Michael Cohen, who moved to Proteonomix from Vanity Events. These charges were for the sale of unregistered shares. The Commission noted "45. First, no registration statement had been filed or was in effect with the Commission in connection with the securities that Proteonomix and Cohen issued or transferred to the FIL (father-in-law) Companies or that the FIL Companies transferred to Proteonomix’s creditors at Cohen’s direction. Second, these issuances and transfers did not comply with the registration exemptions identified in opinion letters authored by Proteonomix’s in-house counsel."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2015/comp23201.pdf

The Complaint lists the dates of these sales. And there is probably an 8k in regards to when Fidler replaced Pensley at Proteonomix. So it is possible to determine whether one or both of these attorneys wrote the opinion letters. Regardless, it represents a possible conflict of interest, and it is not surprising to finally see what Kisslinger said in his status update in this regard.

"Settlement status with defendant Joel Pensley is progressing. On November 10, 2015, the SEC sent proposed settlement documents to Pensley’s former counsel, who subsequently informed the SEC on November 24 that he no longer would be representing Pensley in this action. On November 30, Pensley informed the SEC that he would be providing comments on the draft settlement papers in the near future, but the SEC has not yet received such comments."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/292760651/SEC-v-Spongetech-Et-Al-Doc-354-Filed-01-Dec-15

My only question is, has the SEC invited another skater to the party?

This hasn't been closed down yet, as you know. We still have our shares, and the case remains open for further proceedings. I still expect to see dozens of Relief Defendants named.

However, I doubt that we will see prosecutions commenced against one toxic lender and two stock promoters who were involved here. The same may be true for about eight brokers. The more people that can skate their way out of here, the more injustice SpongeTech shareholders will suffer.

This has nothing to do with the PRODUCTS of either company, although most people seem to think that SpongeTech had a pretty good product, and a pretty good new-product pipeline.

However, my brokerage account doesn't reflect the number of SpongeTech products in my house. It reflects the number of SpongeTech SHARES in my account.

I am comparing the SHARE PRICE of the two companies...

I am comparing two companies that were both on RegSHO...

both of whom drew the attention of Tim Sykes and the NY Post...

both of whom were in severe financial difficulty...

both of whom had effective bear traps.

The SEC failed to protect SpongeTech shareholders by willfullly disregarding RegSHO. In fact, their actions prevented the protection of RegSHO.

Is it alright with me that the SEC failed to enforce buy-in laws that could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of profit to me? Money that could be used to pay for such frivolous things as life-saving medical treatment?

Our government agencies represent nothing less than a clear and present danger to...our government, and to the individual citizens they govern.

I think that when a company continues to be illegally shorted, even while it is on the RegSHO list, that it is only just that shareholders be richly rewarded when the illegal short sellers are forced to cover.

As I posted on the KBIO board, "KBIO shareholders have been fortunate. But in my opinion, I think it would be naive to believe that you are isolated from being victimized by a short selling campaign, regardless of how many shares the Shkreli group holds, and regardless of what the law is. But I am very happy for all of you."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118909478

Funny thing, isn't it, that the DTC would temporarily lift the global trading lock on SpongeTech shares, to cover Aged Fails, at exactly the time that the initial estate representative was appointed, and granted subpoena power to obtain the company's NOBO and OBO share data?

Or that Penson would file bankruptcy just days before I was appointed as the successor estate representative, and granted subpoena power to obtain their Blue Sheet trading records?

So as you can see, such as from what I posted on the KBIO board, my interest is not in dumping over-priced SpongeTech shares onto other shareholders. My interest is in selling those shares, at the highest possible price, to the market participants who illegally sold those shares to me in the first place.

How much would those 24 million shares be worth at $20 per share?

The company's viability was not important. How much short sellers thought the company was worth was not important. The bad press from the NY Post was not important. All of that is demonstrated by looking at the share price of a similar company, such as KaloBios ("a tiny biotech company that was near death"), which has spiked from 44 cents to over $45 in the last two weeks. It's most recent close was at over $31, despite the fact that Sykes was quoted in the NY Post on the 24th as predicting that the price would drop 50% last week. It didn't, but it wouldn't matter now even if the price dropped into the subpenny range. Shareholders have their chance to capture HUGE profits.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/24/price-gouging-drug-ceo-drives-up-tiny-biotech-stock-by-9000/

SpongeTech shareholders were deprived of capturing similar profits. Illegal short selling was a daily occurence. The required triggering event was in place, in the form of a tender offer, which would have forced a short squeeze. And I will "breathe and relax" when justice is served.

This has always been an issue regarding the beneficial ownership of nominee accounts. That was true in the IIROC prosecution of Canaccord affiliates regarding SpongeTech shares; the US charges against Gibraltar Global Securities; and now with the requested extradition of Mr. Randles with Sandias Azucaradas, who received at least 24 million shares of SpongeTech between Jan - April of 2009.

