Replies to post #152560 on Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[jb1967lbk]

The Administrative Proceeding pretty much speaks for itself:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60920.pdf


If Megas had stayed current, there would have been no revocation.

[janice shell]

You are correct the SEC were negligent.

Had they discharged their responsibilities properly in 2005 they would have prevented this whole saga from happening.
They did not do so and thus failed in their duty of care to investors.
I am glad we agree on that

Do we also agree that FIRST, Megas should have reported the hijacking in a timely manner?

The question is this, why having failed to revoke Bancorp when it was seriously delinquent did the SEC suddenly decide to revoke Energy Source when it was only a year behind.

It was still more than a year behind. The revocation action cites something like 19 missing filings.

Second question why go after The non existent Energy Source in 2009 when there are hundreds of companies that are seriously delinquent which have been ignored?

In recent years, the SEC has been slowly moving on those companies. I don't see why they can't do them all at once, but that's just me.