AbsoluteSKY (fka ABSY)

[downsideup]

No. It is the fault of the company, and their clear responsibility, for having CHOSEN to KNOWINGLY posture the company to use a bankrupt company shell as a public trading vehicle... knowing the bankruptcy wasn't ever resolved.

Typically, in my experience, when you see "throwaway" shells with known flaws being recycled that way... it is a function of a management having purposefully CHOSEN to use a known, flawed shell... knowing that whenever they want to, they can use the flaws inherent in the shell to pull the plug on the trading vehicle, screwing investors, with the full cooperation of the SEC.

That basically has the SEC, also knowingly, positioned as more or less fully and knowingly cooperating in the execution of stock frauds... by allowing the execution of pre-positioned "outs" that "eliminate problems from the market" by removing the flaws from trading... only without first requiring any resolution on the element of the proper allocation of values relative to the share proxies... so that a fully proper allocation of ownership in the company is sustained... without the problems in the trading vehicle being used as an excuse to alter allocation of ownership.

In the current instance, the SEC reached some sort of a secret deal with the company, that had the SEC basically just go along with whatever it was that the company proposed...

What that deal SHOULD be... for the SEC to be coming anywhere close to meeting its obligations to protect shareholders and the public, as it negotiates on our behalf (given the public interest is in the proper protection of shareholders interests)... is a requirement that ABSY act in timely fashion to obtain a new, legitimate, shell, and re-allocate shares in the new trading vehicle in proportion to the ownership positions that existed in the prior, flawed, vehicle... without penalizing the shareholders, rather than the agency responsible for the creation and introduction of the problem... which has wrongly been imposed on the shareholders.

That doesn't require that they remain listed, or continue trading, etc., but it would require that the values that belonged to shareholders in a publicly traded company should not be allowed to simply evaporate... in an SEC acquiescence to the fraud inherent in the use of the problematic ABSY shell. That the trading vehicle had a flaw that requires its retirement... shouldn't obviate the requirement that the company sustain and properly account for the proper allocation of value among the owners of the company... only because the SEC agreed to some deal we haven't been informed about... while the SEC also agreed to allow the company to not tell us anything about the deal they were making as they made it ?

FWIW... there are, IMO, a couple of clear and obvious instances of problems and conflicts that result from the SEC's actions here... that have them fairly clearly working against the public purposes that justify their existence...

ABSY is a new instance... an example... not a limiting case.

Similar instance here as that I've followed in the case of KGLJ... where the shell used as a trading vehicle was wholly fraudulent... based on a permanently de-registered issue, which required that the CIK being used was fraudulently obtained...

By enabling the retirement of a problematic trading vehicle without also requiring the proper effort in accounting for shareholders control and ownership of the company and its assets, the SEC is facilitating the execution of stock scams... by posturing the expected response in cease trading orders, which merely has the SEC performing the execution step in the completion of a scam FOR those who are conducting the fraud.

Start off using a known flawed shell as you set out to conduct a stock fraud... and you can count on the SEC to complete the fraud for you, and let you off the hook...

The lack of disclosure... BY THE SEC... means we don't know much about what the problems here are...

The lack of disclosure... BY THE SEC... means we also don't know anything at all about the deal the SEC made FOR US...

The SEC posted news re their complain in filings against, but the news items about the company and its disputes with the SEC weren't reported to investors through Edgar. The SEC allowed the company to file a form 15 and cease reporting... even WITHOUT first requiring the company to inform the investors about the ongoing action in regard to the SEC complaint... and the SEC's negotiation of a deal with the company, after termination of the reporting requirements ?

It is a problem in the SEC that they can take an administrative action, an action as they have here, that harms investors by removing shares from trading... without even reporting any part of that process or action to investors through Edgar.

It is a problem in the SEC that they can take an action as they have here... without giving investors (who they pretend to protect) any benefit of awareness of, much less participation in the process... even by denying investors awareness of the actions being taken, as here, by allowing the company to cease reporting, AS and BEFORE the process taking place has delivered a result. That is true, here, even if the problem int the lack of disclosure by the SEC, as in this instance, is a function of their failure by omission...

They have Edgar as a public interface to report company specific information to the public. There is no viable excuse I see that would justify them in avoiding the use of that system in reporting the results of agency administrative processes to investors on a company by company basis.

It is a separate issue that the methods applied by the SEC in "removing problems" from the markets... postures the SEC as an obvious participant in structuring and enabling stock frauds.