August 18, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

SEC Suspends Trading of 3 Penny Stocks With Tenuous Ties to Cryptocurrency, Blockchain

Sec suspends trading of 3 penny stocks with tenuous ties to cryptocurrency, blockchain

SEC Suspends Trading of 3 Penny Stocks With Tenuous Ties to Cryptocurrency, Blockchain

Sec suspends trading of 3 penny stocks with tenuous ties to cryptocurrency, blockchain

Today, February 16, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a press release announcing trading suspension of three companies that acquired AAA-rated assets from “a subsidiary of a private equity investor in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, among other things.”

The three companies in question, PDX Partners, Inc., Victura Construction Group, and Cherubim Interests, Inc., had trading of their stocks suspended for 10 days by the SEC under the auspices of public interest and investor protection. Neither the SEC suspension orders, nor any of the announcements by the companies surrounding the acquisitions, however, seem to actually focus on blockchain or cryptocurrencies. The assets that were acquired were trust units (shares) in a management company for a private equity fund that invests in at least 12 disparate sectors, including blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

According to the orders of suspension by the SEC, the companies all set off alarm bells for the regulators when Victura Construction and PDX Partners issued press releases on January 4, 2018, related to the pending share acquisitions. Cherubim Interests issued a press release on January 3, 2018, to the same effect but was also cited by the SEC for its delinquency in filings with the SEC.

All three companies are helmed by CEO Patrick Johnson, former NFL journeyman wide receiver. All three companies are penny stocks with outdated financial information and unaudited or poor bookkeeping. These so-called “penny stocks” are typically a great concern for U.S. regulators as they are often the subject of attempted price manipulation or fraud.

All of the companies announced near the beginning of the year the acquisition of trust units from NVC Fund LLC, the trust manager of  NVC Fund Holding Trust, which commits private equity investments into everything from natural resources and entertainment to blockchain technology and “fintech cryptocurrency.” According to the NVC fund website, the trust manages assets valued at over $128 billion.

Investments made from all three companies were for sums that far outpaced any estimated market cap or gross profit of the companies. PDX Partners announced a purchase of $350 million in trust units, despite only having $29,000 in operating income at the end of 2016 and negative cash flow from operations.

Cherubim Interests announced a purchase of $250 million in trust units, despite having negative operating income and negative cash flow from operations for their 2016 year-end.

Victura Construction announced a purchase of $100 million in trust units, while they too had negative operating income and operating cash flow for the last year they reported financials in 2014. All told, Mr. Johnson’s companies would be taking on $700 million of investments in NVC Funds.

Instead of focusing on the questionable ability of these three companies to afford the price of these trust units, the underlying valuation of the assets themselves, or the fact that the companies all have limited transparency on their websites in public filings, the SEC devotes half of the press release to warning investors about investing in companies pivoting to blockchain or cryptocurrencies.

Michele Wein Layne, Director of the Los Angeles Regional Office, stated, “This is a reminder that investors should give heightened scrutiny to penny stock companies that have switched their focus to the latest business trend, such as cryptocurrency, blockchain technology or initial coin offerings”. It should be noted that the SEC states that Cherubim Interests executed a financing commitment to launch an ICO. This is the only reference in the suspension orders to the idea that any of the three companies dabbled in the cryptocurrency or blockchain space.

Of course, there may be more clarifying information the SEC has yet to disclose in future actions taken regarding the three companies that would clarify how the acquisitions were directed toward the blockchain and cryptocurrency aspects of NVC Fund’s investments. However, no press announcements by the companies seem to have specifically cited the two sectors, and no factors in the SEC suspension orders suggest that the companies were targeting the NVC Fund investments for those particular two categories.

The stated strategic focuses of PDX partners, Victura Construction and Cherubim Interests are: telecom, disaster recovery and restoration construction, and alternative construction projects, respectively.

Published at Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:38:50 +0000

bitcoin

Previous Article

Banking on Bancor – Decentralized Token Exchange #BNT

Next Article

Why Safex will moon in 2018? Interview with Safex Founder Daniel Dabek

You might be interested in …

New Ways to Control Your Crypto 🚀

Blockchain Blog New Ways to Control Your Crypto 🚀 We built the Blockchain Wallet because we’re driven by a relentless passion for making crypto easy to use. We want everyone to be able to use […]

Bitcoin makes my stomach churn!

