Is this protecting invetorsGiven EdinColorado's comments I decided to post the text I sent to BCSC a little while ago. Despite this being a BSC issue, not a matter asking for company invesigaation but an investogation of their regulatory tools, they refuse to respond on the issues raised.
"
Oct 31st 2023 Reliq Health (RHT) issue news release saying they have applied for and been granted a MCTO by the BC Securities Commission.
They state it was due to failure to complete June 2023 fy statements, and I quote, they stated they "require more time to complete certain tasks as a result of the company's recent private placement offering that closed October 5th 2023...the company expects to file...on or before November 14th 2023..."
An investor would presume that the regulator had studied detailed information prior to granting a MCTO, being a very serious situation the company is experiencing, so the prior statement in this news release for the MCTO issuance might be taken to be the full and truthful explanation for the delay and your decision to grant a MCTO.
Now, the default report from November 28th started referencing matters not related to the private placement, but to accounts receivable, confirmation letters and the auditors connection with customers of RHT, even stating the last customer had been in touch with the auditors and " final outstanding confirmation letters were received by the auditor."
There was no apparent action by the BCSC on this change in audit procedures affecting the fy statement's completion. Certainly, if such was part of the initial reason for granting the MCTO, there was no indication from BCSC that the original news release had errors of omission.
In the December 12th default report there was silence on the matter of audit of account receivables and the company stated " there was no material change to the information in the Default Announcement" but the latter was not defined. Again, there was no indication from BCSC that they were interested in or investigating the contents of any default announcement despite the clear contradiction of facts or omission of facts.
In the next Default Announcement, the company confirmed BCSC had granted an extension of the MCTO principally for reasons of staffing but there was no indication that there were in fact other changes from the MCTO original request, not trivial staffing matters, relating specifically to audit matters which were still not being recognised by the BCSC in the grant or extension of the MCTO.
In their January 9th default report the company introduced yet another factor related to the delay of the audit, a factor which had not only not been disclosed beforehand but one which clearly constituted a material adverse effect. Was BCSC aware of this, namely, documentation requested by the auditor which involved compliance with the US HIPAA.
Clearly the failure to file by the January 12th deadline set by BCSC could have led to the MCTO being changed to a full CTO, but the material changes heralded by the successive default reports, while never accompanied by any acknowledgement of their existence from the BCSC, must have had a serious impact on the CTO decision in the 8 days following the company's last default report on Jan 9th. 2024.
So, the BCSC seems to have followed a relatively passive path when it comes to (a) the company's initial request for a MCTO; (b) their subsequent default reports containing material additional factors not defined by the company in their notice to investors of the MCTO; and (c) the lack of any information from BCSC to the investing community on the foregoing, despite the glaring differences that transpired in this instance.
To this day, BCSC has shown no interest in the regulation of RHT in terms of the foregoing and, what is a most disturbing element, the prolonged process that has occurred between RHT executives and the auditors.
This history lacks any hint that the regulator has the protection of investors as it's single, most important mandate.
Your response?
Finally, as regards CIRO, they should read and re-read the meaningfulness of both their Mission and Vision,because their role in issuing taxing halt notices appears to be just that, a rubber stamp of another regulator's decision."