Who is saying it wasn't "allowed" for Expo Holdings, Inc. to go public the way they did? If it hadn't been legal or "allowed", this conversation wouldn't be taking place because Expo wouldn't exist in it's current form. What I'd like to see is that a serious vetting process be imposed on anyone wanting to bring a company like Expo Holdings public. A process that looks carefully at their financial situation to determine if the capital proposed to be raised by the issuance of stock could be viewed as a personal financial bailout for the principals resultant of incredible incompetence...which would then doubtless be followed by a free-for-all glut-fest by same at the hapless investor's expense (as was the apparent case for Expo Holdings). Or if that capital would be used for legitimate expansion or hiring due to expansion and growth in demand for a company's products or services. A simple business plan showing precisely the purpose for which the money was needed and how the money raised would be spent...one that could be enforced by strict and extraordinarily harsh tax penalties on the personal finances of the responsible corporate OFFICERS should the privledge be abused or the plan failed to be carried out as approved. My, my...wouldn't THAT have changed things a bit at Expo Holdings? You see if you spend the SEC enforcement resources up front where everything is under total regulatory control and never let the sleazebags start selling shares to begin with, you eliminate 90% of SEC enforcement after the fact and turn what there is to enforce over to the IRS, their police power and much larger budget and workforce.
Jerry's thoughts don't have to be "read". I believe he has made himself very clear as to what he believes Expo and their management has done. It's only a shame that's obviously not the case universally. IMHO.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
