Replies to post #17856 on Premier Investment Properties, Inc (PIPI)

[greedy__malone]

I said that none of the stocks I have ever seen suspended have emerged.

space pointed to LEAT which was supended due to a spam email campaign back in 2007.

So, I did some research into that company as well as the suspension order so I could see what was behind the suspension, what kind of company LEAT was and what they did in response to the SEC that got them approval to emerge.

The number one thing was transparency. They were transparent prior to the suspension. They had already been providing audited financials even though they were not required to. They also had a very established corporate structure. They were proactive with the suspension, outlining their plans and establishing a clear line of communication between the company and investors.

Allowed investors the ability to contact their legal counsel with any questions about the suspension, kept that communication and transparency level at a very high standard, never hid from their investors, hired a new PR company and successfully completed all requirements to emerge.

So, looking at ANWM I see nothing that resembles what LEAT had prior to the suspension (no financials from ANWM, no transparency, no suitable contact for the company, no established corporate structure, no viable business plan or established product etc..)

I also see nothing post-suspension that resembles LEAT (no transparency notice to shareholders outlining the plan moving forward, a company response to the suspension, no established line of communication set up so concerned investors could get information, no established business plan moving forward, no established corporate structure, no replacement of the source of the inaccurate info etc...)

So, I do believe one could use LEAT as a very good example of how one would successfully emerge from a suspension order, however, I think above all, LEAT was a much more established company pre-suspension and actually in a much better position to emerge based on how the company operated on a pre-suspension level as well as how they operated immediately following the suspension which was total transparency as well as a focused plan moving forward.

But to just say LEAT did it so we can do it too seems to be a pretty far stretch of the facts when one actually looks into LEAT and how they accomplished it. ANWM is nowhere near the same level of business and transparency that LEAT had prior to their suspension which , in my opinion greatly influenced a decision to allow them to emerge. They were already exceeding transparency requirements prior to their suspension and immediately establised a line of communication between shareholders and the company following the suspension.

So, yes, LEAT did emerge, but when comparing the two there really is no way to link LEAT's path to ANWM as ANWM is on the other end of the spectrum.