BITCOIN makes my stomach churn!

bitcoin makes my stomach churn! EN English (UK) EN English (IN) DE Deutsch FR Français ES Español IT Italiano PL Polski SV Svenska TR Türkçe RU Русский PT Português ID Bahasa Indonesia MS Bahasa Melayu […]

More Mainstream Use Cases Needed to Secure Bitcoin's Legitimacy

LTB: Coin Center

Blockchain technologies like the one that underpins bitcoin are gaining wide acceptance across industry sectors from finance to healthcare to real estate. bitcoin itself, however, is still struggling with legitimacy and regulation issues. Just this week, the fact that bitcoin was chosen as the payment method for the latest round of global data ransomware attacks, WanaCrypt0r 2.0 malware, has underscored the negative perception that still swirls around the cryptocurrency.

On the most recent episode of Epicenter, co-hosts Brian Fabian Crain and Meher Roy interviewed  Peter Van Valkenburgh, Director of Research of Coin Center, a nonprofit research and advocacy center focused on the public policy issues facing decentralized financial networks like bitcoin and Ethereum. During the interview, Van Valkenburgh explained how bitcoin is currently dealing with its branding issue; how Coin Center is laying the groundwork for future discussions about bitcoin regulation; and how more mainstream uses of the technology would be helpful for discussions around regulation.

bitcoin’s Branding Issue

Van Valkenburgh noted how Coin Center has struggled with the issues around bitcoin as a brand, as many in the mainstream associate the digital currency with the collapse of Mt. Gox and drug sales on darknet markets.

“We take a lot of meetings with congressional staff, we take meetings with regulators at [the United States] Treasury, and oftentimes we can’t take credit for those meetings because a congressman doesn’t want it, necessarily, to immediately hit the news that he’s meeting with the bitcoin people,” said Van Valkenburgh.

From Van Valkenburgh’s viewpoint, networks like bitcoin are used to “decentralize power” and push security to end users’ devices. “That means you lose the choke point for regulation because the choke point for regulation is the bank, the choke point for regulation is the centralized intermediary,” he explained.

Van Valkenburgh went on to note that, since control over these networks is pushed to the edges, the technology can potentially be used for illicit activities.

Laying the Groundwork for a Future Debate

One of the illicit activities that regulators and journalists sometimes associate with bitcoin is terrorism. Although there haven’t been any major terrorist attacks funded through bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency up to this point, that we know of, Van Valkenburgh pointed out that it’s “possible that one day somebody will use these networks in a meaningful way” to finance that sort of activity.

According to Van Valkenburgh, one of Coin Center’s main goals is to prepare for the potential conversation that would take place within government in the aftermath of such an event.

“What will be the government response when this tool is used in a way that a lot of people get upset about?” asked Van Valkenburgh. “Our metric of success, I think truly, would be a reasonable response to clear evidence of illicit uses of the technology — like dangerous, illicit uses of the technology.”

For Van Valkenburgh, success for Coin Center in such a scenario would mean the prevention of a push for an instant ban of bitcoin and other related technologies, along with software developers not getting arrested as part of the process. Coin Center is effectively laying the groundwork to make sure these future conversations remain reasonable.

“This is a technology and, just like all technologies, it can be used for good and for evil,” said Van Valkenburgh. “We are not, as Americans, in the business of banning technologies. We’re not in the business of banning speech.”

More “Legitimate” Use Cases Needed

Going back to the aforementioned branding issue, one possible way to improve the outlook on bitcoin from a regulatory perspective is to create more mainstream use cases for the technology. This point was originally brought up by Crain.

“If you have stuff where there is 50 million users and they are like, ‘This thing is great. It really makes something possible that I couldn’t do before. It’s a totally legitimate thing, and this is amazing.’ It would be so much harder if it’s still this kind of fringe thing,” said Crain.

Van Valkenburgh agreed with Crain’s assessment and continued, “You need the legitimate use cases to emerge. You need to show that you’re making a positive impact on the world — that it’s not just a bunch of people getting rich off of token sales or people using underground drug markets.”

Van Valkenburgh added that Coin Center hopes to clear the way, at least from a regulatory perspective, for these sort of mainstream applications to appear. “The longer we go without more mainstream, legitimate uses, the more danger we’re in,” he added.

As far as mainstream uses of bitcoin today, Van Valkenburgh pointed to the financial autonomy enabled by the technology, and he identified WikiLeaks’s use of Bitcoin to get around a financial blockade back in 2011 as a specific example. However, Van Valkenburgh also added that this example has become more politically charged since allegations of WikiLeaks working directly with Russia have appeared.

The post More Mainstream Use Cases Needed to Secure Bitcoin's Legitimacy appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.