Replies to post #14159 on West Coast Ventures Group Corp (fka WCVC)

[Porteño]

I encourage anyone who is holding shares here to do as Renee outlined and respectfully request Nixon to follow that exact roadmap.

Send to the following e-mail addresses:

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], and [e-mail]

Time is running out so send it ASAP, folks!

The Admin. Law Judges are like any other Court in the world.....they like respect. If CEO Nixon is sincere about the company's public stock, WCVC, ever again trading with quotations he should respectfully accept revocation of the stock registration. That would save the A.L.J. Court a lot of time having to convene to forcefully revoke the company's stock registration.

Then CEO Nixon can submit a new FORM 10 to re-register the company with the SEC. The new FORM 10 would need to be audited Financials for the entire time since the company's last audited 10K.....or the last 2 years whichever time is less. It would be about 2 years since the company's last audited 10K.

WCVC shareholders should be contacting CEO Nixon to compel him to respectfully accept revocation of the company's stock registration and to quickly file a new FORM 10 to re-register with the SEC.

At the end of this linked post readers can see that a few companies that lost their stock registrations successfully filed a new FORM 10 to re-register with the SEC. Some fell into delinquencies again and were summarily suspended again with their stock registrations again revoked, BUT a few had learned their lesson and remain trading to this day.

[Porteño]

Thanks again for your help.

[PennyHoper]

Hey Renee,

Thanks for 'borrowing' time to reply. [I also like that you don't skimp on the word-count.]

My questions weren't about whether WCVC has wiggle-room to get out SEC punishment, as though it doesn't deserve it -- and thus escape the fate of those 3,900 stocks listed in that posted link of yours -- but were instead only about me trying to understand the punishments threatened in the recently issued Order.

Section III.B of the Order says:
"B. Whether it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months, or revoke the registration of each class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act of the Respondent, and any successor under Exchange Act Rules 12b-2 or 12g-3, and any new corporate names of the Respondent."

So, to me, there is a legal distinction between suspension (which may be up to, but less than 12 months), and revocation, which appears to be indefinite.

You write that "[Nixon] should respectfully accept revocation of the stock registration." I'm not disputing that suggestion.

All I'm wondering is whether that's truly his only choice, or if 'suspension' is something he could "respectfully accept", and if so, how would that be different from immediate revocation?

Your reply to me mentions "not-SEC registered stocks." Is it possible for any company (like WCVC) to 'pull a fast one' and DE-register with the SEC while NOT losing its ticker symbol?

I followed that link at the end of your post (thanks for that). Your text just prior to that link says:

"readers can see that a few companies that lost their stock registrations successfully filed a new FORM 10 to re-register with the SEC."

Does that mean that loss of registration does NOT categorically equal loss of ticker symbol, but it's a reactivation of it? Or do they have to 'get a new ticker symbol' (or hope their old one wasn't claimed)?

Your next sentence talks about some of those companies having trouble again, so they "were summarily suspended again with their stock registrations again revoked."

To me that sounds like two legally distinct things that happen to occur at the same time, like a person being told by a judge that his privilege to drive is suspended, and THEN he is told to hand over his license (so that he can't 'fake it').

Are suspension and revocation distinct, but often enforced at the same time, or are they not only distinct, but sometimes only one is enforced for a time (like suspension)? Or, are they actually the same thing (but again, the Order makes it sound like they are distinct)?

Last bit: that link you included opens this way:
"3,990 SEC Suspensions between Jan. 1st,2010 to Dec. 31,2021. After the 10 market day SEC Suspension expires each stock is placed on the Grey Market (or the deceptive Expert Market) where no Market Maker is allowed to quote those stocks."

This paragraph says that an SEC "suspension" can result in being "placed on the ... Expert Market," but WCVC is already on the Expert Market voluntarily (by not filing by the deadline for OTC Markets to kick them out of Pink land). Does this paragraph suggest, then, that WCVC could be suspended for a while and then allowed to stay on the Expert Market?

Since not filing is the whole issue, why would the SEC place any stock on the Expert Market when that's already where they are?

Should "Expert Market" be struck from that paragraph so that only the Grey Market remains as the punishment?

--
Side note: I call out the SEC for NOT specifying how long it would wait before going after those former Pink stocks that were demoted to the Expert Market for not filing. Why did they keep that wait time a secret? After all, that demotion to the Expert Market rather than sending them right to the Grey Market was allowed by the SEC in the first place (right?). How did they 'protect investors' by keeping that a secret?

[PennyHoper]

Hi Renee,

One more thing after my previous opus ... [I wanted you to see this as a direct reply to you]

I know you know that the Expert Market is a step above the Grey Market, where stocks CAN be traded, but a) they aren't publicly quoted (=no market makers), and b) only 'experts' -- a certain class of brokers, "professional" traders, and "sophisticated" traders are allowed to place limit orders for available shares they somehow are given knowledge of, on some sort of "subscription" basis, if I remember correctly.

The real-world effect of this seems to be that retail traders cannot buy, but they may be able to liquidate their entire positions, and only the 'experts' can buy those shares.

Although the Order is all boiler-plate language, since the Order claims the SEC may act to "protect" investors, who the heck is really being protected at this point by either a suspension or a revocation? Retail investors are already blocked from buying. Shouldn't the 'experts' be allowed to pay the price for their own stupidity for buying a non-reporting company's stock?

--
Why does the SEC pussy-foot around with such a coy Order, and not just say directly to each company, "Hey! You know the rules about reporting. You broke them, and you know we take NO excuses, so we're going to revoke you. Turn in your ticker symbol. Off to the Grey Market you go. It's your fault that any investors are hurt."

[Moon$hot63]

Question: If the company's stock registration is revoked, would Nixon be able to do an RS before filing a FORM 10 and the financials to re-register the company's stock?

I'm only asking this because that's the first thing Nixon did when he first acquired this ticker was to do an RS, and then he diluted over 6 billion shares.