So I wrote someone with a lot more expertise in such matters. I asked "Is it true that an attorney has to opine on a quarterly/ annual report before it can be filed/disclosed?" Here's the reply I got--
Not as far as I know. Originally, OTC Markets required Pinks to submit attorney opinions with every quarterly and annual report. A couple of years ago, they dropped that requirement as to quarterlies. Now the company only has to see to it once a year. But I've seen many send in the annual report before the attorney letter. However, if the company is hoping to upgrade to Pink Current from a yield or stop sign, that won't happen till the report AND the attorney letter have been submitted.
So for Alper to blame the attorney for being the reason why he couldn't go ahead and file a Q1 seems like a convenient excuse to me. If he had anything positive to report I'm certain he would have done so at the first opportunity. As it now stands investors will have to wait several more weeks to find out that nothing of consequence happened in Q1. No millions in financing to build even one of those dozen plus grow facilities he announced. In fact, it appears all the previous proclamations about real estate and "triple net leases" is out the window.
Attorney opinion letters for OTC typically consist of 2 pages of "fill in the blanks" boilerplate regarding the basics of the operation. Most all of them add a big disclaimer by saying "I have relied on information obtained from officers of the Company and other sources" as BLDV's attorney said last year.
Finally, their "previous attorney" still appears BLDV's profile page as being their "Securities Counsel" https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BLDV/profile BLDV was his only client on OTC. My suspicion is that Alper elected not to pay for his services rather than incurring the expense yet again when he reshuffles the deck chairs this summer.