You are the seer, not I. I don't speak to the character of anyone other than myself. I have an information request in with a friend who works out of Bharain regarding the 2014 $51 million dollar facility to manufacture phones. Gary, Indiana then would be the second facility for Akuymen Technology if the first was constructed. It appears as if someone filed a complaint in California. That decision was from this past June. On the surface it seems a representation was made that was not allowed, which seemed to have amounted to a guarantee on the sale of a security, which in most cases, but not this one, is not allowed. You would have to ask the mayor of Gary, Indiana what he thinks about this recent decision. I did notice Akuymen was offering securities on an ongoing basis and not a one time issuance. I am sure any further issuance of a security by the firm and those they partner with will come under increased scrutiny at the federal and state level as to an offer to sell securities.
What many tend to forget is that states in most cases have a state level securities regulator who work hand in glove with NASAA to administer securities law at the state level. In the recent past many states have pushed for more authority in this area which would mean less authority by the SEC in protecting investors and prosecuting violators. Many states feel the SEC is not up to the task and local area concerns are not satisfactorly addressed by the SEC. In this case it was the State of California who issued the Cease and Desist Order.
When this is said...
In connection with the offer or sale of these securities in this state, Akyumen, Saied,
Soeleman and Lin made untrue statements of material facts, including but not limited to the
following...and... are hereby ordered to desist and
refrain from offering or selling or buying or offering to buy any security in California, including but
not limited to subscription investment contract(s), by means of any written or oral communication
which includes an untrue statement of material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
This Order is necessary, in the public interest, for the protection of investors and consistent
with the purposes, policies and provisions of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968
it can make it difficult to maintain one's reputation. The big question of course is, did anyone in authority know of this?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
