Fact - SNDY is now on its third set of Bar Graph Schedules for CE Certification on it website. SNDY was forced to put up a second schedule after failing miserably to reach its first schedule which had the CE Mark finishing in November 2012, and then a third schedule when they failed to meet the second schedule which had everything completed in April 2013. Now the third schedule has June 2013 as the target date.
Fact - SNDY is coming off a DTC Chill and SEC investigation for illegal stock issuance that could have contaminated the float. No one knows if the SEC investigation is still going on or has ended.
Fact - SNDY has been involved with particularly shady business partners - ie: Big Apple Consulting and Boost Marketing. Although BAC itself is essentially out of business after being found guilty of fraud in an SEC lawsuit, the same people are behind Boost Marketing -- a new iteration of BAC with the same dilution tactics. Boost Marketing is/was SNDY's IR firm for years. SNDY seems to deal with a lot of people and firms that have been or are being sued by the SEC or by a Bar Association. That should be considered a HUGE red flag!
Fact - The four attorneys SNDY has used for opinion letters have all been used by multiple other BAC clients. Two of SNDY's former attorneys were sued by the SEC for violations: Guy M. Jean-Pierre and Carl N. Duncan. Additionally, former SNDY attorney Kimberly L. Rudge (fka Kimberly Graus) is being sued by the Florida Bar for issuing false opinion letters.
Fact -
In addition to the regulator lawuits against three former SNDY attorneys, its investor relations firm and a financier -- all for violations of secutities laws -- SNDY's transfer agent (TA), Pacific Stock Transfer, has some problems of its own. Until late 2011, Joeseph Meuse, who was also sued by the SEC for securities violations, was the President and majority owner.
As of 11/9/2011, Jacqueline Ann Bogle-Meuse (his wife?) is now listed as the control person of Pacific Stock Transfer as a result of the SEC litigation:
SNDY has a true proclivity to use providers that end up being sued by the SEC or other regulators for securities violations. Why does the company continue to use such questionable providers if it is truly a clean company?