GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo., June 7, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMPE) has chosen to respond to a Seeking Alpha blog entry posted by Joe Dredly of Greenwich Research.
The company wants to reassure the shareholder base that the transfer of our listing to the NYSE MKT is intended to help protect the shareholders' interests and the company has no plans to do an additional financing at this time.
Michael Macaluso, Ampio's Chairman and CEO, noted that Mr. Dredly's article "50 Shades of Gray..." purported to be in the best interest of the shareholders when it was clearly intended to damage the existing shareholders by triggering a downward pressure on their stock holdings. It is important to understand that the Dredly article is predominately a lengthy quotation from a December 2011 article by an anonymous blogger calling himself the "Banker", also published on the Seeking Alpha blog. Tellingly, Mr. Dredly did not allow the readers to know the identity of the author of this previous article.This initial article was authored by Peter Benjamin Bortel, AKA "the Banker" a broker, already under investigation by the SEC at that time, and working with a group of short selling speculators. Mr. Bortel had received a June 15, 2011 SEC "Order instituting administrative and cease and desist proceedings pursuant to sections 203(e) and 203(K) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and Cease and Desist orders. The SEC order read as follows: " The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act") against Pegasus Investment Management, LLC ("PIM") and Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Advisers Act against Peter Benjamin Bortel ("Bortel") and Douglas Wayne Saksa ("Saksa") or ("Respondents" collectively). Mr. Macaluso added: "The Dredly article simply embraces the discredited, two year old assertions of Mr. Bortel, without identifying the original authors name or the fact that he was under a SEC cease and desist order at the time of his anonymous post and that a second SEC investigation was triggered by this same article."