Again, it was why I opposed the forfeiture of shares to the DOJ. I see no reason to change my view that the company may have been the beneficial owner of a number of these shares, and that they were surreptitiously accumulated with the intention of returning them to the treasury for the announced cancellation. At the least, there may have been more than enough shares to pay the company's creditors, and emerge from Ch 11.

It's a start.

Well, maybe more like a continuation.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22683.htm

Thank you for the post, scion.

Remember the proposed reverse split?

SPONGETECH® DELIVERY SYSTEMS ANNOUNCES
REVERSE STOCK SPLIT TO MOVE CLOSER TO NASDAQ LISTING


NEW YORK, NY – September 8, 2009 – SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”) “The Smarter Sponge™”, (OTCBB: SPNG) today announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously approved a reverse split of SpongeTech®’s issued and outstanding capital stock at a 1-for-100 split ratio. The reverse stock split, which is expected to take effect on September 22, 2009, subject to receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, has also been approved by the holders of more than a majority of SpongeTech’s voting capital stock.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409047372/v159866_ex99-1.htm

Of course, it never happened.

SPONGETECH® DELIVERY SYSTEMS CANCELS
REVERSE STOCK SPLIT

NEW YORK, NY – September 22, 2009 – SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”) “The Smarter Sponge™”, (OTCBB: SPNGE) today announced that its Board of Directors has decided to cancel its previously announced reverse stock split until after the Form 10-K for the Company’s fiscal year 2009 has been filed.

CEO Michael Metter said, “We originally planned for the reverse stock split to take effect after the filing of our Form 10-K for fiscal 2009 to give our shareholders the opportunity to evaluate our financial performance and growth prospects first. In light of the delay in filing, we have decided that to proceed with the reverse stock split would not be in the best interests of our shareholders.”

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050122/v161351_ex99-1.htm

But was the delay in filing the 10K really the reason for the cancellation of the reverse split? Ot was it due to regulatory concerns about a Bad Actor(s)?

"Kurt Krammer and his firms Mazuma Corporation, Mazuma Funding Corporation, and Mazuma Holding Corporation are not connected to us (Ecolocap) in any manner whatsoever and accordingly we believe that FINRA's actions are erroneous and as such without any basis in law. Kurt Krammer is the president of Asher Enterprises from whom we have borrowed money. Our relationship with Asher Enterprises is one of debtor/creditor and accordingly Kurt Krammer and his firms Mazuma Corporation, Mazuma Funding Corporation, and Mazuma Holding Corporation are not "connected to us" as a matter of law. Further, it is our position that Asher Enterprises is not "connected to us" as a matter of law."

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10210190

Despite the law, a company can stay on RegSHO indefinitely. Just because there are laws, doesn't mean that the SEC will enforce them.

SpongeTech is an example. In a Motion that I filed in that case, I presented the following.

“Date
Reg SHO Threshold Flag?
Oct 6, 2009 Yes
Oct 5, 2009 Yes
Oct 2, 2009 Yes
Oct 1, 2009 Yes
Sept 30, 2009 Yes
Sept 29, 2009 Yes
Sept 28, 2009 Yes
Sept 25, 2009 Yes
Sept 24, 2009 Yes
Sept 23, 2009 Yes
Sept 22, 2009 Yes
Sept 21, 2009 Yes
Sept 18, 2009 Yes
Sept 16, 2009 Yes
Sept 15, 2009 Yes
Sept 14, 2009 Yes
Sept 11, 2009 Yes
Sept 10, 2009 Yes
Sept 9, 2009 Yes
Sept 8, 2009 Yes
Sept 4, 2009 Yes
Sept 3, 2009 Yes
Sept 2, 2009 Yes
Sept 1, 2009 Yes
Aug 31, 2009 Yes
Aug 28, 2009 Yes
Aug 27, 2009 Yes
Aug 26, 2009 Yes
Aug 25, 2009 Yes
Aug 24, 2009 Yes
Aug 21, 2009 Yes
Aug 20, 2009 Yes
Aug 19, 2009 Yes
Aug 18, 2009 Yes
Aug 17, 2009 Yes
Aug 14, 2009 Yes
Aug 13, 2009 Yes
Aug 12, 2009 Yes
Aug 11, 2009 Yes
Aug 10, 2009 Yes
Aug 7, 2009 Yes
Aug 6, 2009 Yes
Aug 5, 2009 Yes
Aug 4, 2009 Yes
Aug 3, 2009 Yes
Jul 31, 2009 Yes
Jul 30, 2009 Yes
Jul 29, 2009 Yes
Jul 28, 2009 Yes
Jul 27, 2009 Yes

10-13647-smb Doc 408 Filed 12/05/12 Entered 12/05/12 12:29:04 Main Document
Pg 23 of 29

What did the SEC do? "The SEC suspended trading in Spongetech stock on Oct. 5, 2009..."

