Wow that is really strange that the original 'Initial Disclosure Statement' (now Inactive) is essentially an edited copy of the HESG one. The newer (Active) version touched up what I can only hope was a terrible copy/paste job on someone's part to help get the report out. Maybe they forgot to proofread their work; I can't know for sure.
At any rate, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm still pro-LATF though, IMO the PPS has some room to grow regardless.
It would take even the dumbest SEC employee only twenty seconds to realize that is all laughable. Moreover, that's the stuff libel suits are made of...
I'm not saying that LATF is a great company (I have no idea), but I am saying that that little email to SEC was hilariously frivolous and largely inadequate...in every possible way.