As we know, Somatic Systems recently sent out an e-mail notifying readers about the opening of a new Somatics campus in New York City for the Clinical Somatic Education Professional Training Program. The notification did not specify the New York address of the clinic. As I previously posted, in searching for the location of the clinic I found several old pages on the Somatics.org website that referenced a Somatic clinic at 89 Franklin Street, NY. However when I researched that address and contacted the present occupant I was told that Somatics had not been associated with that address for more than five years. So I then e-mailed Somatics CEO Steven Aronstein, who has responded and given me permission to post his responses. I know this will likely open a whole new wave of controversy on this board, but I'd like to share the information. Just to note, I had been aware that the 12/17/09 SEC suspension of SMAS trading was a ten-day suspension only, but I didn't make that clear in my post to Mr. Aronstein.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My e-mail to Mr. Aronstein:
On Mar 17, 2012, at 4:17 PM, ````` wrote:
Somatics.org recently sent out an e-mail advertisement concerning the upcoming training sessions in New York in September. Going to the Somatics.org website in search of the location of these training sessions one discovers some outdated information. Several pages on the website refer to the now-defunct Somatics clinic at 89 Franklin Street in New York. Currently at that location is "Peter Anthony Fitness". Its President, Mr. Peter Anthony Hionas recently confirmed that Somatic Systems has not been at that location for more than five years. 89 Franklin is the only address listed anywhere on the Somatic.org website for Somatic System's New York clinic. The newly posted announcements about the upcoming training do not specify the location except as New York, but anyone making a casual search of the website would find the New York location listed as 89 Franklin Street. I thought you might want to correct this misinformation. This discrepancy is currently being discussed by investors at the IHub website.
[I included links to the outdated webpages]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Aronstein's reply:
On 3/18/2012 9:10 PM, Somatic Systems Institute Professional Training Program wrote:
`````,
>
I apologize for the confusion. That is the old page for our New York location. Since then, we moved to a different location in Midtown, and now are in the process of moving again. The Franklin St location should be replaced with a different location page. We have done some website updates and perhaps this older page was inadvertently re-published. I appreciate you letting us know about this.
>
The New York location is a clinical facility. It is not a "training-sized" location like our Northampton, MA location has been. Our training is located at a separate facility, in the Chelsea neighborhood. This is an optimal location, as the Chelsea neighborhood is in the heart of Manhattan's fitness, movement, and wellness culture and business; but it is right near Penn Station, the hub of everything coming in to the city. The makes it easy not only for Manhattanites to get there by any subway, but also residents from the other boroughs and the suburbs; and for people to travel from out of town from all over the east coast and beyond (there are people interested in training whose schedule makes traveling up to the more rural area of Northampton less appealing or prohibitive; but they are comfortable "jetting" into NY).
>
Again, I'm sorry for the confusion, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will make sure to correct this page about our NY clinic on our website this week as soon as possible (note that the phone number is still the same as is currently published on our site). And, again, the training will not be held at our clinic.
>
Please let me know if you have any further questions about this.
>
-Steve Aronstein
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My reply to Mr. Aronstein:
On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:37 PM, ````` wrote:
Steven,
>
Thank you so much for the reply. I should let you know that I am an investor, and am currently the moderator of the SMAS board on IHub. As such I hope for the best for you and for Somatic Systems. It is sad that SMAS went onto the gray market several years ago, and I well remember the controversy involving the bogus PR that xxxxxxxxxx posted, and which I assume provoked the suspension. I remember that you were almost immediately quoted as saying that the PR was false, but unfortunately within a week SMAS was suspended. I am of course concerned that SMAS now risks being delisted as an increasing number of inactive gray market former pink sheet stocks have been recently. My hope is for the best for you, Somatic Systems, and for its investors.
>
May I post your reply to me on the IHub board?
>
Thank you,
>
`````
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Aronstein's reply on Mar 19, 2012 4:56 PM:
`````,
Thank you for your reply. Yes, you may post that reply on iHub; you may also post this one as well (and I appreciate you asking about each one). I appreciate that you moderate the board there -- that can't be a very glamourous job at this point in the company's trading history.
I share your feelings about our trading status. Your recollection about the bogus PR and the suspension is more or less correct. It's important to remember that the *only* action that was taken was a 10-day suspension of the ability to trade our shares. The suspension was a temporary, precautionary measure, not an indictment or a penalty. There were no additional issues, charges, or problems, we were never pursued in any way, and we were never "in trouble". And in the three years (!) since then, no further actions have been taken, because nothing was merited.
Unfortunately, like any other Pink Sheet stock, we are subject to the "piggyback qualification" rule -- meaning that the way trading actually works is that any given stock is only allowed to trade on any given day because it traded sometime in the previous 4 days. When the SEC halts trading for 10 days -- even though that is ALL they did to us -- it effectively knocks a stock out of its piggyback qualification status, so it is no longer qualified to be easily and freely traded by market makers without them going through a pile of paperwork.
The only reason the skull and crossbones was placed on the stock was because of the 10-day halt; the only reason it remains on there is because there are no market makers on there (you can call Pink Sheets to confirm this); and the only reason the company would be considered on the gray market is because it has no market makers on it. There are no other issues, reasons, sanctions, or hidden negatives behind this. And we do not expect the stock to be delisted.
I appreciate your kind and supportive thoughts on this matter.
Thank you,
Steve Aronstein
