InvestorsHub Logo

sta loose

02/05/15 2:29 PM

#27911 RE: Cassandra #27854

With multi company earnings involved
transparency will become a greater issue?!
Jmo.

Quote: from that link!

"In addition, the SEC staff reserves the right to change the positions reflected in prior no-action letters."

"http://www.sec.gov/answers/noaction.htm";

glty,
btw:(to late, edit!`-)

stervc

02/05/15 7:29 PM

#27969 RE: Cassandra #27854

Cassandra, here's what I recommended...

Again, I called and spoke to Randall Goulding, the lawyer, representing IJJP, HALB, TWDL, ENTI, CWIR, and GEAR with this particular project. I told him that I recommend that he holds a conference call to allow for anyone with concerns to publicly ask him whatever they want to ask regarding the project. I don't think that any of us here is really qualified to answer any questions to put closure on any concerns, especially since everything posted on IHub, per IHub rules, is to be considered as opinion.

This will also set a platform for you and those sharing your same concerns to publicly address any issues you have versus addressing them to us as shareholders of which none of us here will have the answers that you seek. All myself and others can do is share opinions and DD as to how we see it, but I think things would matter more coming from the lawyer. Why not get your concerns answered right from the horse’s mouth... as they say.

I'm just a shareholder and I think this going back and forth is redundant for the forum and really doesn't hold much value pro or con compared to the value that a conference call would hold. This way, Randall Goulding could answer directly any questions and concerns for himself and the companies involved. We'll see what he does. Maybe he should have some other CEOs there to answer some questions too. I'm really not sure how it should be organized, but it would help the public with understanding the project better... I think.

v/r
Sterling

Huggy Bear

02/05/15 7:36 PM

#27970 RE: Cassandra #27854

The "no-action" official request can provide a free pass out of a Section 3(a)(10) exemption hijacking (my term), and of course this has to be requested before a magistrate in any number of local jurisdictions rubber stamps the "settlement".

I have yet to review the information stervc and Goulding provided on the forum.

Going in.