And you are once again wrong. The SEC merely zapped a bunch of dormant shell companies. They've done that in the past as well, most notably in May 2012, when they took down 379 of them.
As to Brenda Hamilton, this is what Duane Thompson of the SEC had to say about her in sworn testimony.
Next in the lineup, Your Honor, is Miss Brenda Hamilton. Now, Miss Hamilton is a securities lawyer in
20 Boca Raton.
21 And the evidence will show that in 2010, Marc
22 Jablon approached her to provide an opinion letter to
23 OTC Markets on behalf of Big Apple's clients.
24 OTC Markets runs a quotation platform for microcap
25 and penny stock companies, and it has various levels of
quotations. It has Grey Market quotations which involve
2 companies that don't provide any type of disclosures. And
3 then Pink Sheets is for companies that do provide some
4 disclosures.
5 Penny stock companies typically aren't SEC
6 reporting, but OTC Markets or Pink Sheet companies does
7 require that they provide certain disclosures that
8 basically track what they would provide to the SEC.
9 So the evidence will show that in May of 2010,
10 Marc Jablon approached Miss Hamilton after Pink Sheets had
11 refused to take opinions regarding disclosures made by
12 Big Apple's clients. They refused to take the opinions
13 from two other lawyers that Big Apple had referred to those
14 clients.
15 The evidence will show that those two attorneys
16 were part of a string of attorneys that Big Apple had
17 referred to its clients to provide these opinions so that
18 the company stock could be quoted on Pink Sheets and that
19 that string of attorneys is all under some type of cloud.
20 They've all either been barred by Pink Sheets
21 itself, banned from practicing before the SEC, or facing
22 some type of bar disciplinary proceeding.
23 But Brenda Hamilton was different. The evidence
24 will show that Miss Hamilton would not bless disclosures
25 that Big Apple had prepared for its client, and the
particular client we'll be focusing on is a company called
2 Cloud Centric.
3 But Miss Hamilton wouldn't bless disclosures that
4 Big Apple had prepared. She also noted red flags. Those
5 red flags were the absence of any disclosure in the
6 disclosures that Big Apple had prepared concerning
7 Big Apple's receipt of so much Cyberkey stock and its sales
8 of that stock into the market without registration pursuant
9 to the same purported exemption that this Court in the
10 liability phase found did not apply, did not justify
11 Big Apple sales of unregistered Cyberkey stock.
12 The evidence will also show that Big Apple and
13 Marc Jablon first tried to silence Miss Hamilton and then
14 tried to punish her after she wouldn't go along with the
15 program.
16 This evidence, we submit, will make crystal clear
17 the need for strong injunctive relief and penny stock bars
18 against Mr. Jablon and his companies.
