Expo Holdings Inc. (EXPH)

[Santa Barbara Broker]

majority of shares being held tight

Fantasy IMHO. Prove it. If it is being stated as a fact as it appears it would be false.

There was no announced RS

Blatantly misleading, what part of "stock split" don't you understand? And what are the odds of a company that just issued it's 1.35 BILLIONTH share doing a forward split? Sometimes common sense and reasoning has to be employeed...with the truth of course:

Action Type: Stock Split
Document Number: 20110084469-65 # of Pages: 1
File Date: 2/01/2011

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/corpActions.aspx?lx8nvq=yiCRrksM0rZ9tJxgaG23Jw%253d%253d&CorpName=EXPO+HOLDINGS+INC.

The company was called on the header

Sure were. By a shareholder..who they apparently lied to (if posted accounts are accurate) and said they absolutely could NOT file a corrective form to give an indication of the mistake contained in the original filing using a superseding filing procedure. When the shareholder then PROVIDED the company with not only an example of a filing done to correct such an exact claimed "error" but also the FORM necessary to correct their own claimed "error", the company went DEAD SILENT. And is now apparently once again (if follow-up posts are accurate), being sued for what I believe is that very incident...among other factors.

Anyone that sold on that error could have waited as the majority did

That may be among the most absurdly misguided statements I have ever read on the subject. How about if the error had been superseded IMMEDIATELY when the company was well aware of it (through numerous claimed shareholder phone calls made that very day) there would have been NO NEED to even consider selling? If someone walks into a crowded theater and annouces a bomb is set to go off in the building in 5 minutes, do you sit around waiting to see if they were telling the truth? If no one ever announced the bomb was about to go off, truthfully or otherwise, would there be any reason to considering having to make any such decision in the first place...DUH?

Because a thoughtless entitiy might construe or believe that a company they have investment interests in is justified in criminal behavior, lying to shareholders, providing misleading public "updates" and using any illegal or other unethical means to justify desperately trying to raise the PPS in the face of the truth collapsing their little tin god empire, it does NOT mean the shareholders so affected by that unethical and immoral behavior are IRRELEVENT. In fact, the exact anthesis is true in ALL cases where moral people of character see fit to obey the laws governing their professions. IMHO.