Replies to post #113919 on NaturalShrimp Inc (SHMP)

[eqinvestor]

It is a phenomenal question. In my opinion, the commissioner has drawn a line for his litigators. He has told them that if a toxic funder stopped their activity after 2020 when the first judicial opinions were known to the public, the commission should no longer go after those entities . If they continued their activities after 2020, fair game. Please note if you read the SEC's order, they claimed that GHS bought a broker dealer in 2021. So as long as they bought a broker dealer in 2021, they could not have been operating as an unregistered broker dealer after 2021. That also includes all sales of Shrimp stock after 2020 when they first received fair notice. I also believed there's another reason why he made this decision. The Chevron decision by the United States Supreme Court may affect a lot of these cases and he's also trying to protect the commission.

[eqinvestor]

Hope my explanation makes sense

[eqinvestor]

I thought your question was such an interesting one that I just wanted to provide one other comment. Since GHS settled with the SEC through their settlement agreement, I don't believe the settlement would ever be subject to an appeal unless GHS claims fraud which would be extremely difficult to do. Since the issue was never in a court of law and was simply a settlement agreement between two parties, I don't believe it would ever be appealable even subject to fraud. Of course, GHS can file suit against the SEC, but that would be an extreme uphill battle, and that would not make sense. It just seems that the SEC commissioner sent out a message to his lieutenants. That is if a toxic funder tried to remedy the situation after 2020, don't go after them.