Two Points
I don't feel the need to defend my posts, but I am concerned about them being misunderstood.
1) I don't believe, nor did I mean to suggest, that concnerned shareholders "deserve" or "take" what's coming to them. The significant point I have been trying to make is that relying on the regulators to step in and stop something that stinks may be overly optimistic, and blaming them for not catching it time is unrealistic. Look how many people have pointed out some of the blatant warning signs in some of the biggest blowups in the last few decades (I'm only counting my time in the biz, I didn't pay attention before then)....I'm not suggesting everything is ok and nobody cares, I'm simply trying to help manage expectations. A lack of specific action as you see it is not a lack of concern or a lack of attention from the regulators. Sometimes, it really is a lack of specific authority that allows them to do something.
2) Dilution may not be desirable to existing shareholders, but there is a significant difference between a legitimate (NO, I'm not opining on THIS case) financing and a predatory scoop of cheap shares. Given the recent events in this case, it's perfectly understandable to infer that this could be predatory in nature, but this goes to my point of what to expect from the regulatory side. If it's a bona fide financing to primarily unrelated people, it's not the role of the regulators to tell a company not to raise capital.