DD Support Board and Research Team

[wadirum1]

Are you completely sure that the SEC requires 100% ownership in a subsidiary for it to be wholly owned? I put some posts up over on MIKP's board.

I looked at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/230.405, and while I am not a lawyer or accountant, it seems that according to Rule 405 of the Securities Act:

The term wholly owned subsidiary means a subsidiary substantially all of whose outstanding voting securities are owned by its parent and/or the parent's other wholly owned subsidiaries.

So, i think the issue facing MIKP is whether its ownership of Arowana constitutes "substantially all" of the voting shares. I did not find where the SEC defines "substantially all," however.

but but…it’s a “wholly owned” subsidiary of MIKP! …according his now withdrawn Form 10.

Just when I thought Newbauer was done YEARS ago…here he is…