(Total Views: 706)
Posted On: 08/02/2021 4:02:45 PM
Post# of 145247
I believe ohm is right (again). 5% is claiming the 13D group can nullify the Sidley Austin letter by a mere procedural response to the SEC. I would be interested to see a citation to the SEC rule or regulation that could conceivably lead to that result.
This Bylaw compliance dispute is based on disputed facts, which would require a fact finder to resolve. The only means I'm aware of by which a governmental administrative agency resolves disputed facts between adverse regulated parties is through a fact finding hearing, presided over by an administrative law judge, with right of appeal to the commission itself. This is not a process that can be initiated and completed within 3 months, and I doubt the SEC has injunctive powers.
I would be happy to review any SEC rule or reg citation that 5% can provide, but I don't intend to spend time looking for what I don't believe exists.
This Bylaw compliance dispute is based on disputed facts, which would require a fact finder to resolve. The only means I'm aware of by which a governmental administrative agency resolves disputed facts between adverse regulated parties is through a fact finding hearing, presided over by an administrative law judge, with right of appeal to the commission itself. This is not a process that can be initiated and completed within 3 months, and I doubt the SEC has injunctive powers.
I would be happy to review any SEC rule or reg citation that 5% can provide, but I don't intend to spend time looking for what I don't believe exists.
![](/m/images/thumb-up.png)
![](/m/images/thumb-down.png)