Replies to post #42117 on Bayport International Holdings Inc. (BAYP)

[Sheeple O Plenty]

This may be a moot point. Thanks to Anvil for scanning and uploading the complaint!

It appears that the SEC is asking that EXTO be permanently restricted from breaking SEC regulations.

The monetary damages appear to be personal so far, so specuation on what could happen is premature at best.

[Anvil]

So does anyone have the purchase agreement to see if there is a indemnity section? And does anyone know the financial condition of the seller's?

Maybe the Sec drops EXTO to the greys

Lots of possibilities

[stervc]

Matoutus, yes, and to include…

Yes, you are correct. The current management will not have to pay any fines for what the management four iterations had done back in 2008. This has already been confirmed, but I will let others do their own research to confirm for their own desire. Still, if you were to go back and read the case, it was all over two $1,500 kickbacks being paid out. That’s not a lot of money, but what the early management had done back then in 2008 was wrong. Here’s the case below:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21663.htm

It’s very obvious that the current management had no idea of this issue that transpired years ago. In my opinion, what saved the company is that Bayport/EXTO will have nothing to do with the case moving forward as it was elevated to a criminal indictment and it was decided by the authorities that Exit Only, Inc. (the Company) would not be included in the case moving forward per court order as what was mentioned in the recent Bayport filing:

…The Lawsuit was stayed (i.e., put on hold) by an intervening criminal action brought against Messrs. Johnson, Manoff and Gotshalk shortly after the Lawsuit was begun. The criminal indictment does not name the Company as a defendant. …

This is evidence that it was decided to go after the individuals who had done wrong and not the company. Bayport/EXTO should be fine now that it has been disclosed as what was requested to be done per company communication with FINRA and the SEC from what I have learned. The importance of having this disclosed was to give proof for Bayport/EXTO that they are not the Gotchalks and that Bayport/EXTO had nothing to do with them.

This was already publicly disclosed years ago, but it was never disclosed by ”the Company” so technically speaking, this public disclosure by the company was needing to be done so that it could be publicly clear that the current management moving forward was no part of this management four time frames ago. Actually, I guess this could be considered a good thing because it forced the company to prove just how real they really are to FINRA and the SEC in my opinion.

v/r
Sterling