My guess is yes. This suspension is the product of

My guess is yes. This suspension is the product of a rule change that narrowed the availability of the “piggyback” exemption to the SEC filing requirements, and I think there’s nothing more to it than that. The rule change was done in September, and it narrowed the exception in a number of ways (mostly because the nature of trading had changed so much with online retail investors making up a larger and larger percentage of shareholders, and these people are particularly susceptible to fraud that can happen with penny stocks, and particularly those on the pink sheets). One of the ways it narrowed the exception was to impose a 180 day deadline for a company to come into compliance after notice from the SEC. The SEC sent notice to QTMM in December 2020, and its 180 day time to remedy the problem has expired. I suspect that Pasaca saw this coming because they had to know of the December notice. If this was a surprise, it’s only because Pasaca and QTMM thought it would be business as usual and didn’t realize that business as usual had changed so much.

This is my back of the envelope assessment based on a total of about 15 minutes research. I’m curious to know if there’s something more to it or if Pasaca for some reason (other than misreading the SEC’s intent) was caught by surprise. But I would be surprised to learn that there was more to it than this. So, hopefully, It’s a positive in the sense that it gets people off their ass and expedites QTMM’s filings.