the judge acted according to securities regulations. idgi never responded to the sec with a compliance plan, so what option did the judge have? idgi was given a chance and they chose not to take it.
Owg2, it’s possible that the SEC has gone after viable company in order to protect the criminal shorts and keep them from being forced to cover their NSS positions at the expense of the current shareholders. Remember that many Inca shareholders traded Penson, a pink sheet market maker who is in bankruptcy and now owned by Apex. It will be interesting to see if the SEC, FINRA, and the DTCC will allow the public to see how much crime and corruption was run out of this organization (Penson) we will never know the full amount of damage done. The only way we could have known if there was a legacy NSS (naked short) position with Inca was in the event the shorts were forced to cover but when a company is delisted the holders of the NSS position are never forced to cover. When banks are allowed launder billions of dollars in proceeds for drug cartels, finance the trade of nuclear materials with Iran and manipulate the LIBOR rate without fear of criminal prosecution, you can count on the SEC to protect the guilty. Here’s how the SEC came down against someone who used every legal means to fight back against naked short manipulators. http://otcshortreport.com/blog/john-lux/sec-hits-real-short-squeeze/ All the above is my own personal conspiracy theory.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
