re: SEC, for you to have a valid case against OPHI, you would have to prove criminal action, eg: lying about the $350-500k Grow Stacker figures.
if criminal action, the SEC would be the cops in this context.
(my point: the SEC usually doesn't care about pinks.
empirically, at worst, they suspend the stock to greys and go for a martini lunch.
and sadly, the suspension kills any lingering shareholders, who have trouble even unloading at discounted prices.)
re: not enough money, for you to win a settlement against a company, the company needs cash or assets for you to take. last i checked, OPHI still wasn't cash flow positive.
are you going to sue for the patents on their fertilizer and bed bug spray?
to point, how many successful lawsuits against pink companies can you name?
compare to how many pink companies get shut down for criminal behavior (nearly all of them eventually).
re: toxic financing, are you aware of Asher's role here?
from your quote, "And not sure why I would blame Asher, or were they responsible for the press releases?"
i guess not, but you certainly should be.
Asher provided toxic financing to OPHI about a year ago.
it's been one of main topics of discussion on this board over the last few months.
see my previous post for info.
re: OPHI increasing shareholder value, seems to me they have been working hard on that. increasing revenues, decreasing net loss, introduction of new products, working with Corpotool to increase distribution, hiring a national sales mgr, etc...
honestly, i feel they are doing fine on the biz dev front.
the only thing wrong is the stock price plummeting, which, imo, has nothing to do with the company's progress, rather everything to do with Asher dumping their shares leading into their loan payment cycle.
re: investing money you can't afford to lose, how often is that point discussed here?
to be clear: all trading is gambling (viz Enron), and pink trading is roulette.
anyone who says different is selling something (nod to PB), or shouldn't be trading at all.
re: shareholders have rights, if you read the post you are replying to, you'd know that i agree that shareholders [technically] have rights.
my point is that i haven't seen those rights upheld by the SEC or legal system in nearly every scam pink case that's arisen in the past two decades.
99.99% of all pinks are scams. Best to assume the other 0.01% are as well.
