Thelimeyone,
I readily agree that Sarbanes/Oxley was designed to stem the egregious behavior of much larger companies. Everybody (well at least those fleeced for millions) knows we needed it and no, it doesn’t reach down into pinkdome - unfortunately. I think Bronktru referenced S/O more as a way of pointing out similar behavior here. I personally don’t think a CEO/CFO/BoD of any publicly traded company should be able to say to shareholders, “Hey, look I’m innocent of any wrong doing because I simply don’t know anything about equity funding or how our operations affect the PPS or even how many shares are out there. I just want the money to keep flowing.”
In the best case scenario, your opinion is right and this is outside manipulation. If so, you are also correct that none of the arguments about the CEO will apply. I think that’s bronktru’s whole point on the CEO issue. The key word is “if”. Now, I don’t want to baselessly blame the CEO of anything. But it’s not wrong to question and demand evidence one way or the other. Sooner or later it should come out - better sooner - and the SEC and the CEO both have a role. For the company and shareholder’s sake, I hope it is outside and the CEO / attorneys can show the SEC / shareholders they’re clear and can map a strategy for recovery. The perps need to be found and invited on a “fishing” trip off the FL keys. Did I say that out loud? LoL!
