Replies to post #2884 on Telynx (fka TLYN)

[jurisper]

Non-filing is what the quoted standard refers to. The decisions by the admin law judges in the link I gave repeatedly refer to it as a very serious violation.

If the SEC doesn't challenge the filings, TLYN will probably be able to argue a strong case for efforts to get current: this is seen as a Good Thing in the decisions.

It would still have to present a solid story about why it can be trusted to comply in the future. In several decisions the lack of funds to pay for future compliance is seen as a Bad Thing in this respect. Given that TLYN was funding itself through the latest reporting period via dubious-looking issuance of Section 4(2) stock, could be a sticky point for them. The main push behind these revocationa actions is to get rid of printing-press shells. Safadi needs to tell a believable story about how he will pay for stuff, with cash.

Outcome depends on how much the SEC wants to zap them, I think. They could go to town on the filings, if they care enough. (They are such crap - the cash flow doesn't even reconcile with the balance sheet in the last 10K.)

[DueDillinger]

Not necessarily, fringe. It's quite obvious that much has been omitted from the recent filings--for example the disposition of the Laurus deals or unresolved UCC filings--and the character of the recent filings will certainly be considered. In any case, there are still filings that are outstanding.

We all know that the SEC uses the non-filer hammer to beat down scams as a procedure that's less expensive than a full-blown investigation and trials in district courts. IMO, he Commission is justly gonna squash TLYN like a bug.