The naked reverse split boogeyman again. Someone who posts real due diligence directly from the words of the company must have an agenda or is compensated in some way. Yet those who hype the stock for the toxic lender and its collaborating benefactor are much more likely to be a paid promoter. Who pays you?
I am not compensated in any way and have no position in this ticker at the moment. That may change however when the volatility and volume returns after the reverse split and the manipulation that will be needed to sell those new offering shares. It is good to have a finger on the pulse, so to speak.
I frankly would see no problem paying folks to dig out the relevant information from the filings that obviously benefits the objective observer. Opposed to those who simply promote based purely on conjecture for the obvious purpose of profiting from the game of a greater fool.
The other important difference in this case is that stock promoters were charged in this case along with the GPL principals. Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 requires [color=red]anyone that is paid to promote a stock must disclose the amount of the payment and who paid them. This is probably the most violated SEC regulation, which is not a surprise as it is also the least enforced. Toxic funders routinely pay promoters to pump the stocks in which they are funding. Most of these companies are hardly investment grade stocks, even by microcap or penny stock standards, and most of them hardly trade for that reason. To make money on their toxic convertible loan, these funders require volume to dump into. Lots of volume, because they have a lot of stock to sell. Thus the need for lots of promoters, most of whom are non-disclosing as telling the public they are getting paid to pump, and who paid them to do it, would scare even the most die-hard penny plunger away.