I run an accredited/certied laboratory subject to several regulatory authorities. I have thousands of pages of regulation from county, state, and federal agencies. I run a super tight ship, and I know my stuff inside and out. However, when I get inpsected the "inspector" will undoubtedly find something to note as a "deficiency," regardless of how minor. One inpector will sometimes "gig" me on one point, that the previous inspector told me to do. So, we make the change, then the next inspector comes along and says, "why did you do it like that, just do such and such." So, often, it's not about the law or regulation, but how one particular inspector interprets it on any given day. I've even had multiple interpretations by the same inspector! So, it's not necessarily a matter of incompetence, but often dealing with "officials" who don't know the regulations as good as the think they do. That appears to be the problem here, because as we see, Ken and the attorneys were right all along. It was the SEC who misinterpreted it as an offering.
Just my opinion.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
