West Coast Ventures Group Corp fka WCVC

[PennyHoper]

That's a great question. I think the answer is implicit in the SEC's authority to do what it did, namely, to revoke WCVC, which makes a company 'private' because of that action.

An irony is that the SEC's public notice was that it was revoking WCVC to 'protect investors':

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it necessary and appropriate for the
protection of investors to impose the sanction specified in Respondent’s Offer.

I have poked around with Google (a limited search engine for legal purposes), and have found nothing about post facto legal sanctions against revoked companies just because they were revoked.

If there is any hope for shareholders, it's that the revocation was only for not filing, and not allegations or proof of fraud.

Without insider information, there's no way to know if the CEO didn't purposely shaft his shareholders, although the more time that goes by, the more credible that accusation becomes.

I've written to the SEC, and they've said 'see figure 1' by way of saying 'see our revocation notice.' They won't -- and probably can't -- say anything if they can't say it in public.

Nixon has a pretty hot-shot securities lawyer working for him - Brenda Hamilton, who is currently his agent for Nixon Restaurant Group. That's the only public piece of information about her that says what she'd doing for him (which, at minimum, is being his legal mail-drop); but she's pretty well-known for being outspoken against securities fraudsters. In fact, she has a blog that regularly revels in the news of some major securities snake getting his/their individual/corporate comeuppance.

As far as I know, Nixon would be the first genuine defrauder she'd have worked for. (She's also been with Nixon since he formed Nixon Restaurant Group before he took it public by the reverse-merger into WCVC).

So, there's reason to conclude that Nixon isn't a crook (hm ... that's a famous line, isn't it?), but he's got some business issues to work through that he's hired her for.

But all of what I've said above is either what is visible or speculation based on it. That Nixon remains revoked by choice is a valid reason for shareholders to think ill of him. (The problem is that it's not worth the expense for shareholders to go after him, for even if they won something, it likely wouldn't result in a return to trading, which in turn would only mean money down the drain except for the satisfaction of having seen Nixon sanctioned in some way.)