Search results

I can't address the agreement errors as mentioned yet. As to the comingling, yes the SEC is citing a violation of the custody rule, but, their focus is on section 17 a(1) of the 33 ACT and rule 10 b(5) of the 34 act both of which are scienter based fraud allegations.

a few issuers have changed the verbiage to the fact that one must be the "original" purchaser, not a secondary market purchaser. Surprisingly many have chosen to make NO change. There is nothing about his private agreement that renders it illegal. Additionally, it wasn't private.

Will share more over the weekend. Very interesting case.The SEC started saying I made 6.5million in ill-gotten gains. Settled for Less than I paid for my f-250 pickup truck.

this is my first time on this site. learning. coolraz it exactly right in his assessment as well as zdreg"s comment. Maverick74 has no clue what the case is about. I do, "been there done that" My case preceded the Lathen case. His case trial started on Jan 30. Not going well for SEC