Replies to post #145335 on Good Vibrations Shoes Inc (GVSI)

[Hi_Lo]

No. They can't. They can continue to comment until all comments are satisfied.

Yes they can if there is already an existing FINRA Notice of Deficiency that was never taken care of and a SEC restriction on corporate actions because of GVSI's continued violation of FINRA Rule 6490.

That's how it works with GVSI in specific.

But nice attempt at pumper misdirection.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-event-1.pdf

FINRA initially declined to process the Company's Corporate Actions on June 21, 2019 by delivering a Notice of Deficiency Pursuant to FINRA Rule 6490

Sharp has already stated that he was unable to get the financials audited.

I had hope to start $GVSI as an SEC reporter, but after over a year of having two accounting firms work on it & discussions with the SEC, I begrudgingly agreed that I would not be able to get the books audited. https://t.co/tOP9FImksT

— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) February 7, 2023

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-2020-09-16-reply-to-finra-opposition-to-the-application-for-good-vibration-shoes.pdf

FINRA also acknowledges that the denial is based solely on failure to file periodic reports from 2008 to 2013 prior to filing a Form 15

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-event-2020-05-12-brief-in-support-of-application-for-review.pdf

The DOP made no finding that the documentation GVSI submitted was in any way deficient. See Certified Record Tab 18 FINRA Deficiency Notice dated June 25, 2019. Yet on June 25, 2019, DOP refused GVSI’s application by providing GVSI with a deficiency notice. (Id.) In refusing to grant GVSI’s application, DOP stated its denial was based on a finding that GVSI had not completed certain periodic filings prior to filing its Form 15 on July 10, 2013

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-event-1.pdf

FINRA's denial under Rule 6490 of the Company's requested corporate actions of a change of corporate name, symbol request and a reverse stock exchange pursuant to a merger on a one for twenty-thousand (I :20,000) basis (the "Corporate Actions").

FINRA initially declined to process the Company's Corporate Actions on June 21, 2019 by delivering a Notice of Deficiency Pursuant to FINRA Rule 6490.

As stated in the SEC document above, the SEC declined GVSI's corporate actions. GVSI then appealed the decision on the SEC/FINRA declined corporate actions:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-2020-09-16-reply-to-finra-opposition-to-the-application-for-good-vibration-shoes.pdf

On March 20, 2019 (18 months ago), Applicant, Allied Corp. (previously Good
Vibration Shoes, Inc.) ("GVSI"), submitted an application to FINRA to complete a name change, obtain a new symbol, and conduct a reverse stock exchange pursuant to a merger, pursuant to FINRA Rule 6490. After months and months of delays, FINRA determined the application was deficient on June 21, 2019. Applicant filed an appeal to the Uniform Practice Committee of FINRA (the “Committee”) on June 27, 2019. On August 16, 2019...the Committee affirmed FINRA’s determination.

The SEC/FINRA affirmed declining the change in GVSI's corporate actions so GVSI withdrew the appeal on the restriction so the SEC/FINRA dismissed the case which means the restriction on corporate actions are still in place.

[Jayman5000]

I guess the commentary in these GVSI SEC documents is wrong and a lying ihubber is right, is that what I am supposed to believe?

https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-2023-05-17-app-not-withdr-applic.pdf
"This matter involves an appeal from a determination by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
("FINRA") under FINRA Rule 6490 to deny the application of Good Vibration Shoes, Inc. ("GVSI") to
FINRA for certain corporate actions."

https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-2020-09-16-reply-finra-opposition-application-good-vibration-shoes.pdf
"granting for this particular counsel at least four such applications before denying this one"



How about some quotes from a securities lawyer that uses the phrase "deny" - is she also wrong and a lying ihubber is right?

https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2018/finra-enforcement-of-non-members-in-penny-stock-issuers/

"So in the end, the SEC remanded the proceeding to FINRA to determine the status of the individuals in question, and to determine whether denying the name change was necessary for the “protection of investors and the public interest."

"The Commission believes that the proposed factors are reasonably designed to allow FINRA to deny a request to process a Company Related Action based on the above-noted objective criteria"

"It can scrutinize corporate action requests, and deny them in some circumstances."