Agreed. Tecco is definitely at fault for delinquency and therefore suspension. What's at question is the curious timing of the SEC. With already having looked the other way for two years and the high volume note holder dump already taken place, why wouldn't they wait to see if the timeline PCTI communicated held true? As you stated, there were already bagholders from years ago, so why make even more bagholders by allowing the note dump to take place and then suspending?
The only response anyone on this forum has given to this inquiry thus far is that Tecco is at fault, and the SEC isn't to blame. What makes that rebuttal even more floppy is that it has evolved from claiming it's not the SECs job to protect shareholders to claiming they protect future shareholders.
If the SEC goes through with revokation, knowing full well that PCTI and new investors have already committed to bringing ELTZ current and making it into a legitimate business, then they are at fault for creating new bag holders. Meanwhile the note holder, which for all we know is someone close to Tecco, has already profited.
To say that bagholders created themselves by buying into this is over-simplifying. It's perfectly natural to think that our tax funded entity, the SEC, would be willing to protect investors (which is why the SEC was founded) by working with rather than against PCTI, being that their only gripe was delinquent filings, and PCTI was already enforcing that requirement with ELTZ while at the same time publically providing updates. If the suspension were for suspicious activity, the situation would be different, but that is not what the SEC put in writing and signed.
A quick search on the OTC homepage using the filters "Pink No Information" and "Caveat Emptor" can show there are tickers that have been delinquent for longer, yet are not suspended. The SEC is not going through it's records and suspending tickers in the order by which they became delinquent. It's easy to claim that the SEC is overwhelmed and understaffed and can only focus on tickers that are getting attention, but it's not as though it takes a whole lot of effort to look up delinquent filings and file a report.
Had they not neglected the duties by suspending tickers as they became delinquent, the list wouldn't be so overwhelming (most of us have let the dishes and clothes pile up too much at one time or another). Years ago a few interns could have kept up with that. Today, a clever peice of software could. The proof is undeniable. They actually are singling out specific tickers.
Given the long track record of criminal activity within the SEC, which has also been ignored by those here who are defending it, it is completely valid to question their timing and motives. As another member pointed out, our various government branches and departments are often at odds, which makes the timing even more suspect, since they did not suspend until ELTZ had signed a binding contract with a company that has already produced goods for other branches of government.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
