InvestorsHub Logo

Hi_Lo

09/13/23 7:34 AM

#145547 RE: boywonder1 #145544

they post regarding the past actions of the company versus the new company under George Sharp.



FINRA Rule 6490 doesn't differentiate between "old company" and "new company." There is no such thing. It's a pumper lie that has been repeated again and again.

Repetitively posting this fallacy doesn't make it true.

FINRA Rule 6490 doesn't differentiate between old management and new management in public companies. It looks at the company as a whole from its inception to present day. FINRA Rule 6490 also states that a public company must account for ALL of its financial statements from its inception as a public company to present day.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-finra-rule-6490-lmpacts-reverse-mergers-30567

FINRA Rule 6490, has evolved since it was enacted over two years ago. For some time, FINRA has required that issuers provide expansive disclosures and supporting documentation not only for the corporate change subject to the notice but for the company’s entire corporate history from inception.

These disclosures are required of both SEC reporting and non-reporting issuers if they undertake corporate actions including reverse mergers.
 Compliance with Rule 6490's requirements is a minor task for companies going public by filing a registration statement with the SEC. Companies filing registration statements rarely have difficulties obtaining DTC eligibility unlike reverse merger issuers.

(My note: GVSI withdrew its registration statement and never refiled it: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068618/000149315221029704/formrw.htm)

The public filings of companies who register with the SEC contain most of the supporting documentation required by Rule 6490.

It is no surprise that compliance with the requirements of Rule 6490 is less burdensome for companies going public using a registration statement because these companies have fewer corporate changes in their company history than companies engaging in reverse mergers. This is especially true for reverse merger issuers who undergo multiple changes of control and periods of inactivity.

For companies that engage in reverse mergers as part of their going public transaction, compliance with Rule 6490's requirements can be impossible particularly when custodianship or receivership actions have been used by shell brokers to create public shells after years of inactivity. These companies may have multiple corporate actions related to prior changes of control and often have sketchy corporate histories. Some have even been hijacked through custodianship or receivership actions. In these circumstances, documents may be unavailable or if provided to FINRA, it could potentially result in FINRA referring the matter to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.


These companies are almost always plagued with incomplete or fraudulent corporate records which make it extremely difficult for the post-reverse merger company to comply with FINRA Rule 6490. As a result, these companies may never get FINRA approval of the contemplated corporate action.

Issuers must provide a cover letter disclosing the full corporate history for the issuer itemizing all material facts including every corporate change that has occurred from inception to present day.

Triggers for Review under FINRA RULE 6490

A FINRA review will be triggered if any of the five factors set forth in Rule 6490 are thought to be present:

• FINRA believes the forms are incomplete, inaccurate or filed without the appropriate corporate authority;

• The issuer is not current in its reporting obligations with the Securities and Exchange Commission;



GVSI has six years of missing audited financials from 2008 - 2013. The missing financials are from **BEFORE** GVSI filed its Form 15 relieving it of disclosure responsibilities and **BEFORE** it became an OTC Markets ticker, so it is still on the hook for the missing 2008 - 2013 audited financials. The missing audited financials are the reason FINRA issued GVSI a Notice of Deficiency and its corporate actions were denied by the SEC.

The missing financials and the FINRA Notice of Deficiency were never addressed by Sharp. He simply resubmitted another application for a name and ticker symbol change corporate actions without filing the missing audited financials and Sharp said he abandoned filing the missing audited financials and getting GVSI audited and SEC registered and reporting.

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 GVSI audited and SEC registered and reporting.





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



So "old management/old company" is just another pumper lie that gets repeated again and again.
Bearish
Bearish

DayofReckoning

09/13/23 1:45 PM

#145585 RE: boywonder1 #145544

you can read into the fear that they have, knowing that GVSI is going to multi multi pennies and they have no ammo to stop it..futile