Replies to post #85029 on Bioelectronics Corp (BIEL)

[DewmBoom]

Because this SEC Administrative Proceeding is initiated before the new law took effect, there is a maximum period of 300 days before an initial decision by the judge is required. This order instituting proceeding was started on 2/5/2016. 300 days from that date will put us at 12/1/2016 at max, before an initial decision is made.

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-142.html

[Simpsonly]

Thanks very much DRT . . . Much food for thought from hizonor. Slipped, possibly very wisely on the part of hizonor, into #3, is the last sentence which is highlighted in bold:

"3. The Division and Respondents are responsible for filing their respective hearing exhibits in hardcopy form with the Office of the Secretary by October 28, 2016. For any exhibits, either offered at the hearing or submitted in connection with an inability to pay defense, for which a party seeks a protective order, the party shall file a motion for a protective order and two versions of the exhibits: (1) a public version with protected information redacted; and (2) a sealed version without redactions, but with the protected information designated with highlighting."

Now, it sure as hell is not a possibility that the DoE would not have submitted information at the hearing that they were having difficulties "in connection with an inability to pay defense", since the SEC DoE has more money than God, so I am going to assume it was BIEL or another Respondent who did so, presumably verbally, without submission of exhibits, i.e. "offered" only, or possibly legal counsel. Why did Judge Elliot omit the word costs, as in "defense costs", which certainly would have made it more clear . . . .hmmm. . . . And why highlight the sentence with bold for emphasis???? And he is asking evidence to be submitted two ways openly or a second version which he will keep confidential as to an inability to pay defense. . . . I guess to protect someone's private information - good for hizonor, I like him!
.
Has anyone else seen a Post-Hearing Scheduling Order such as this? In its entirety and on balance, seems to me the wise Judge Elliot may smell clues or see something and as long as BIEL and other Respondents were truthful, and who would be stupid enough to lie, it could be that the evidence may show a concerted witchhunt OR someone complained to hizonor that the costs were killing them and hizonor is going to jam guess who for the costs, if there was no basis for the whole thing in the first place.

Everything I have seen points to BIEL publishing, with full disclosure, its revolving financing model on the web; I liked the model and had no problem with it early on, as a shareholder; dilution is the result, yes it is, but debt is low and BIEL is damn close to accomplishing its mission - OTC clearance from the FDA for the USA. And, most importantly, CEO Whelan has openly told shareholders he doesn't like the dilution but that it is a necessary evil of keeping the mission going - this guy has hidden nothing! If the SEC went after them unfairly or unreasonably, hizonor will hold them accountable; on the other hand, if BIEL or other Respondents were out of line, the same will apply, but why ask any party to detail "any exhibits offered at the hearing or submitted in connection with an inability to pay defense" . . . . someone said something, maybe the lawyers complained that their client is innocent, a victim, and they are staying in the game even though their client can't afford the fees and hizonor wants to know more - smart fellow, hizonor . . .

[dcsteve]

No penalty mentioned there. "IF" there is sensitive information in the paper versions of the upcoming briefs, it must be redacted for public usage and highlighted for private sealed use.

[fuente]

Thanks for posting.

BIEL argued previously that none of the remedies that the SEC was seeking were warranted, which included fines, disgorgement, etc.

In the judges' Order Denying Summary Disposition, item 35:

Respondents argue that “none of the remedies are remotely warranted.” Resp. Motion at
35. This argument is best raised in post-hearing briefing, and the issue is in any event not
amenable to resolution by summary disposition. I note that Respondents bear the burden of
proving inability to pay any monetary sanctions. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.630.

So what the judge is telling BIEL is exactly this...that by the October date, BIEL must, or should if they want it to be considered, submit their inability to pay defense...and any exhibits to go with it - two versions as stated.

Nothing more, nothing less.