Replies to post #183378 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[TenKay]

“The SEC can ALLEGE a false, fraudulent statement is a basis for action, butt absent a court finding in an Article III courtroom, any action to squelch that speech or preempt trading of a security on the unproven suspicion of false, fraudulent speech, is IMO a serious over-extension of administrative agency authority and is analogous to prior restraint of the press. “

But that is not what is happening. They are suspending a stock for a maximum of 10 days out of concerns that something is seriously amiss. The stock returns to trading after 10 days...albeit on the grey market. But nowadays with the Expert Market that is not really much of an issue in terms of liquidity.

The point is, the SEC has very limited unilateral authority here. There IS due process if civil or criminal charges are brought and the SEC/DOJ has to prove them according to the relevant standard.

What the actual issue seems to be is that the market’s reaction to a suspension can be severe. But that is not on the SEC, it is simply the fact that the market knows the SEC gets it right in a great majority of cases and so reacts accordingly.

Since the US is the only country in the world, that I am aware of, that lets the stock of dead dark companies continue to trade in their public markets, I would argue they need more unilateral authority than they have currently.

[janice shell]

You ought to be very resistant to making a government the arbiter of deciding what is truth and what is nott.

For heaven's sake. The question was about the SEC's recent trading suspensions. What does any of what the SEC's offered as its reasons for suspending trading in the companies in question have to do with "truth"?

I assume what they say IS true, however. It's pretty simple: these stocks are being pumped in the social media. They are not companies, just zombie tickers, as the SEC points out in every Order of Suspension. Here's one, in which TMGY was suspended "because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information about the Company in the marketplace and recent unusual and unexplained trading activity affecting the market for its securities in light of a lack of any recent public disclosures and the fact that the company is no longer operating. The Company was administratively dissolved by the Delaware Division of Corporations in 2014, and the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has confirmed with TMGY’s last known corporate representative that TMGY is no longer in operation and it has no objection to the suspension."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2021/34-91274-o.pdf

In other cases--this one involving 15 companies--the reasons given were: "questions regarding: the adequacy and accuracy of information concerning the securities of each of the issuers detailed below because questions have arisen as to their operating status, if any; the recent, increased activity and volatility in trading in the securities of each of these issuers, in the absence of any publicly available news or recent information by these issuers; and certain social media accounts may be engaged in a coordinated attempt to artificially influence their share prices.

The stock of each of the issuers below is quoted and traded on OTC Link whose parent company is OTC Markets Group, Inc. None of the issuers below has posted any information with OTC Markets Group, Inc. or filed any information with the Securities and Exchange Commission for over a year."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2021/34-91213-o.pdf

I have no problem with any of that. It certainly has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Anyone with doubts about the SEC's findings can easily confirm them.

I am not saying the "government", whether in the form of the SEC or other agencies or departments, is always right, or even always has good intentions. We've just been through a four-year period marked by a great many very bad intentions.

But suspending zombie tickers for ten days is not an abuse of power.