For the record I am not pro or con TTCM, and I am not going to pass judgement or impugn the character of any involved with the company or associated company or individual. Some may thank me for this post or that tid bit but please know I am completely objective and only providing information I feel should be brought forward, regardless of who likes it or dislikes it.
Pepsi, you replied to me yesterday...
IMHO, everything in that complain is false and it's most likely a case of corruption by the California Business Compliance representatives who aren't in compliance with the law to post that.
Again, if I were Akyumen I would have my attorneys all over this.
It is not a complaint and a hearing was held where Akyumen and its three principals were named as respondents. The decision was first issued in January of this year and later was amended. It is not a case of corruption at all. I have a very thorough understanding of the processes (in this case it was an administrative process) used. Both sides would have been present (either personally or being represented by legal counsel during the administrative hearing. The facts were put to a panel of judges who enforce the act (in this case it fell to the securities law panel experts to hear), who, after weighing the evidence, ruled for the complainant. Government agencies, unless there is a settlement agreement with confidentiality binding all parties, have a responsibility to publish the results of all hearings. This information is publicly available and was not released by a "corrupt" or "rogue" employee but as a matter of public disclosure. Legal counsel for Akyumen would have been aware of the hearing and the resulting decision because they would have been involved in the hearing process.
All of this being said, unless there is a string of similar occurences, does not make an indictment of ones business or ethical practises. Securities law can be at times, difficult to comprehend. In this particular case, in my opinion, because Akyumen does not trade publicly, different rules apply as to distributions of securities and who may qualify to purchase them. Companies distributing shares via an IPO and subsequent secondary public offering by way of either an exchange, or in the case of TTCM, a quotation system (the OTC is not recognized as an exchange by the SEC) must meet defined levels of financial and material disclosure. Because Akyumen is not publicly traded different rules for distribution apply. In the cited case it clearly was not a case of an impatient investor but rather an investor (California cited one person but often in administrative proceedings only one is required so there may be others) who, after seeing the terms of his purchase agreement not being adhered to, filed a complaint. If the amount was insignificant as you stated, the company should not have had any trouble making the payment. Think of it this way. Someone buys a car from you, agrees to monthly payment terms with an end date and that date passes without you being reimbursed. Are you impatient if you take actions to ensure the agreement is honored or do you wait around until you get the money? Securities law is quite clear - if you know, or ought to have known the representation made to effect a trade in a security was not based on fact, you are in violation of that specific regulation.
And for the record, it was not I who provided the link to that reporter.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
