On April 29 Bitcoinist reported that the SEC had temporarily suspended trading securities at Bitcoin Generation (BTGN). President and CEO Deniz Hadjiev reached out to share his official response.
Bitcoin Generation Says the Suspension Came ‘Without Notice’
The company claims that the temporary trading suspension, in place from April 29 to May 10, came “without notice”. It has since hired Cutler Law Group, P.C. attorneys to compile an official response addressing the key concerns.
The reasons behind the swift and temporary ban and the information the SEC is seeking can be summed up in four points:
- Questions over the validity of a bond that BTGN acquired from a UK-based entity
- The total value of Bitcoin Generation’s outstanding common stock
- Questions over the promotional material put out by the publically traded cryptocurrency exchange and its impact on the market
- An extensive review of BTGN’s financial state
BTGN Ready to Comply with SEC Demands
In a public statement, Bitcoin Generation says that the publically traded cryptocurrency exchange has every intention of complying with the SEC.
It is the Company’s and Management’s intention and commitment to fully comply with the SEC’s request and the requests of any other regulatory agencies. The Company will provide the information requested to the SEC and will subsequently request to restore the trading of the Company’s stock on the OTC Markets.
The statement goes on to say that BTGN will also make all information provided to the SEC public. It will either be published through a press release, on the company’s website, or through a supplemental information filing. President and CEO Hadjiev said in the statement:
We are committed to providing shareholders the most accurate and transparent information. The ex parte decision by the SEC to suspend the trading is surprising and highly prejudicial.
The SEC’s Behavior Is ‘Reckless’ and Prejudicial
Hadjiev also told Bitcoinist exclusively that:
We welcome regulators’ involvement into the crypto industry, but what we don’t accept is a unilateral decision to suspend our stock without even a request for information and this is not only reckless but causes extreme prejudice to the company, its shareholders and stakeholders.
His attorneys advised him to decline from further comment at this point.
Do you believe the SEC acted fairly in this case? Share your thoughts below!
Images via Shutterstock
Let’s block ads! (Why?)