the delinquency is not severe. do you know how many otc issuers are delinquent in their filings? ask yourself why sharp admits he has filed DOZENS of petitions for custodianship but only won one, and that was because the respondents didn't respond. so, he won that ONE by default. that is serious. you know why he lost the other dozens? because courts don't randomly hand over the reins to companies just because they are "delinquent" in their filings or because there are as sharp stated "bad actors" that he identifies as a reason to pursue custodianship. you see the lengths this company is going to fight this? you think that represents an "abandoned" operation? really? read the statute. that is what sharp has to prove to be granted custodianship. i don't think he even touches the bar here. and, i don't think the judge will allow him to maintain custodianship, especially when he admits he only recently won his first by default. he doesn't even have experience with being the custodian. so, you guys are dreaming imo.
