4
against him were merely suggestive. In addition, both the Altomare and Gunderson affidavits appear to claim that Altomare's appointment as interim CEO during the bankruptcy
reorganization created lifetime tenure for Altomare which insulates him from the reach of this Court's judgment. See, e.g., Gunderson affidavit, ¶31. These assertions, as well as Altomare's actions to date, suggest that a receivership is necessary not only to stop Altomare's illegal conduct, but to protect the interest of investors, who are the real beneficial owners of the company and its assets. 4
jking , it's this kind of writing that makes me distrust, to a certain extent, the SEC. It's appears disengenuous that these actions are for the benefit of investors ,when they know that receivership will not benefit present investors at all.In fact, it will destroy some 10,000 investors holdings . Why don't they state the real outcome of receivership? As I have stated Altomare and Gunderson are in serious trouble and I actually agree with you on many many points. Receivership destroys the company and so that is why investors, including myself, hold on to hope that somehow a miracle will occur and the company ,not so much Altomare or Gunderson, will come out of this reasonably intact.Receivership destroys that hope and the SEC knows that, but fail's to relay that part of their "philantropic" message to investors.
