Very well said. In fact if any such SEC letters concerning ONEV had been sent concurrently or previously in the quantities claimed, said letters could very well could cause the SEC agent to order a brief scan of One Voice Technologies, Inc's history for substance to the unsubstantiated claims of naked shorting. In that scan an agent might look at the history of ONEV's convertible debt issue following start-up and their PR timing in balance with subsequent dumping of massive share quantities by toxic funders (with particular notice to the Microsoft "buyout" rumors surrounding the May 2004 dumping of 75+ million shares). Of even more interest might be their current situation with their heavy cash debt and well over 1.5 billion fully diluted shares sending them desperately into this "new investor" situation so as to guarantee a source of future revenue to basically pay salaries and perks.
It might very well be a red flag to the SEC if an investigative agent receives an order to do a quick review of multiple wild and unsubstantiated complaints about "naked shorting" in a situation like ONEV. A situation where that agent would undoubtably come to the conclusion that their financial problems and resultant tanking of their stock were 100% caused by massive dilution and the shorting of their stock by the toxic funders hedging convertible notes and not some clandestine plan instituted by unnamed, unseen, "mystery" hedge funds seeking to destroy the company through "failure to deliver" shares. It would be very hard for an SEC agent to look at ONEV's history of convertible note issue and the current situation they are exploring to overcome it after doing that review and not sense a red flag. An astute observation about One Voice and one that worthy of keeping an eye on in the near future. IMO.
SBB
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
