Well shucks, Tex, maybe you should ask Mengo.
I was responding to his:
"I responded back to get some more clarity on his e-mail."
And I was just kinda thinkin' that maybe if we knew what the exact question was we could get a better understanding of the answer.
He said that he asked the SEC "about how they address PR releases once a company is under investigation".
They answered:
"The SEC does not have oversight over companies that are under investigation. In fact, unless notifed formally, companies are not aware that the SEC may be investigating them due to the fact that SEC investigations are confidential. Once formal charges are filed a court may appoint a receiver for oversight but the SEC in general will not have direct oversight of these entities."
In these here parts that response would be called a non sequitur, as in the answer doesn't exactly follow the question. But maybe you could connect them for us. I can't speak for Mengo, who felt the need to ask the SEC for a clarification, but I'd surely appreciate one if it "seemed pretty clear" to you. What are they saying and how does it relate to M's question? Under what circumstances does the SEC have "oversight over companies"? What do they mean by oversight? How in Sam Hill does the issue of a court-appointed receiver enter into any of this?
I'd love for you to answer any or all of the above. I merely felt that the wording of the original question might have helped me follow the response and personally didn't find that response to be "pretty clear to me" at all. If you could clear it up for me I'd appreciate it.
AI
