If you read the decision what California was concerned with was the fact the issuer of the securities made a statement that was untrue. It is not a case of an investor being impatient, but rather this amounts more to a breach of contract whereby the issuer agreed to either meet a sales target and return the capital while the purchaser retains the shares or a specific date was reached which would trigger the return of the capital and the issuer kept the issued shares, whichever came first. Obviously the goal was not met, the date passed, thus the basis of the complaint. I am not intimating aggrecious action but the failure to comply with the terms under which a security was issued. This does not amount to an attack on the persons of the issuers but rather it was a decision based upon failure to honor the agreement. I am not going to comment on the character of those running Akuymen, that would not be right. I am in no position to judge.
The failure to honor an agreement could have resulted from the actions of, or inactions of any of those three named persons, or all three. My posting of that is not an accusation but simply information that should be brought forward and disclosed allowing for investors to make a decision based on all available information, without prejudice.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
