They really have no chance to convince the SEC to reverse the revocation notice, so what is the point? If I had to guess, it is to shield Henry Riedl. Because he resigned immediately prior to the final revocation notice being entered, he does not have to disclose that he was an officer and director of a company subject to regulatory action. Which, depending on his other business interests and/or professional or regulatory registrations, may be significant. It certainly looks like he found, and perhaps paid, a patsy to take the final fall for him here.
