InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 144
Posts 22194
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 10/07/2007

Re: mcokpba post# 110870

Monday, 09/08/2014 12:57:33 PM

Monday, September 08, 2014 12:57:33 PM

Post# of 118239

Anvil is misinformed when he posts "but the fact is," in post 110753. By stipulating that RCCH was NOT a defendant in the Gendarme case, everything that follows in that paragraph is Anvil's OPINION ONLY and NOT supported by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller Final Judgment filed 05/23/14.



I disagree with you view of my post. I clearly stated that RCCH is/was not a defendant in the Gendarme case. However, if you read the case, the SEC clearly states that the attorney opinion was erroneous in the exemption relied upon, thus allowing Gendarme to immediately sell free trading stock.

So RCCH issued free trading stock under a non-compliant exemption, hence the legal case. The perpetrators were tried, the complicit companies, including RCCH were penalized with a global lock.

I don't see another interpetation of the above.

Done properly, RCCH should have issued restricted shares in compliance with SEC rules. They chose not to. And most likely, Gendarme would not have provided any funding to RCCH for restricted shares.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.