InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 212
Posts 32201
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 06/30/2009

Re: albus post# 263485

Friday, 11/27/2009 9:18:05 AM

Friday, November 27, 2009 9:18:05 AM

Post# of 346917
"there would have to be a hearing first"
Absolutely, and I wouldn't expect that to happen soon. I did a search at http://search.sec.gov/secgov/index.jsp using the litigation category, 1/1/2009-11/30/2009 in the date section and revocation as a search term and got 50 returns that gave an excellent perspective on this issue.

I know you didn't intend to confuse, but this subject took a beating yesterday and I wanted to try and avoid a repeat performance. If you had used the term "revocation" instead of "delisting" in the following sentence I wouldn't have made a peep.

"Rule 6530 deals with not being eligible for MM to quote a bid/ask, not about delisting".

Try this:
Rule 6530 deals with MM's not being eligible to quote a bid/ask due to otcbb delisting, not due to a revocation of registration by the SEC.


Yesterday was rough........hope this makes sense.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.