Genoil Inc GNOLF

Revocation snippet

[VerneBlanston]

. 5. Any assurances that Genoil may provide as to future compliance lack credibility Genoil has not provided any assurance that it will comply with the Commission’s rules in the future. Even if it did, any assurances Genoil may provide would lack credibility because it is a recidivist delinquent filer with a history of noncompliance and broken promises. In its September 27, 2016 letter to Corporation Finance, Genoil proposed to amend its 2015 Form 20-F to disclose its change of auditors—but it did not. Genoil still has not disclosed its last two auditor changes to its investors, and why those two changes occurred. Meanwhile, Genoil’s CEO has made clear his view that the company’s disclosure compliance should be based on his own subjective view of what is important to investors rather than what is directed by Corporation Finance. See, e.g., Lifschultz Dec. 22, 2016 email (“The Company believes that filing amendments to previous years’ Forms 20-F, with the previously OS Received 08/02/2021 23 omitted audited financial data would not provide any meaningful or material information to the investing community as such information is already present in the public domain.”). 62 An issuer’s failure “to recognize the importance of providing [required] information to its investors undermines the credibility of its assurances of future compliance with its reporting obligations.” Am. Stellar Energy, Inc. (n/k/a Tara Gold), Exchange Act Release No. 64897, 2011 WL 2783483, at *5 (issuer’s assurances were not credible where it claimed investors were not harmed by missing annual reports in 2008 and 2009 because there was no reliable information on the company’s condition for those years and the issuer’s last annual report contained the most current information available). See also China-Biotics, Exchange Act Release No. 70800, 2013 WL 5883342, at *13 (issuer’s assurances were not credible where it refused to follow a staff directive to cure a filing); Calais Resources, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 67312, 2012 WL 2499349, at *6 (issuer’s assurances were not credible where it submitted a report in a format staff told it was unacceptable). Moreover, Genoil’s likelihood of future violations can be inferred from a single past violation, including the very violation that led to the enforcement action. See KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Exchange Act Release No. 44050, 2001 SEC LEXIS 422, at *21-22 (Mar. 8, 2001). Here, Genoil does not have a single violation, but rather many violations, and an inconsistent filing history which prompted two prior delinquency letters—in 2015 and 2019— from Corporation Finance. With Genoil, violating the Commission’s rules is a habit. The fifth Gateway factor supports revocation.

[cranao44]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[hohuminvestor]

Revocation.  It takes a lot to get a revocation.  As one can see, the SEC is more than willing to bend over backwards.   The desperate press releases of unimaginable proportions make sense now.  Kind of. Sorry Libra.