RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Scumbags in this stock at one time People toss around words like "scam" pretty liberally. It's clear that Reliq as a business wasn't, way back then, a scam. It had real software (witness the alleged theft of it by former employees who ended up compensating the company) and it had real contracts. Business conditions, which were tougher than we thought, have undergone a sea change for the positive since then and Reliq's software has expanded greatly, leading to a land rush of deal making and contract signing. With some hurdles still to clear, it should have a bright future IMHO.
I feel for securities regulators, like the BCSC. It's not easy to prove securities fraud. I wish them every success. Having said that, failure to disclose financial interests is a big deal in the securities world, so they might be able to easily show that there is culpability/liability there. At the very least, they should be able to settle in return for big financial payments by the individuals in question.
Getting back to Reliq, the class action lawsuit wasn't all that strong, as witnessed by this from the "Summary Rationale for Settlement" (taken from Siskinds website):
"Risk that a misrepresentation could not be established
"The Plaintiff’s claim is premised on misrepresentations with respect to the number of paying patients using Reliq’s iUGO Platform and related accounting errors. Lisa Crossley’s evidence was that the numbers reported were accurate at the time Reliq disclosed them but that Reliq later lost the patients largely due to the misconduct of a few rogue employees. Further, the Defendants’ expert accounting opinion is that there was no misstatement of Reliq’s financial statements. As the Defendants’ accounting expert points out, although Reliq initially announced an intention to restate its financials, it ultimately did not do so. This removed a key piece of evidence the Plaintiff and Class could have otherwise used to establish the existence of a misrepresentation. Consistent with this, Reliq publicly disclosed that the British Columbia Securities Commission reviewed Reliq’s decision not to restate its previous financials but did not require a restatement to be made.
"Additional risks existed for the Private Placement Class Members whose claims were based on the acquisition of units in the private placement that closed on or about January 9, 2018. The Plaintiff had evidence available to him that indicated that the claims were potentially weaker for the misrepresentations alleged to exist in the Impugned Private Placement Documents. There was weaker evidence, according to the Plaintiff’s accounting expert and in evidence from U.S. Litigation related to the matters at issue, that the revenue collection issues existed at the time the Impugned Private Placement Documents were disseminated."
Anyway, enough history. The individuals in question have a lot of 'splaining to do, but Reliq should be good to go. I'm quite looking forward to next week's webinar...