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-70.htm

What is the law?

"In addition, Rule 203(b)(3) of Regulation SHO requires that participants of a registered clearing agency must immediately purchase shares to close out failures to deliver in securities with large and persistent failures to deliver, referred to as “threshold securities,” if the failures to deliver persist for 13 consecutive settlement days."

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm

So my question was, and is, how are participants going to purchase shares to close out FTDs, when the SEC suspends trading, even when the company was on the RegSHO list?

KBIO shareholders have been fortunate. But in my opinion, I think it would be naive to believe that you are isolated from being victimized by a short selling campaign, regardless of how many shares the Shkreli group holds, and regardless of what the law is. But I am very happy for all of you.

I'm a fan of Judge Cote's, and I found Section VII of her ruling interesting. I'm not sure why it's there, whether it is just boilerplate, or if it is in regards to a specific bankruptcy, or whose bankruptcy.

The subject of nominee accounts set up in Panama is of interest to me, not only as it relates to this overall case, but also as it relates to other Panamanian accounts that were cleared in Canada, and subject to charges filed by IIROC.

I wonder if the name "Intertrust" will come up in this case.

This discussion is relevant to KBIO shareholders since I now see the NY Post quoting Timothy Sykes, saying that he expects to see "...a drop up to 50 percent by early next week..." in the price of KBIO shares.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/24/price-gouging-drug-ceo-drives-up-tiny-biotech-stock-by-9000/

SpongeTech filed suit against Sykes, Patch, and the NY Post. The suit was not litigated, as it was abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee.

But, there may be more at play here than just a reporter publishing a news article about Mr. Shkreli. And that could have downward pressure on the price of KBIO shares. Consider this for FWIW.

"Back in 2009, someone asked him to take a look at Spongetech."

You seem to know David pretty well, Janice. Do you know if the person who asked him to look at SpongeTech was a toxic lender?

Do you know if it was the same person who asked him to look at Bederra?

Do you know if that person wired several hundreds of thousands of dollars into the personal bank account of the person who owned Bederra's Transfer Agency, for the purchase of one billion shares of Bederra's stock, not authorized by the company?

Do you know if it is the same person who just paid $1.4 million dollars to settle SEC charges for the purchase of "...billions of shares in a pair of microcap companies and failed to register them before they were re-sold to investors for sizeable profits?"

Depending on the answers to those questions, that could have proven to be an unexpected detour in David's Road to Damascus experience.

Going forward in the fight against naked shorting is what matters to me. I have always thought that David could play a significant role in that effort.

Dang, Janice. I couldn't recall the name of a company in which an individual shareholder bought 100% of the company's shares, and the stock continued trading anyway. I was hoping to Google it, and saw the Global Links story. Don't make me Google "naked" anything anymore. I think I'm too young for some of the stuff I was finding.

The point is that this stock could go right on trading, regardless of whether Shkreli owns 100% of the Outstanding Shares or not.

David hasn't been shy about letting me know what he thinks, Janice. But I have always thought, and still do think, that the road that he WAS on was the right road, regardless of how NSS claims were abused by self-serving criminal executives. The fact remains that the SEC is in need of reform, and David would be an asset in helping to make that happen.

You might think that owning 100% of the Outstanding Shares could force a buy-in, or would prove the existence of naked shorts. But the SEC would have to enforce the law, and that doesn't always happen.

Speaking of naked shorting and trying to get the SEC to do their job, here is a story to think about.

"Naked Horror

Suspicious trading last year in shares of Global Links, a small Nevada real estate holding company, was far more intense than previously thought.

New data from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reveals trade settlement fails in early February 2005 that were 27 times greater than the total number of shares Global Links had issued at the time. The data show suspicious trading in Global Links far earlier and to a far larger degree than any previously released by the SEC.

The data was obtained this week by a Freedom of Information Act request from David Patch, an outspoken critic of the SEC and an active participant in the drive for reform of market regulations and enforcement..."

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/25/naked-shorts-global-links-cx_lm_0825naked.html

I would like to see more of David.

Thank you so much, scion. If you think that I might have files that you need, let me know, and I will email them to you.

I must have read the subject document when it was still available as a zoho record. My notes indicate the following.

"11. The UC and NEUHAUS made contact in December 2010, and
during the ensuing year, NEUHAUS repeatedly suggested companies in
which he or his acquaintances owned stock that might be candidates
for a stock bribery scheme. NEUHAUS and the UC would discuss the
possibility of carrying out such schemes, and in one instance in 2011, carried out such a scheme with respect to the stock of a company other than Axius...

When NEUHAUS suggested that they
could discuss further United Arab Emirates opportunities, the UC
expressed interest in such opportunities, and KAUFMANN expressed
reluctance to discuss them over the telephone, stating, “That’s an
easy one, but that we don’t talk about.”

I'm just trying to confirm that the referenced material was contained in this particular document.