If I was GDSI's attorney, I would make this argument.
The SEC's main point is that GDSI could always register again. It's a ludicrous argument.
If GDSI's attorney makes five bucks an hour, he can easily rebut that argument. The SEC would essentially be telling the judge that GDSI should refile the financials that they may already have filed. That is an argument that makes no sense.
This is obviously predicated on GDSI getting their financials up to date. If they do, then the SEC's argument that no one gets hurt because GDSI can just re-register is absurd. Why, because the judge will ask this question. "Mr. SEC lawyer, if this company is so bad, why are you suggesting they should re-register at all?"
Argument makes no sense.
I still look at BSF. They knew all this and took the case. Means more to me than most opinions.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
