Replies to post #10302 on All Things Mobile Analytic Inc (ATMH)

[ed7777777]

Thanks very much, found this also! http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/form-211.asp

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.15c2-11

[Talc Moan]

AWESOME DD and Post DJPele!

[Carps]

Thank you for sharing DJ!

[Huggy Bear]

This is a good post.

However it does not explain why hijacking the TRON shell was necessary for iMedScan to go public. With a fully reporting status necessary it would have been WAY less problematic to file a new Form 10 or S -1. As it is, a new Form 10 for TRON will instantly draw attention to the shell custodianship and the recently filed Form 15.

Tracy is already under scrutiny for prior S-1 filings so that may explain this route somewhat.

Regardless it is all just a story and the history of Hayes makes me question the intent of this new business entity with no proven IP or fundamental value.

I doubt any Form 10 or S-1 ever sees the light of day with fully audited financials required.

This makes no pragmatic sense.

TRON is a trap.

[janice shell]

There have been questions on this board as to why TRON elected to file a 15c2-11, PIPE investing and TRON's pending Reverse Split. This post was created to help clear the "fog" and provide more insight.

Sheesh. We--or at least some of us--know what SEC Rule 15c2-11 is. So does OTCMarkets.

But that has NOTHING to do with these absurd filings that purport to have something to do with that rule. As has been posted here many times, TRON has been compliant with 15c2-11 for years. A relevant new filing would be a Form 211, submitted to, and approved by, FINRA. But no such new filing is necessary.

There is no "fog". There are, however, people who understand SEC and FINRA rules.