InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Rawnoc

07/25/11 2:23 AM

#123411 RE: umiak #123410

Correct. "The likelihood a corporate penalty will unfairly injure investors, the corporation, or third parties weighs against its use as a sanction."

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-4.htm

Amd that's why restatement fines are "slap on the wrist" parking tickets. It's their own policy since 2006.
icon url

janice shell

07/25/11 11:49 AM

#123501 RE: umiak #123410

Just because an action is prompted by an inquiry does not mean it is not voluntary.

Are you saying that JBII asked the SEC to send them a Wells notice?
icon url

jimmenknee

07/25/11 12:24 PM

#123516 RE: umiak #123410

Actually I think we agree in principle umiak :-)

The timing dynamic that seems to be generally accepted is that JBI found and corrected filings and then the SEC came in investigated and then issued the notice. It is equally, if not more so probable, the SEC was the catalyst for the restatements.

Also, voluntary pre-SEC investigation and voluntary post-SEC investigation take on different meanings (of virtue for example), which at minimum, could undermine the shareholder "transparency" notion-- again, a seeming very popular one.