InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 258
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/14/2009

Re: scvanguard1 post# 18355

Monday, 03/26/2012 11:19:48 AM

Monday, March 26, 2012 11:19:48 AM

Post# of 19696
SEC states "Given the record currently before us, we cannot conclude that DTC provided IPWG with
the procedural safeguards required by Section 17A. DTC's Important Notice fails to meet the
statutory requirements because (1) it was not sent to IPWG itself, but rather to DTC's
Participants; 33 and (2) it merely points to the existence of the Commission's complaint against
certain IPWG shareholders without any additional explanation of why the existence of the
complaint warrants the suspension of clearance and settlement services with respect to IPWG's
securities. Moreover, although Section 17A states that parties such as IPWG must receive an
opportunity to be heard, DTC's November 3, 2009 letter responding to IPWG's request for a hearing states that "DTC declines [IPWG's hearing] request." The Important Notice also does
not specify the expected duration of the suspension, nor does it specify the actions that IPWG must take to remove the suspension."

Which basically says the chill was ILLEGAL!!! Again this is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!