Reg FD requires all public companies to disclosure material events. Is this SEC investigation material? Probably so. Hiding it in a 10-Q only brings on lawyers and class action lawsuits. Is this humongous mistake borne from stupidity or crookedness?
According to their PR the SEC has not disclosed the investigation to MCP. They requested info and in answer to the What-for question said the SEC is investigating something. There is some ambiguity from the SEC ... and it sounds like the extent o f the MCP knowledge WAS disclosed. The What-For question was for a request for info on 8-28, and they reported the we-are-investigating answer in the report for the quarter ending 9-31.
It would help if we had the exact SEC communication with MCP. The wording is VERY ambiguous:
... On August 28, 2012, the staff of the SEC requested information from the Company; subsequently, the Company learned that this request for information was in connection with a formal order of investigation pertaining to, among other things ...
I think it is stupidity combined with lack of knowledge. The instant the SEC let slip an investigation ... then everything gets the triple check by lawyers and the company lawyers have to be pushing back for the scope of the investigation ... was this about a single PR? What is it about? Where did the investigation start? Was this related to the lawsuits? If it is a "formal" investigation ... was there a prior "informal" investigation. Was there an accusation from someone? Who?
I have no idea how MCP is handling this because we only know very little. Perhaps a disgruntled Neo Tech owner (and there were many) thinks the Canadian approval process was not PR'd to the Neo side correctly. Which would be just a nuisance accusation. Or perhaps it is that the engineering firm and MCP have been wrangling hostily for 6 months and there was a serious bit of info floating out of the engineering firm that MCP was hiding ... that would be fine-worthy.
The current situation is the worst ... a clear unknown. An SEC investigation with the appearance that the company is unwilling to speak clearly about it. That PR is a joke. It basically says ... yep, somethings up alright. Did they bribe Chinese officials? Or Finnish? Did they fail to file something? There is a lot covered by "among other things".