News Focus
News Focus
icon url

-G-

11/09/11 4:31 PM

#38322 RE: EarnestDD #38321

I think the SEC has jurisdiction on WDRP.
AMF, i doubt, but if it is, please feel free to show me...
icon url

n1tr08urner

11/09/11 4:32 PM

#38323 RE: EarnestDD #38321

Like I said:
IF they actually come up with something specific against Andrew, not just being associated with some people in the past.
IF they come up with anything at all against the company itself, not just one of its contractors.
IF they then have any proof for what they allege.
IF then the verdict goes their way.
IF then they decide to contact the SEC.
IF the SEC agrees to do what the AMF wants.

this is a long list of IFs and it is a very worst case scenario. The odds of this happening are smaller than those of Robert falling on the ice and breaking his neck or something like that. Everyone here knows that. You are the only person on this board ever mentioning the AMF. Even assuming all those IFs happen, that will take years. By that time the product will have dictated what the pps does, either crash or take off. Either way the AMF won't matter in this at all. And we all know that.
icon url

Whiplash_Investor

11/09/11 4:39 PM

#38326 RE: EarnestDD #38321

Yup, it might. AMF will decide relevance, not us...let's allow them time to do their job. and publish results. At this point, nothing can be concluded about WDRP and AMF.