Replies to post #78724 on Hemp Inc (HEMP)

[Det_Robert_Thorne]

And events as recent as 2013-2014

The SEC filed their complaint in June 2016, with allegations of fraud related to events that took place as far out as August 2011.

Yes, the earliest events happened in 2011, but the most recent ones occured as late as 2014.

It gets even better - the defendants file motion to extend the discovery period to allow the SEC even MORE time, just so the SEC can provide everyone - court and defendants - with the "sufficient factual matter" to back their complaint. That, of course, after multiple requests for this information.

As I read it, the SEC saw HEMP as trying to stall and create controversy. HEMP knew it would get the transaction info and expert report on July 17, which was also the final day of Fact Discovery, per the 2nd amended schedule.

Judge: What is the nature of your complaint?
Plaintiff: We believe the defending parties made fraudulent transactions (several years ago...).
Judge: OK. Can you show me the transactions you're referring too?
Plaintiff: No.
Judge: What are we doing here? Case dismissed.

Hardly, since this case is mainly about the sale of restricted securities that were presented to brokers as being unrestricted, and that the reason they were actually restricted shares requiring a Form 144 filing for each sale and a 1% selling rule was because Epling, despite the claims otherwise, was an affiliate.

Here's the way it will really go:

Plaintiff: We believe that between 2011 and 2014, the defending parties made millions of dollars by representing and selling restricted shares as unrestricted shares.
Judge: OK. Can you show me the transactions you're referring too?
Plaintiff: They are listed in the Plaintiffs Expert Report filed on July 17, 2017.
Judge: What are we doing here? Defendants' motion to dismiss denied.

Then, in another, future hearing, if the Judge agrees with the SEC and concludes that based on the overwhelming evidence, Epling was an affiliate, the motion for a partial summary judgement will be granted, and that will pull the legs out from under Perlowin's defense, which is based on the claim that Epling wasn't an affiliate.