Bots Inc (BTZI)

[lesgetrich]

Actually, you've interpreted everything in that article backwards. Had BTZI been taking toxic loans, which they haven't, they'd be better off under the SEC's actions. Their ruling enables companies that have taken toxic loans to sue their toxic lenders...

But the fun doesn’t stop there – since the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act makes these transactions void (15 US §78cc), OTC Market issuers may now be able to sue every one of their toxic convertible note lenders to rescind all of those transactions if they failed to register as a dealer under the ACT. The federal courts recognize a private right of action for issuers to not only sue to rescind those transactions (meaning the court enters a judgment nullifying the transaction), but under the 1933 Securities Act, those same issuers may have grounds to bring claims for securities fraud under 10b-5 and seek actual money damages, especially from the principles of those funds all because those groups did not register as a dealer with FINRA. Had they registered as a dealer under the ACT, they would be subject to much tighter government scrutiny, oversight and controls that have been developed to protect the investing public and their books could be turned inside out by the regulatory authorities.

...Consequently, while it doesn't apply to BTZI/MCIG, this is good news for any shareholders in OTC companies that have taken toxic loans. Maybe you should read articles before you post them.

Debunked Again !