|Shit! There Goes the Rest of Our Money!|
Any celebrations may be a bit premature, however.
The original SEC complaint, filed December 16th, sought fifteen actions from the court. The temporary asset freeze was but one of those fifteen, and although that freeze was lifted by the Judge yesterday, the other fourteen are still pending, with answers to that complaint due from the defendant on Thursday, February 10, 2011.
So while the company may claim to be 'back in business,' the fact remains there are fourteen other actions still pending against the company, Gillispie, Ransom, and their LLCs, and it will be six more days before we see what they say in their replies.
Among the remaining fourteen requests for relief: The SEC asks the court to enter orders: "...barring Gillispie from serving as an officer or director of any public company..."(III), "...barring Gillispie and Ransom from participating in an offering of penny stock..."(VI), "...requiring Defendants and Relief Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains..."(IX), and "... requiring Defendants to pay civil penalties..."(X).
It's important to remember that this case is in a very early stage and that none of those very serious requests for injunctive relief have yet been addressed by the court, let alone answered by the defendants.
And what of this "back in business?" "Business," to the average person, implies some sort of transactional commerce, where a company generates some revenue which it eventually turns into profits to be distributed to shareholders via dividends. AEHI, on the other hand, in its own filings no less, clearly states, "AEHI has never had any revenues." Never. Any. Revenue.
They are not "back in business," because they never generated any revenue before. All the salaries, all the trips, all the expenses of the company were coming directly out of the pockets of investors and into the pockets of the recipients of the company's largesse. All the SEC did with the freeze was temporarily halt the massive hemhorraging of investor's cash. They are now more correctly "back to spending investor's money" rather than "business." It will be interesting to see if a company with zero revenue will continue paying its CEO $40,000 per month with investors' money. At least now the investors can take heart that a second set of very large eyes will be examining these expenditures from now until the next hearings on this matter.
Here are copies of the pages of the original complaint: