dusty, thanks for bringing this to the board.
My opinion differs 100%.
I'll add to the discussion only as food for thought. People are going to do whatever they want to do anyway, but in this issue adding my .02 may help some because litigation management has been part of my job for 18 years.
When deciding on counsel whether it be plaintiff representation or defense representation chosing the right counsel is vital. Matters like the one certain CMKX shareholders are talking about are matters outside of the the direct plaintiff (SEC) vs defendant (CMKX) action.
In my humble opinion, regarding the specific contentions of the SEC's suit, they could well have a prima facie case. A prima facie case is a latin a expression which means presenting the minimum threshold amount of evidence or proof sufficient for the accuser or plaintiff to win the case if there were no defenses or additional evidence presented by the defendant.
In CMKX's last pr, they readily admitted their mistake in not filing. Thus other than them saying "I'm sorry, we goofed", they have shown no affirmative defense or weighted evidence to defend this action against them.
Of course it will be up to the judge to determine if this is such a case, but I see them offering no defense other than showing the good faith and vast contrast in current leadership versus leadership prior to Mr. Meheu. Because this action focuses around the deficiencies during a time period of prior leadership, that is where I hope the punishment which WILL BE HANDED DOWN fall, and not affect the company's ability to trade or continue under current leadership.
As for shareholders seeking representation, would you go to a brake specialist to fix your transmission? Would you go to an orthopedic surgeon to address serious issues involving cancer or high blood pressure? Of course you wouldn't.
Even though it seems obvious for those of us involved in litigation in our jobs, if as a shareholder (or group of shareholders) you chose to seek representation, then doesn't it make sense to interview and hire a top attorney or law firm specializing in shareholder representation or securities law?
I simply believe it is too early for any such action.
I'm certainly not on board with sending an attorney I have never met or know anything about their practice to speak for me.
Do you know how many attorney's I have seen lose in court filings or oral arguements at a hearing simply because they didn't know what to do in terms of proper filings or lack of knowledge in the applicable law when presenting their arguements?? The answer is more than you realize. And these are attorneys who claim that certain type of case as their speciality. How much more deficient would a common trial lawyer be in front of any Federal court trying to argue securities law?? They will do endless research only to likely be very off-point because they are not up on the true and proper protocol and procedures, and certainly not up to date in the applicable court cases which determines the strength of any arguement.
Next, regarding the intention of representation itself. The SEC filed a matter showing CMKX delinquent in their filings. CMKX admits this is true. No where, anywhere have I seen any counter-claim, affirmative defense or New Matter filed by CMKX suggesting any NSS issue or any problems with the DTC or SEC itself. So....because this is simply a matter regarding the filings, we as shareholders have no interjection that the judge will deem relevant in this case. She is fully aware of the large shareholder base. Involvement of a non-experienced attorney into this hearing will simply have no role in the evidence or hearing.
Legal representation will be needed for shareholders if 2 scenerios arise:
1) It is somehow revealed in the wake of the Dateline story of April 10th that CMKX HAS PROOF of illegal trading practices against the MM's and other authorities. Then yes, we shareholders should absolutely pick the best team of securities attorney's and with 50,000 of us behind them, let's go kick some serious ass starting with the MM's and working from there.
or
2) Against UC and company directly if this turns even uglier than it already is. If there is further investigation beyond these issues by the SEC inquiring where all the money went and we find out it went to secret accounts, trusts, mansions and race car teams, with only a small fraction going to simply drill 2 inch holes just to keep the promotion going and nothing more...then the majority of shareholders are simply going to have to wake up and smell the kimberlite and take action against those responsible if our investments are lost.
To blindly chose your counsel without knowing who they are is a mistake. As it pertains to the issues of this hearing, such representation will simply have no relevance.
Bo
